HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Potential dynasties that never happened

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-20-2017, 10:32 AM
  #51
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Brills View Post
Crosby era penguins honestly.

yes, they've won 2 cups, but should have won at least one more. (2012 and 2013 were prime years)
I find it strange that those Penguins are brought up. They were a lot closer to not winning any cups prior to 2016 than they were to winning more than one over that span.

Boston in the early 70s always seems like a team that should have been a dynasty. Two cups in three years as the dominant team in hockey, with a huge upset sandwiched in between.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2017, 11:18 AM
  #52
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,078
vCash: 500
The old Montreal Maroons would be a match for this category as well, very much like the Chicago Blackhawks of the 60's with some of the best talent in the League but unable to close the deal in the Playoffs, though they did win 2 Cups during their rather brief history. The 1st in their 2nd year of play in the League in 1926, the 2nd in 1935, a year in which the Canadiens were nearly sold to interests in Cleveland.... Detroit from the mid-50's on after being the toast of the league & again with some of the best talent available wasnt able to transition, build on their successes of the early 50's after James E. Norris dying in 1952, his eldest Son James D. Norris then passing the torch to his sister Marguerite (though rather duplicitously after acquiring the Blackhawks still sat on the Red Wings Board) who in turn was forced into passing it on to her younger brother Bruce Norris. Margeurite didnt much care for Jack Adams, who since the early 30's was on a year x year contract, but kept him in installed as the GM, followed by the Player Revolt in 56/57 and lead by Ted Lindsay combined with the ascension of Bruce Norris, trading away Lindsay & others, Adams eventually fired by Bruce Norris, message delivered on a Christmas card slipped under Jolly Jacks office door ... full on meltdown of the organization despite some decent years in the early to mid 60's, really in a swoon that didnt end until Mike Ilitch bought the team in the early 80's. But sure, they really couldve capitalized on their successes of the early 50's, developed talent, feeder system along the lines of Montreal & Toronto, but when your GM is on a year x year Contract with one foot out the door despite the Cups once James E. Norris had passed away... both James D. & Bruce Norris suffering from varying forms & degrees' of personality & psychological disorders, well, good luck with that. Now, had Marguerite been left in charge, mightve been a wholly different situation, 1st female President of an organization and a Lady who was all class & knew hockey entirely possible that what happened with Lindsay, with the Wings, different story. Wasnt going to happen of course, society in general at that time, years before Womens Lib, emancipation such as it was/is & certainly in the world of sport, Macho NHL, no way they were going to allow a woman into their ranks.


Last edited by Killion: 02-20-2017 at 11:37 AM.
Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2017, 01:36 AM
  #53
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
I find it strange that those Penguins are brought up. They were a lot closer to not winning any cups prior to 2016 than they were to winning more than one over that span.

Boston in the early 70s always seems like a team that should have been a dynasty. Two cups in three years as the dominant team in hockey, with a huge upset sandwiched in between.
I think the reason being is that in 2009 we finally saw a team that most knew was going to win someday - finally win. Their core was very young. I know I would have never thought that the Crosby/Malkin Pens would need another 7 years before their next Cup. They really could have peeled through the playoffs if the wanted to. 2010 and 2012 were years with plenty of upsets. 2011 Crosby and Malkin were injured, so they weren't winning either way. But it isn't hard to imagine this team beating the 2010 Hawks and 2012 Kings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scandale du Jour View Post
If I told me that an arrogant coach would play Iginla as a 3rd-line LW, would you believe me? Because, that's what happened in 2013.
Lots of things went wrong with the Pens that spring. They were their own worst enemy. Fleury and Letang arguably played themselves off of the 2014 Olympic team because of these playoffs.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2017, 10:11 AM
  #54
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I think the reason being is that in 2009 we finally saw a team that most knew was going to win someday - finally win. Their core was very young. I know I would have never thought that the Crosby/Malkin Pens would need another 7 years before their next Cup. They really could have peeled through the playoffs if the wanted to. 2010 and 2012 were years with plenty of upsets. 2011 Crosby and Malkin were injured, so they weren't winning either way. But it isn't hard to imagine this team beating the 2010 Hawks and 2012 Kings.



