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

Best 'Dynasty That Wasn't'

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2011, 09:35 PM
  #26
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter9 View Post
For me it's the Black Hawks of the 1960s. They had the star forwards--Hull and Mikita--the star defenseman--Pilote--and the star goaltender--Hall--but never managed to assemble a sufficiently strong supporting cast. They even had some very good supporting players, but they just weren't deep enough. Had you told me right after they won in 1961 that they would not win again, I would have thought you an easy mark. It does demonstrate that it's as important to assemble sufficient quality in the supporting roles as it is in the starring roles. Why the Hawks were unable to do this is an interesting question. I suppose a lot of the blame goes to management.
Hall had some real lame playoff years as well in between 1961 and his Conn Smythe win in 1968 in a losing cause. To look at it on paper you'll see that Hull and Mikita did their part as did Pilote. Hall did not.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2011, 09:59 PM
  #27
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
'80s Flames were clearly the 2nd best team in the NHL.

The Battle of Alberta equaled the defacto Finals.
Biggest misnomer going.

85 - lost to Jets
86 - lost to Habs
87 - lost to Jets
88 - swept by Oilers
89 - Won Cup
90 - lost to Kings

3 times in 6 years out in round one before they ever played the Oilers.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2011, 10:13 PM
  #28
Hockify
Registered User
 
Hockify's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
Best 'Dynasty That Wasn't'

No question in my mind it's the Detroit Red Wings of the past couple decades.

Hockify is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2011, 04:25 AM
  #29
Jinsell
Registered User
 
Jinsell's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
vCash: 500
For me, it is easily the Pittsburgh Penguins of the early 1990s. Back-to-back Cup wins in 1991 and 1992 made it look like they were going to take the Edmonton Oilers place in the 1990s. They looked poised to win a third Cup in 1993 but then Dave Volek happened.

Jinsell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2011, 06:04 AM
  #30
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
Detroit. If not for Osgood's injury in 1999, they would have handled Colorado (followed by Dallas and Buffalo). They certainly sucked in 00 and 01, but should have won in 03, if CuJo was half the man he was paid to be.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2011, 06:18 AM
  #31
GreatGonzo
Registered Derp
 
GreatGonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 1,630
vCash: 500
Definitely Detroit for me. Detroit was scary good from 1994-2009, they accomplished so much.

GreatGonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2011, 07:02 AM
  #32
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Biggest misnomer going.

85 - lost to Jets
86 - lost to Habs
87 - lost to Jets
88 - swept by Oilers
89 - Won Cup
90 - lost to Kings

3 times in 6 years out in round one before they ever played the Oilers.
They also lost to the Oilers in 7 in 84, though I tend to agree with you. Once the Isles started going downhill, the Flyers were IMO the 2nd best team around, and the Habs were probably 3rd. The Campbell Confrence at that time was such a cakewalk compaired to the Wales.

JaymzB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2011, 12:09 PM
  #33
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,182
vCash: 500
Of "all time" thats just gotta be Chicago of the 60's, a distant second Boston of the early 70's. Most under-appreciated the New York Islanders...

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2011, 12:10 PM
  #34
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,187
vCash: 500
40ies Bruins : Obvious. They had the best goalie in the league and had two absolutely terrific forward lines. The 2nd line would have been the 1st line in pretty much every club. They respectively ran into Phil Watson, Adolf Hitler and Mud Bruneteau.

Early 60ies Hawks : A bit different. Sandwiched in this category with Bruins teams that were the best of league (but basically had history in their way), but really... the Hawks were never the best team in the NHL in that period of time. However, they arguably had the best forward, the best d-man and the best goalie of the league at that time.

Early 70ies Bruins : Well, they're sometimes considered a dynasty, due to how good that team was. We all know what happened -- they just had history in their way.

Late 70ies Bruins : This one just doesn't belong here. Good team with a terrible head coach, didn't have the standout guys the Hawks had (okay, Park was great, but wasn't exactly the best d-men in the league at this point). Lacked high-end skill.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2011, 12:51 PM
  #35
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 25,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Hall had some real lame playoff years as well in between 1961 and his Conn Smythe win in 1968 in a losing cause. To look at it on paper you'll see that Hull and Mikita did their part as did Pilote. Hall did not.
Ya, this is a bit of a contentious point. Did his performance sink a bit during the playoffs' or was it a team failure?. I think it was a team failure as Hall played consistently well throughout the season and into the playoffs' without really elevating his game post-season as he was always playing at the top of his game, in 5th gear if you will pretty much all the time, nothing left in reserve to offer. If you look at his stats, sure enough, they spike upwards from 62 onwards. I really think the finger should be pointed elsewhere for the Hawks perennial eliminations. Weak defensively whereby others on the team didnt step it up & elevate there games to Pilotes, Hulls, Mikitas', Halls' & a few others levels. As Id rank him as one of the top 5-7 goalies in the history of the league, I think he's getting a bit of a bad rap on it from a statistical perspective exclusively. His style in particular required a certain type of play & system by the guys in front, communication, and it seemed to me that broke down during the pressures of the playoffs and not because of his failings.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 10:36 AM
  #36
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
 
