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.

Why weren't the recent Wings or Devils teams accepted as Dynasties?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2012, 09:45 AM
  #1
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 500
Why weren't the recent Wings or Devils teams accepted as Dynasties?

Go look at what the NFL acknowledges as dynasties. Both of those teams easily fit according to their criteria. If any NFL team gets 3 in 6 like the Wings, they would be listed as a dynasty without any controversy. Even the Redskins of the 80's won 3 in 10 and are listed as a dynasty. That's actually worse than the Devils, who won 3 in 9.

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 10:03 AM
  #2
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,999
vCash: 500
If the Devils win in '01 they are without question. 3 Cups in 4 years and 4 in 9 is hard to ignore would be the closest thing to a dynasty since the Oilers days.

But as for the question, the Devils had limited post-season success outside of their four deep runs - three first round exits, a second round exit, and missing the playoffs outright in '96. Going to the finals four times in nine years is great percentage wise but outside of those runs their success wasn't indicative of a dynasty team. It was either go deep or go home early.

The constant coaching and roster turnover probably didn't help either - only five players were on all three championship teams and after Lemaire was fired the longest coaching stint was two seasons (Burns).


Last edited by AfroThunder396: 06-04-2012 at 10:12 AM.
AfroThunder396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 10:06 AM
  #3
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Go look at what the NFL acknowledges as dynasties. Both of those teams easily fit according to their criteria. If any NFL team gets 3 in 6 like the Wings, they would be listed as a dynasty without any controversy. Even the Redskins of the 80's won 3 in 10 and are listed as a dynasty. That's actually worse than the Devils, who won 3 in 9.
When the Devils and Red Wings start winning Super Bowls, we can start talking about how they meet the NFL's criteria for being a dynasty.

The bar is set higher in hockey. When your sport's dynasties have won four in a row (Isles), five in a row (Habs), and five in seven years (Oilers), the Devils' three cups in eight years and the Wings' four cups in eleven years are just not on the same level.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 10:26 AM
  #4
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 500
Our criteria should be the same as the NFL's, IMO. Especially now. Why should the St. Louis Blues team that wins 3 cups in the 2030's be diminished because a few historically good teams happened to catch fire in an era without a salary cap?

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 10:36 AM
  #5
barmbek76
Registered User
 
barmbek76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hamburg
Country: Germany
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
A sport that calls a handegg a "football", may call a non-Dynasty a Dynasty.

But hockey is hockey. Don't take the last special thing that Islanders and Oilers fans can be proud of.

barmbek76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 10:41 AM
  #6
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,696
vCash: 500
I have never heard of anyone refer to the Redskins 3 Super Bowls over 10 years as a dynasty. The NFL dynasties are the
Packers of 61-67, 3 NFL titles and 2 Super Bowls
Steelers from 74-79, 4 Super Bowls in 6 seasons.
Niners 81-89 4 Super Bowls, 7 division titles, missed the play-offs only once.
Cowboys 92-95, 3 out of 4 and getting to the NFCCG in the only year they didn't win.
Patriots 2001-2004, 3 out of 4.

Standard is different in football as only once has there been a 3-peat and that was the Packers from 1929-1931. At that time, there was no Championship game. They played the schedule and the best record was declared Champion.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 10:47 AM
  #7
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=31167
NHL.com has a list of the teams considered dynasties. 4 cups in 6 years is the "worst" of the dynasties officially recognized by the league. Had Detroit managed to snag a 4th during the late 90s/early 00s, then they would be a dynasty. Also, the Devils would have needed 3 straight for recognition, not 3 in 4 years, as the only team with 3 cups on the list won them consecutively. So both teams were very close, but are just short of the official title. That said, Detroit and NJ are the closest things we have seen to a dynasty since the Oilers. These teams have been the two most dominant franchises of the last 20 years.

TasteofFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 11:16 AM
  #8
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,406
vCash: 500
How is 3 in 4 not considered a dynasty? What if its 4 cup finals in a row, with 3 of them being cups?

I don't like the vagueness around what defines a dynasty.

jigglysquishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 11:37 AM
  #9
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
How is 3 in 4 not considered a dynasty? What if its 4 cup finals in a row, with 3 of them being cups?

I don't like the vagueness around what defines a dynasty.
What could be less vague than "3 in a row"?

