To me there's two- one would be the 1989-90 Hawk team, regular season points wise they were'nt great but they had like seven 20 goal scorers (Steve Thomas had 40 that year) and made it to the Conference Finals before being eliminated by the eventual Cup winners the Oilers. We should have used Belfour way more over Greg Millen who was brutal in the playoffs. The 90-91 team was much better statistically but completely crashed and burned in the first round.
Second would be the 1994-95 Hawks team that in addition to Roenick, Chelios, Belfour we also had Amonte, Nicholls, Suter, Joe Murphy and a rejuvenated Denis Savard. We finally had a proper second line and it was a dream to watch the Power Play that year with Chelios and Suter QB'ing it. Great teams back then, but teams like the Oilers, and Red Wings were just too damn good for us.
One thing those teams had back then that was a Hawk staple was a tough gritty yet skilled Defence. Dave Manson, Doug Wilson, Chris Chelios, Gary Suter, Steve Smith etc. This is what we're in dire need of this Summer.
Last edited by Bring Back GLR: 06-02-2012 at 01:14 AM.
Great D/G (At least in Reg season). Hawks gave up fewest goals that year
But as with many of those early/mid 90's teams the offense was weak
92-93 was a joke when we got stoned by Joseph. 94 was a transition year. That's why the 95 team was so much fun to watch cuz we finally had secondary scoring. Once Amonte, Murphy had settled in from the year before and Nicholls came to play the team finally had some depth. We lost in the first round the year before to the Leafs but who can forget Amonte's 4 goal PO game. That was a sign of things to come.
71. They should have had it that year and had the perfect opportunity with Boston having been knocked out. Hull, Mikita, Martin, Esposito, Stapleton.. Up 2-0 in Game 7 of the Finals in Chicago Stadium. Esposito let in a really bad goal.. and then go on to lose 3-2. Darn.
71. They should have had it that year and had the perfect opportunity with Boston having been knocked out. Hull, Mikita, Martin, Esposito, Stapleton.. Up 2-0 in Game 7 of the Finals in Chicago Stadium. Esposito let in a really bad goal.. and then go on to lose 3-2. Darn.
71. They should have had it that year and had the perfect opportunity with Boston having been knocked out. Hull, Mikita, Martin, Esposito, Stapleton.. Up 2-0 in Game 7 of the Finals in Chicago Stadium. Esposito let in a really bad goal.. and then go on to lose 3-2. Darn.
Just goes to show how all the great pieces and intelligent management in the world can still come up short.
71. They should have had it that year and had the perfect opportunity with Boston having been knocked out. Hull, Mikita, Martin, Esposito, Stapleton.. Up 2-0 in Game 7 of the Finals in Chicago Stadium. Esposito let in a really bad goal.. and then go on to lose 3-2. Darn.
That's not the same game where Hull hit a post that would've made it 3-0 and then they gave up a goal on the same shift, is it? I've heard him tell that story on TV 2-3 times, and I know it was in a Cup Final but I don't remember the year or if it was game 7 or not.
71. They should have had it that year and had the perfect opportunity with Boston having been knocked out. Hull, Mikita, Martin, Esposito, Stapleton.. Up 2-0 in Game 7 of the Finals in Chicago Stadium. Esposito let in a really bad goal.. and then go on to lose 3-2. Darn.
71. They should have had it that year and had the perfect opportunity with Boston having been knocked out. Hull, Mikita, Martin, Esposito, Stapleton.. Up 2-0 in Game 7 of the Finals in Chicago Stadium. Esposito let in a really bad goal.. and then go on to lose 3-2. Darn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvr
I still have nightmares from that series.
Mine have subsided since the recent Cup, although my hatred for Jacques Lemaire remains strong.
idk if they should have won the cup, and it was only a year after i was born, but what about the 90-91 president's trophy team. 106 points then they lost in the first round to the north stars who had 68 points. minnesota went on to lose in the finals that year
most consider modern era to be after expansion lol (anything after 67)
Yeah I know , But since it has already been 41 years since I dont refer to it as modern era
IMO modern Era is late 80's thru today
I know the technical term for modern Era is usually post expansion but still seems to push it IMO when your now talking about a team that made finals 41 years ago
Maybe the 2008-09 team simply for the fact they were the most similar to the 2010 Cup team. I knew that team was going to be amazing the next year if the got a little better. The second best could be the 1991-92 team.
Yeah I know , But since it has already been 41 years since I dont refer to it as modern era
IMO modern Era is late 80's thru today
I know the technical term for modern Era is usually post expansion but still seems to push it IMO when your now talking about a team that made finals 41 years ago
Well to me the modern era is post-lockout. Anything that happened before the cap doesn't count!