Lots of things went wrong with the Pens that spring. They were their own worst enemy. Fleury and Letang arguably played themselves off of the 2014 Olympic team because of these playoffs.
I also just think that they were managed a lot worse than most people recognize and it cost them a fair bit. The 2009 team is as shallow as any team that won the Cup, they drafted exceedingly poorly after that. When Fleury/Staal didn't quite turn the corner and become the players they were projected to be they were really hurt by it.

Ishdul is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2017, 03:41 PM
  #55
cupcrazyman
Chex Lemeneux
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,479
vCash: 500
Oilers keep Gretzky & win the Cup in '86 & '89

7 Cups = Greatest Dynasty Of All Time

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2017, 03:44 PM
  #56
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 31,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupcrazyman View Post
Oilers keep Gretzky & win the Cup in '86 & '89

7 Cups = Greatest Dynasty Of All Time
Wait...
Gretzky wasn't an Oiler in '86 ?

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2017, 05:55 PM
  #57
Ricelund
We like our team.
 
Ricelund's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,596
vCash: 500
The 2007-09 Wings could've won three in a row.

The '07 WCF with Anaheim was extremely close and could've gone either way. The Wings lost Kronwall just before the playoffs started and Schneider in the second round.

In '09, the Wings were absolutely decimated by injuries by the time they got to the SCF. Lidstrom lost a testicle, Datsyuk didn't play until Game 5 of the Finals, and several other guys were hurt badly (including Rafalski and Hossa).

Ricelund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2017, 11:37 PM
  #58
Weissy Baby
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 186
vCash: 500
I decided to do some research on teams I think had the potential to be dynasties from the late 1980's on (my knowledge really only stretches to the 1970's and maybe the Flyers and Bruins of the 70's could have stolen a Cup or two from Montreal), and figured out if those teams played to their full potential or were a bit luckier, if they had the ability to win the Stanley Cup during their contending window. I would consider a team a dynasty based on the definition of winning three championships in a four year period or greater. I included the lockout season of 2005 and predicted based on the results of 2004 and 2006 if a team was competitive enough to win a Cup that year. Here are my results in order of franchises with the most likely chance of becoming a dynasty (some with multiple windows):

1. Detroit Red Wings (1992-2011)
Stanley Cups: 1997, 1998, 2002, 2008 (4)
Potential Cups: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 (14)
Potential Dynasty: YES!

2. Pittsburgh Penguins (1991-1997) and (2007-Present)
Stanley Cups: 1991, 1992 (2) I 2009, 2016 (2)
Potential Cups: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996 (4) I 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 (6)
Potential Dynasty: Yes l Yes

3. Chicago Blackhawks (1989-1996) and (2009-Present)
Stanley Cups: 2010, 2013, 2015 (3)
Potential Cups: 1990, 1991 (2) I 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 (5)
Potential Dynasty: No l Yes

4. Quebec Nordiques/ Colorado Avalanche (1995-2004)
Stanley Cups: 1996, 2001 (2)
Potential Cups: 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 (7)
Potential Dynasty: Yes

5. New Jersey Devils (1994-2007)
Stanley Cups: 1995, 2000, 2003 (3)
Potential Cups: 1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005 (6)
Potential Dynasty: Yes

6. Anaheim Ducks (2003-Present)
Stanley Cups: 2007 (1)
Potential Cups: 2003, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2015, 2016 (6)
Potential Dynasty: Yes?

7. Ottawa Senators (2002-2008)
Stanley Cups: (0)
Potential Cups: 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 (4)
Potential Dynasty: Yes

8. San Jose (2002-Present)
Stanley Cups: (0)
Potential Cups: 2004, 2005, 2006 (3)
Potential Dynasty: Yes

9. Boston Bruins (2009-2014)
Stanley Cups: 2011 (1)
Potential Cups: 2010, 2011, 2012 (3)
Potential Dynasty: Yes

10. Washington Capitals (2008- Present)
Stanley Cups: (0)
Potential Cups: 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 (4)
Potential Dynasty: No, but pretty close so far

11. Los Angeles Kings (2012-Present)
Stanley Cups: 2012, 2014 (2)
Potential Cups: 2012, 2014, 2016 (3)
Potential Dynasty: No

12. Calgary Flames (1985-1995)
Stanley Cups: 1989 (1)
Potential Cups: 1986, 1989, 1990 (3)
Potential Dynasty: No

13. Dallas Stars (1997-2005)
Stanley Cups: 1999 (1)
Potential Cups: 1999, 2000, 2003 (3)
Potential Dynasty: No

14. New York Rangers (1991-1997)
Stanley Cups: 1994 (1)
Potential Cups: 1992, 1994 (2)
Potential Dynasty: No

I have explanations of why I think each team could win a Stanley Cup in each year that I can post if someone is interested. Other teams I considered researching were the 1990's/ early 2000's Leafs, early 2000's Hurricanes, mid 200's to present Lightning, the late 1990's/ early 2000's Flyers, 2000's Blues and the 2010's Canucks. In these cases there are usually a few better teams then them most years of their Cup window.