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 11:39 AM
  #10
Roomtemperature
Registered User
 
Roomtemperature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,205
vCash: 500
Does it really matter that some vague people give a vague title? And honestly no they aren't dynasties... they are just missing that one title at the right time

Roomtemperature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 11:48 AM
  #11
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,868
vCash: 500
50s Red Wings never won 3 in a row, but are considered a dynasty.

I think that if the Devils or modern Wings had won 3 out of 4, it would have been enough to force the hockey establishment to consider them a dynasty, at least in retrospect now that we know how hard it is to repeat in the modern game.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 11:50 AM
  #12
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I have never heard of anyone refer to the Redskins 3 Super Bowls over 10 years as a dynasty. The NFL dynasties are the
Packers of 61-67, 3 NFL titles and 2 Super Bowls
Steelers from 74-79, 4 Super Bowls in 6 seasons.
Niners 81-89 4 Super Bowls, 7 division titles, missed the play-offs only once.
Cowboys 92-95, 3 out of 4 and getting to the NFCCG in the only year they didn't win.
Patriots 2001-2004, 3 out of 4.

Standard is different in football as only once has there been a 3-peat and that was the Packers from 1929-1931. At that time, there was no Championship game. They played the schedule and the best record was declared Champion.
Football didn't go decades with only 6 teams, with only 3 of those 6 teams having a legit shot at the championship at any time.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 12:27 PM
  #13
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Our criteria should be the same as the NFL's, IMO.
No it shouldn't.

The NFL's criteria are based on the realities of football. A 16-game season and winner-take-all playoff rounds make it easier for the best teams to be upset, compared to the NHL where you have 82 games and best-of-seven series, allowing plenty of time for the best teams to demonstrate that they are the best.

In a 16-game season, a two-game losing streak spells the end of your playoff hopes. In an 82-game season, a two-game losing streak is a fact of life.

In you the first game of an NFL playoff series, you go home because there's only one game. If you lose game 1 of an NHL playoff series, you just have to win four before you lose three more.

It's exponentially tougher to repeat as a Super Bowl Champion than to repeat as a Stanley Cup Champion. That's why the two leagues have different criteria to be considered a dynasty.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 12:29 PM
  #14
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
50s Red Wings never won 3 in a row, but are considered a dynasty.

I think that if the Devils or modern Wings had won 3 out of 4, it would have been enough to force the hockey establishment to consider them a dynasty, at least in retrospect now that we know how hard it is to repeat in the modern game.
The 50s Wings were the team that went 4 in 6 that I mentioned earlier, and are the least dominant of the dynasties. Not 3 in a row, but apparently good enough.

For whatever reason, two decades of being a model franchise isn't enough to be a dynasty if the cup wins don't fall into a certain time frame, but it doesn't change the fact that the Wings and Devils have been the best teams for nearly 20 years.

Ultimately, the dynasty label is kind of an arbitrary title that describes elite, short term, domination. There really isn't a proper term for the Devils and Wings, they are just model franchises.

TasteofFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 12:31 PM
  #15
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
No it shouldn't.

The NFL's criteria are based on the realities of football. A 16-game season and winner-take-all playoff rounds make it easier for the best teams to be upset, compared to the NHL where you have 82 games and best-of-seven series, allowing plenty of time for the best teams to demonstrate that they are the best.

In a 16-game season, a two-game losing streak spells the end of your playoff hopes. In an 82-game season, a two-game losing streak is a fact of life.

In you the first game of an NFL playoff series, you go home because there's only one game. If you lose game 1 of an NHL playoff series, you just have to win four before you lose three more.

It's exponentially tougher to repeat as a Super Bowl Champion than to repeat as a Stanley Cup Champion.
That's why the two leagues have different criteria to be considered a dynasty.
While in theory this may be true, recent history shows it not to be true. Cowboys and Patriots have both won 3 out of 4 championships since the last time an NHL team has accomplished that.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 12:36 PM
  #16
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
No it shouldn't.

The NFL's criteria are based on the realities of football. A 16-game season and winner-take-all playoff rounds make it easier for the best teams to be upset, compared to the NHL where you have 82 games and best-of-seven series, allowing plenty of time for the best teams to demonstrate that they are the best.

In a 16-game season, a two-game losing streak spells the end of your playoff hopes. In an 82-game season, a two-game losing streak is a fact of life.