Luigi Lemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 13,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinsell View Post
For me, it is easily the Pittsburgh Penguins of the early 1990s. Back-to-back Cup wins in 1991 and 1992 made it look like they were going to take the Edmonton Oilers place in the 1990s. They looked poised to win a third Cup in 1993 but then Dave Volek happened.
Pittsburgh looked poised to be the next great dynasty, but Mario's health along with some poor gm'ing decisions didn't let them. 1993 was a choke job, and by the next season the game was becoming more defensive, while Pittsburgh decided to completely ignore the defensive side of the game until about 1998. The mid 90s Penguins were the last pure run and gun team, they were an 80s team stuck in a defensive league. They were fun to watch but never had a real shot at a cup. It's absurd to me the pens only won 2 cups with the talent they had on their team.

Luigi Lemieux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 12:11 PM
  #37
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Late 70ies Bruins : This one just doesn't belong here. Good team with a terrible head coach, didn't have the standout guys the Hawks had (okay, Park was great, but wasn't exactly the best d-men in the league at this point). Lacked high-end skill.
These two statements seem to contradict each other quite nicely. The Habs of the era are considered the greatest team of all time by some, yet the Lunch Pail Gang Bruins nearly beat them in 1978 and 1979. Cherry couldn't have done too bad a job, and all the players from those teams have nothing but great things to say about him.

Kyle McMahon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 02:06 PM
  #38
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luigi Lemieux View Post
Pittsburgh looked poised to be the next great dynasty, but Mario's health along with some poor gm'ing decisions didn't let them. 1993 was a choke job, and by the next season the game was becoming more defensive, while Pittsburgh decided to completely ignore the defensive side of the game until about 1998. The mid 90s Penguins were the last pure run and gun team, they were an 80s team stuck in a defensive league. They were fun to watch but never had a real shot at a cup. It's absurd to me the pens only won 2 cups with the talent they had on their team.
Yeah they really should have won 3 in a row at least. 1993 is no excuse for that loss. That still has to pain Mario and the gang to this day. I can see them not winning in 1994 and 1995 and onwards because teams like Detroit and Jersey and Colorado were on their way anyways, but there really shouldn't have been a team in the NHL that beat them in 1993. Think about this, they win in 1993 and then falter again in 1996. If things work out for them they win three in a row and 4/6 years. Of course had they made the final (they should have) and lost to Colorado I wouldn't have called that an upset either.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 02:24 PM
  #39
Hot Water Bottle
1/2 Man 1/2 Porridge
 
Hot Water Bottle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Bruce Boudreau era Washington Capitals! Not really hockey history, but it already seems like a long time ago. How did they never win the cup?

Most underrated dynasty: 1965-1973 Canadiens - they kept knocking off the teams that "should" have won.

Hot Water Bottle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 02:34 PM
  #40
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyfriend of Sara View Post
Bruce Boudreau era Washington Capitals! Not really hockey history, but it already seems like a long time ago. How did they never win the cup?
I don't know, too many holes in that team to even qualify on this thread. They never made it out of the 2nd round. The closest they came was 2009 against Pittsburgh. I think most of us would agree that the Caps knock off the Canes in round 3 but I couldn't see them beating the Wings in 2009. 2010 they never get out of the first round in a monumental upset but even so I figure Pittsburgh was still in the way, and Philly. 2011 they looked awful against Tampa. 2008 they were nowhere near contenders.

I think that about sums it up. Whether it was terrible goaltending, Alex Semin, Mike Green or whoever shoulders a lot of the blame, it is hard to put this as a "what if" team. Ovechkin for the most part did his part, the only thing you can knock him for is not literally carrying the team. But this team still has its core, they aren't dead yet

Quote:
Most underrated dynasty: 1965-1973 Canadiens - they kept knocking off the teams that "should" have won.
Agreed. Them and the late 1940s Leafs. At one time they had Kennedy, Max Bentley and Apps as their centers. Yikes.

I think the Habs are more the 1965-1969 dynasty. That was 4 in 5 years and an upset in 1967 that prevented 5 straight. The reason I say this is because it was a different team in 1971 and especially 1973. If you want to give them 1971 that's fine because it is similar to the Oilers 5 in 7 run. But in 1971 they had new faces, both Mahovlich's, Dryden, etc, it was Beliveau's last. In 1973 they had some of the older gang (Mahovlich's, Savard, Lemaire, H. Richard, Cournoyer) but more of the younger group (Lapointe, Dryden, Robinson, Lafleur, Shutt) making their mark. For me personally I tend to put the 1960s team together and the 1971 and 1973 teams are more individual teams in the process of transition. The late 1970s teams are their own dynasty as well.