Weissy Baby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 09:56 AM
  #59
Datsyukian Deke
Is Holland gone yet?
 
Datsyukian Deke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hermitage, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricelund View Post
The 2007-09 Wings could've won three in a row.

The '07 WCF with Anaheim was extremely close and could've gone either way. The Wings lost Kronwall just before the playoffs started and Schneider in the second round.

In '09, the Wings were absolutely decimated by injuries by the time they got to the SCF. Lidstrom lost a testicle, Datsyuk didn't play until Game 5 of the Finals, and several other guys were hurt badly (including Rafalski and Hossa).
How very true, indeed. I still to this day am irked by how the 09 finals went with all the injuries, ugh.

Datsyukian Deke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 12:43 PM
  #60
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,275
vCash: 500
The Wings were one series away from winning the Cup in 95, 96, 07, and 09. The same can be said about 03 and 04, but that's a bigger stretch. I strongly suspect that if they defeat 96 Colorado, 03 and 07 Ducks, and 04 Flames, the Cups are theirs. Then Niklas Lidstrom would be crowned GOAT, and people would be asking "Bobby who"?

Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 02:43 PM
  #61
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
The Wings were one series away from winning the Cup in 95, 96, 07, and 09. The same can be said about 03 and 04, but that's a bigger stretch. I strongly suspect that if they defeat 96 Colorado, 03 and 07 Ducks, and 04 Flames, the Cups are theirs. Then Niklas Lidstrom would be crowned GOAT, and people would be asking "Bobby who"?
I mean in 2003 we're talking about a team that didn't win a single playoff game and while they were very good in the regular season they were still 3rd (and in this scenario the Stars don't lose to the Ducks either). If you're giving them that one you can probably talk yourself into giving it to them any year.

Ishdul is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 04:00 PM
  #62
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I don't know why, but even at the time it was drenched with "one shot or nothing" type of mindset with that team. I never thought the Rangers would repeat in 1995. They traded away so much youth just to stock up in 1994. If there was ever a team in NHL history that sold the farm for one Cup it was this team. Great team, but it reeked of being a "one off" even back then.
It's very possible the Rangers win multiple Cups with Weight and Amonte on the team through the mid-90s. On the other hand, the league completely changed the year after the Rangers won. Lindros broke out and changed the way the game was played on a physical level and the Devils went full-on trap mode and changed the way the game was played on a strategic level. I can't imagine neither of those things happening despite the Rangers maintaining a stronger team for the next few years.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 04:05 PM
  #63
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I can't envision a scenario where the Rangers beat the Hawks in 2014. I think that the real Stanley Cup final was Chicago/LA. In all fairness, the Hawks of this era have never lost a Cup final and I don't think they would have started with this one considering they could repeat.
Given that the Rangers played a team they didn't match up well with to a complete standstill (the Kings led for something like 17% of the playing time in the series, despite managing to win in 5 games), I'd think they'd do better against a team they did match up well against.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 09:06 PM
  #64
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishdul View Post
I mean in 2003 we're talking about a team that didn't win a single playoff game and while they were very good in the regular season they were still 3rd (and in this scenario the Stars don't lose to the Ducks either). If you're giving them that one you can probably talk yourself into giving it to them any year.
Well, that Ducks team went all the way to the Finals. I daresay if the Wings beat them, they go at least all the way to the Finals themselves (through the Stars and the Wild). And then we'd see a rematch of the 95 Finals against the Devils. Of course, we are truly in the realm of fantasy here.