In you the first game of an NFL playoff series, you go home because there's only one game. If you lose game 1 of an NHL playoff series, you just have to win four before you lose three more.

It's exponentially tougher to repeat as a Super Bowl Champion than to repeat as a Stanley Cup Champion. That's why the two leagues have different criteria to be considered a dynasty.
Because the NHL's playoffs use a bigger sample size, it's more likely to give us the true best team of the season, and as you pointed out, anything can happen in a 1 game elimination playoff. Because of this, you could view the Stanley Cup as being a bigger accomplishment.

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 12:55 PM
  #17
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Because the NHL's playoffs use a bigger sample size, it's more likely to give us the true best team of the season, and as you pointed out, anything can happen in a 1 game elimination playoff. Because of this, you could view the Stanley Cup as being a bigger accomplishment.
I'd say that one Stanley Cup is a bigger accomplishment than one Super Bowl, but I think that stringing together several Super Bowls is tougher than several Stanley Cups. That's why a couple of Super Bowls gets the same prestigious "dynasty" label that four or five Stanley Cups gets you.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 01:05 PM
  #18
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
In a 16-game season, a two-game losing streak spells the end of your playoff hopes. In an 82-game season, a two-game losing streak is a fact of life.
No, it doesn't. Giants lost 4 in a row and 5 out of 6 this year.
Packers lost 2 in a row twice last year and twice lost 3 out of 4.
Saints in 2009 lost 3 in a row (although that was after they were 13-0).

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 01:19 PM
  #19
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
No, it doesn't. Giants lost 4 in a row and 5 out of 6 this year.
Packers lost 2 in a row twice last year and twice lost 3 out of 4.
Saints in 2009 lost 3 in a row (although that was after they were 13-0).
It was an exaggeration for effect.

Here's a non-exaggerated answer. The Colorado Avalanche won the Stanley Cup in 2001, despite having lost 16 games that season. How many Super Bowl Champions have had a 16-loss season?

That's the difference between hockey and football.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 01:26 PM
  #20
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,868
vCash: 500
A big reason there were so many "legit" dynasties in hockey was how unbalanced the league was during the Original 6 era. From 1942-1969, the Canadiens, Leafs, and Red Wings won 27 of 28 Cups between them.

And then there is the dirty little secret of Sam Pollock writing the expansion rules of 1967 to be as beneficial to the Montreal Canadiens as possible. Canadiens ended up winning 6 of 10 Cups in the 1970s and 8 of 12 Cups overall between 1968 and 1979.

The NHL has changed a lot since then.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 06-04-2012 at 01:36 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 01:26 PM
  #21
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,270
vCash: 500
No team has ever won 3 straight super bowls in the NFL. In the NHL it was a lot easier to be a dynasty, hence the standards are laxer in the NFL.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 01:30 PM
  #22
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
No team has ever won 3 straight super bowls in the NFL. In the NHL it was a lot easier to be a dynasty, hence the standards are laxer in the NFL.
It's been 30 years since the NY Islanders won their 3rd in a row - they are the last team to do so.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 01:30 PM
  #23
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
It was an exaggeration for effect.

Here's a non-exaggerated answer. The Colorado Avalanche won the Stanley Cup in 2001, despite having lost 16 games that season. How many Super Bowl Champions have had a 16-loss season?

That's the difference between hockey and football.
16/82=19.5%. 19.5%*16=3.12, so we will call it roughly the equivalent of 3 games. PLENTY of teams have gone 13-3 or better in a season, and plenty have gone 13-3 and not won it all.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 01:43 PM
  #24
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
16/82=19.5%. 19.5%*16=3.12, so we will call it roughly the equivalent of 3 games. PLENTY of teams have gone 13-3 or better in a season, and plenty have gone 13-3 and not won it all.
Yeah, lots of great teams don't win championships. That happens when they only give one out every year.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 01:54 PM
  #25
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Go look at what the NFL acknowledges as dynasties. Both of those teams easily fit according to their criteria. If any NFL team gets 3 in 6 like the Wings, they would be listed as a dynasty without any controversy. Even the Redskins of the 80's won 3 in 10 and are listed as a dynasty. That's actually worse than the Devils, who won 3 in 9.
Because the NFL is the hardest freaking league to be a dynasty in. MLB and NBA are much better comparables. And in those cases, I think 3 in 5 with at least one back to back is the minimum requirement.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho 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 07:35 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.