Last edited by Big Phil: 12-29-2011 at 02:41 PM.
Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 02:38 PM
  #41
Preisst
Party On!!
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Homer alert .. Ottawa really stands out on this one.

2001 - There's no reason why they couldn't have taken down Toronto, aside from Joseph standing on his head. I don't think anybody's taking down Colorado and their do-it-for-Ray mentality, but at the very least, the Senators are congratulating Ray Bourque on his cup win instead of New Jersey
2002 - Detroit ran away with the Presidents Trophy, so it's no lock that they fall to the Senators, but if Ricard Persson doesn't get that major penalty, the Sens have a date with the Canes in the ECF, and they win that one rather handily. Again, runners-up at the least.
2003 - No way Ottawa loses to Anaheim. Boo Jeff Freisen.
2004 - This one's iffy .. if Lalime doesn't crap the bed, Philly is no match in the second round, though they could've been in tough against Tampa in the ECF. But they advance past the Lightning, the Flames have no chance
2006 - Hasek's groin is the difference here, no question.
2007 - Maybe I'm just bitter, but Anaheim had no business winning that series so handily...
2008 - A mid-January game against Detroit was the beginning of the end for the Senators. Billed as a circle-the-calendar game since the start of the season, the victory was as emotional as it was costly, as Heatley was lost to a shoulder injury. The lack of firepower, combined with the lethargy after such an emotional victory, and the Sens backed into a playoff spot and were knocked out in short order by Pittsburgh.

A little luck in 2003 and 2007, a focused Lalime in 2004, a healthy Hasek in 2006, and we're shutting down Bank Street for the parade at least three of those four years, and 2001 & 2002 had the potential to be a pleasant prelude to a dynasty.

This is outrageously hilarious!!!! A team that lost in the 1st round 3 times and the 2nd round twice was almost a dynasty? Rich. Absurd. Comical. They lost in the 1st or 2nd round 5 out of 7 years but they were almost a dynasty? Thanks for one of the best laughs I've had in a long long time.


Preisst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 02:40 PM
  #42
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 10,045
vCash: 500
Detroit Red Wings 1995-2009

1995 Stanley Cup Finals (+President's Trophy)
1996 President's Trophy
1997 Stanley Cup
1998 Stanley Cup
2002 Stanley Cup (+President's Trophy)
2004 President's Trophy
2006 President's Trophy
2008 Stanley Cup
2009 Stanley Cup Finals

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 03:11 PM
  #43
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
Detroit Red Wings 1995-2009

1995 Stanley Cup Finals (+President's Trophy)
1996 President's Trophy
1997 Stanley Cup
1998 Stanley Cup
2002 Stanley Cup (+President's Trophy)
2004 President's Trophy
2006 President's Trophy
2008 Stanley Cup
2009 Stanley Cup Finals
That is the purest definition of the "dynasty that wasn't". If the Wings win just one Cup in either one of 1995, 1996 they are a dynasty. Because that would be 3 in a row or 3/4 which is my personal minimum requirement for a dynasty. The Patriots and the Cowboys did 3/4 and they were dynasties in the NFL.

Anyway, it certainly qualifies and it would have surprised no one if they suceeded.

On another note the Avs. They win in 1996 and 2001. Good team, lots of nice runs but no dynasty not even in the sanitized version that people try to pass it off as nowadays. But they win in 1996, lead the NHL in points in 1997 and lose to the Wings in the semis. I think they beat the Flyers in the final for sure. 1998 was a write off, but in 1999 they are basically one win away from a Cup. They have Dallas by the ropes with a 3-2 series lead at home and lose in 7 games. If they beat Dallas, they win the Cup, I think, against Buffalo.

So there is the very possibility of:
1996, 1997 and 1999 champs. That's 3/4 for a dynasty.

Or...............

1999, 2001 and 2002 champs. Doesn't sound too crazy at all. They won in 2001, were one win away from it in 1999 and were one win away from it in 2002 as well (honestly Carolina vs. Colorado?). In 2000 they were also one win away but Jersey in 2000 was a better team than Buffalo or Carolina and they at least give me a little bit of pause and could have easily beaten the Avs. But either way, they were basically two wins away from 3/4.

As for other teams, it doesn't really count if you never made the final or won a Cup. Ottawa underacheived terribly that era. Other teams like Toronto, St. Louis etc. should never be "what ifs" because they were not robbed of anything dramatically.