Sentinel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
  #65
HowsUrBreath
Registered User
 
HowsUrBreath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Datsyukian Deke View Post
How very true, indeed. I still to this day am irked by how the 09 finals went with all the injuries, ugh.
crosby was hurt in game 7, he watched most of the game from the bench

gonchar was banged up too

HowsUrBreath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Today, 01:17 AM
  #66
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishdul View Post
I also just think that they were managed a lot worse than most people recognize and it cost them a fair bit. The 2009 team is as shallow as any team that won the Cup, they drafted exceedingly poorly after that. When Fleury/Staal didn't quite turn the corner and become the players they were projected to be they were really hurt by it.
I know that was thrown around at the time a lot that the Pens weren't terribly deep but I think a lot of that has to be attributed to just how much better Crosby and Malkin were than the rest of the team:

Malkin - 113
Crosby - 103
Sykora - 49

Playoffs:
Malkin - 36
Crosby - 31
Guerin - 15

The term "two headed monster" was the theme that year and while they relied heavily on Crosby and Malkin the truth is they still had a total of 8 players with at least 13 playoff points and Jordan Staal wasn't one of them. In comparison the 1991 Pens had 8 as well (although 6 had at least 17) and the 1992 Pens had only 6 with at least 10 points. We think of those teams as being quite deep, and they were.

Let's compare the 2009 Pens to their contemporaries:
2007 Ducks - 5 with at least 13 points, 9 with 10
2008 Red Wings - 8 with at least 13 points
2010 Hawks - 8 with at least 13 points

So I think it comes down to it being just a matter of how the Pens had two of the top 3 players in the NHL on their team and you can't help but have a big gap after that. The Pens did have a decent enough supporting cast that year. Gonchar and a young Letang on defense, Guerin was a wonderful pick up, Fedotenko, Talbot, Staal, Kunitz and Fleury in net. Not to mention good character players filling their roles. Craig Adams, Miro Satan, Tyler Kennedy, Matt Cooke, and on defense Orpik, Scuderi and Gill. You give that roster Crosby and Malkin and that's a Cup winner, and it was.

I think the 2009 regular season is a bit misleading for the Pens for a couple of reasons. For starters, Michel Therrien is not a good coach and mismanaged them terribly before he got fired in February. Yes it is true Gonchar missed most of the year and Ryan Whitney as well was injured but you still have two offensive superstars so you let them play and do their thing, but he didn't. Bylsma did when he got hired though and it paid off. So Gonchar's injury really hurt them from a depth standpoint and it showed.

I'll agree with you that the team was poorly run after 2009. They let Gill walk away and he ended up hurting them in the 2010 playoffs. They let Scuderi walk away too. That was a good defensive tandem in 2009. As you said, they drafted poorly.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
Today, 01:26 AM
  #67
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
It's very possible the Rangers win multiple Cups with Weight and Amonte on the team through the mid-90s. On the other hand, the league completely changed the year after the Rangers won. Lindros broke out and changed the way the game was played on a physical level and the Devils went full-on trap mode and changed the way the game was played on a strategic level. I can't imagine neither of those things happening despite the Rangers maintaining a stronger team for the next few years.
The Rangers could have won in 1992 along with 1994. Let's not forget about 1993. Yes, it is true they missed the playoffs, but why did they miss the playoffs? The main reason was because Leetch only played 36 games. He wins the Norris in 1992, misses most of the 1993 season and then returns for a 79 point season in 1994 where he is a 2nd team all-star and a Conn Smythe winner. The Rangers lead the league in points in those two big years and when Leetch is out they fall flat. That's no accident. That team was not the same without him. They had 79 points in 1993 and were 8 points out of a playoff spot. 50 more games for Leetch and you don't think they make up for 8 points and then some? I think they do and I think they are an elite team that year. So while there are a lot of "what ifs" with the Rangers the truth is they shouldn't have had any gaps at all with that team, but you lose a player like Leetch and you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Given that the Rangers played a team they didn't match up well with to a complete standstill (the Kings led for something like 17% of the playing time in the series, despite managing to win in 5 games), I'd think they'd do better against a team they did match up well against.
I just don't see it in 2014. The Hawks' big boys were playing very well over three rounds. Kane, Toews and Keith were playing excellent. For some reason the Hawks aren't like other teams that win a Cup and are content to just sort of coast and rest on their laurels (Ducks after 2007 for example). They seem just as hungry in 2015 as in 2010. Maybe that's why they won three so far. But I saw the same thing in 2014. I think Lundqvist would have had to play out of his mind to beat them.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.