The closest teams outside of Detroit and Colorado of that era are Jersey and Dallas. Jersey wins in 2000 and 2003 and loses in the final in 7 in 2001 while playing Game #6 at home. One win in 2001 and they are 3/4. Dynasty.

Dallas it's a little trickier. They only had three years 1998-'00 where I considered them true contenders. They win in 1999 and lose a close final in 2000. Then they lose in the semis to Detroit in 6 games. No doubt they beat Washington in the 1998 final. So they had to win 4 more games combined in 1998 and 2000 in order to be a true dynasty - which would be three in a row for them. Unfortunately that wasn't happening back then with the other "what if" dynasties that were better

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 03:19 PM
  #44
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,783
vCash: 500
Jersey, Colorado, Detroit and later on Dallas were all just victims of being good at the same time in that 95-03 period. No one else had a Cup in those 8 years, and no one else really came that close.

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2011, 05:35 PM
  #45
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Jersey, Colorado, Detroit and later on Dallas were all just victims of being good at the same time in that 95-03 period. No one else had a Cup in those 8 years, and no one else really came that close.
That is true as well. The 1996 Panthers, 1997 Flyers and 1998 Caps all got swept in the final. The 1999 Sabres, 2002 Canes and 2003 Ducks all won at least one game in the final but were more flukes than anything for making it that far (although Buffalo had a nice run in 1998). That leaves 1995, 2000 and 2001 as years where the aforementioned teams in your post played each other.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 03:13 PM
  #46
Wheatking
Registered User
 
Wheatking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewsky View Post
I thought the 80's Oilers could've won more, had Mess and Gretz stayed, even though 5 ain't too shabby lol.
Considering about half the team won the cup without Gretzky in 1994 with the Rangers, you're probably right

Wheatking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 03:27 PM
  #47
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheatking View Post
Considering about half the team won the cup without Gretzky in 1994 with the Rangers, you're probably right
And the other half almost won the Cup in 1993 with the Kings

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2011, 11:38 PM
  #48
cupcrazyman
Homer J Fong
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewsky View Post
I thought the 80's Oilers could've won more, had Mess and Gretz stayed, even though 5 ain't too shabby lol.
it's all Steve Smith's Fault

cupcrazyman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2012, 12:54 PM
  #49
Senators Growing
Next year again...
 
Senators Growing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cumberland
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,666
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
This is outrageously hilarious!!!! A team that lost in the 1st round 3 times and the 2nd round twice was almost a dynasty? Rich. Absurd. Comical. They lost in the 1st or 2nd round 5 out of 7 years but they were almost a dynasty? Thanks for one of the best laughs I've had in a long long time.

Look beyond that.

That Senators team was absolutely LOADED with talent. They had, at varying degrees, Chara, Redden, Havlat, Hossa, Heatley, Yashin, Spezza, Redden, Phillips, Fisher, Alfredsson prior to peak and after, just an incredible amount of talent. Multiple 100 point seasons, picked favourites to win if not the Cup then at least a few rounds in the playoffs year after year.

People HERE were referring to them as a potential dynasty for crying out loud. That they choked year after year is a testament that the key players didn't "get" what playoff hockey was about until 2007. Longest learning curve EVER. But yeah, Ottawa was the "Dynasty that couldn't".

Senators Growing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2012, 08:16 PM
  #50
Preisst
Party On!!
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SensFanDan View Post
Look beyond that.

That Senators team was absolutely LOADED with talent. They had, at varying degrees, Chara, Redden, Havlat, Hossa, Heatley, Yashin, Spezza, Redden, Phillips, Fisher, Alfredsson prior to peak and after, just an incredible amount of talent. Multiple 100 point seasons, picked favourites to win if not the Cup then at least a few rounds in the playoffs year after year.

People HERE were referring to them as a potential dynasty for crying out loud. That they choked year after year is a testament that the key players didn't "get" what playoff hockey was about until 2007. Longest learning curve EVER. But yeah, Ottawa was the "Dynasty that couldn't".

A dynasty in sports is a team that wins multiple championships over a limited period of time. Ottawa didn't even win one champiojnship let alone multiples. They were not even close to a dynasty. It's laugable to suggest otherwise.

As for your comment "People HERE were referring to them as a potential dynasty for crying out loud." All I need say it that it is patently incorrect. One poster said it and a few other posters, besides me, commented how ridiculous his suggestion was. I simply thanked him for the good laugh I got at what I suspect was just a joke in the first place. Cuz to say Ottawa was almost a dynasty is a joke.

Dynasty that couldn't? They were the team that could barely get past the first round of playoffs.

A team with some good players but no championships a dynasty? Look beyond your Senator sunglasses and be objective and I'm sure you'll agree they do not belong in the discussion.

Preisst 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 08:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.