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.

Weakest SC loser since 90

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-23-2013, 08:26 PM
  #51
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
Canucks almost lost in the first round, but it was against the defending Cup champs. That has to count for something. The Nucks were also President's Trophy winners and going into the finals were the favorites. After they went up 2-0 fans were already saying the series was over.
it does count for something but not much in this comparison, as the '03 ducks swept the defending champs.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 09:43 PM
  #52
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
Seriously? You folks need to pull yourselves out of the you know where.

Propp made 5 trips to the All Star game, 1000 points for a career.

Mike Gartner, over 1300 points, Team Canada numerous times, record for more than 30 goals per season over a career), 7 All Star games, ranked 89th best player by Hockey News. 1 time All Star game MVP, NHL Hall of Famer.

Brian Bellows, another 1000 point guy, 3 All star games, 1 2nd team All Star.

Just those little blurbs about them should tell you all of them were considered top 10 in the game at some point of their career. (MOD)
Thanks for copy/paste on their career achievments.
Name a year when they were considered Top10.

(MOD)


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-23-2013 at 11:01 PM. Reason: flaming
unknown33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 10:25 PM
  #53
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 25,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i think neither is ultimately as interesting as how that team actually performed throughout the playoffs. i.e., were they average and just happened to beat worse teams, did they get a lot of lucky bounces or play teams that got hurt, did they ride a hot goalie, did they dominate their higher ranked opponents?

the '03 ducks were a ridiculously hot goalie, a stifling system, and not much else; but they were greater than the sum of their parts. the '11 canucks had a ridiculous top six D, a vezina finalist, two scoring champs, and the selke winner, but they were less than the sum of their parts. that wasn't a great collection of talent, but it was a very good team.

the '03 ducks and '11 canucks both made it to game seven of the finals and both got shut out in the final game. but if we're going to talk about which one was weaker, you'll get a different answer if the criterion is the team's roster on paper or regular season performance, or if the criteria is how dominant that team actually looked in the playoffs (i.e., the ducks demolished the heavy favourites in their first two rounds; the canucks almost lost to an eighth seed in the first round, and put up much less of a fight against the cup winners than the ducks did).
I was thinking more so the roster and regular season performance (roster more so). I mean if 2 teams are close and one went 12-2 in the first 3 rounds like the Ducks and the other barely made it to the finals, the weaker team was the latter. However, that's more of a tiebreaker. The Wild had a more impressive run than the Canucks in the first 3 rounds and actually looked better in the finals, however there's no way they were stronger than the Canucks.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 10:36 PM
  #54
RapidFire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cursednumber6 View Post
I will go with the 2006 Oilers.. Besides Pronger, a big exception, what did they really have?
They had Roloson, Smith, Spacek, Staois, Peca, Hemsky, etc

A Bruins fan should not call the 2006 Oilers weak. Besides Thomas (Roloson) and Chara (Pronger), what stars did the 2011 Bruins have? Lucic (Smyth) and Horton (Pisani) had career years. Bergeron (Peca) played great as a 2-way center, Marchand (Hemsky) in his 2nd (3rd) season tearing it up. Krejci (Horcoff) as the #1, (both) not a star also had a career year. Seidenberg (Smith) also played great paired up with Chara (Pronger)... etc See what I did there?

Bruins were also a great faceoff team because of Begeron at 56.6% (Stoll 56.8%) and Peverley at 55.9% (Horcoff 54.9%). The Bruins also had tough players like Lucic, Thornton, Chara, and McQuaid. (Torres, Laraque, Pronger, Smith)

The 2011 Bruins werent that much different from the 2006 Oilers. Both had no real stars forwards, but good depth and even scoring (edge to Bruins), a great 1st pairing with Chara and Seids with a decent dropoff in the next 2 parings (edge to Oilers), and great goaltending (edge to Thomas obviously).

Both tough teams that grinded it out playing dump and chase hockey relying on a star defenseman and great goaltending with good depth on offence for scoring and a nice set of centers. If our team was the weakest, yours wasnt far off.

RapidFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 11:41 PM
  #55
RapidFire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cursednumber6 View Post
I didnt say mine was a juggernaut far from it......but you are really stetching it comparing Thomas,a vezina winner to Rolosson and Krejci to Horcoff, Horcoff? Pisani to Horton come on now......Peca to Begeron is a good comaprison. As I said don't think my Bruins were all that strong a winner, but as the Oilers showed later they basically did it on Pronger's back.
I didn't mean that Roloson was equivalent to Thomas, just that they both had great performances that pushed their teams to the finals. I even said "edge to thomas obviously" meaning he was clearly better.

I compared Pisani to Horton because they were both clutch. Although Pisani was a flash in the pan, you still have to acknowledge what he did that year.

The Horcoff and Krejci comparison isnt farfetched at all. He had 22G-51A=73 Pts in 2006. Krejci: 13G-49A=62 Pts in 2011. Krejci in the playoffs was better offensively scoring 12 goals and 23 pts, but Horcoff was more of a 2-way center with 7 goals and 19 pts. They both were their team's best center.

RapidFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 11:58 PM
  #56
RapidFire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cursednumber6 View Post
I remember Pisani having a great playoff and I was not aware the Horcoff ever had that good a year given what he became. (Research would have helped there) However nothing personal with the comparison, I just don't think the Oilers were a strong finalist....lot of career years there.
To be fair, Thomas, Lucic, and Horton had career years in 2011 too. Its just that the Oilers are easy to write off because of their mediocre regular season. The had terrible goaltending circulating around with pretty much 3 AHL goalies. Roloson came in March, and even though they played until March with terrible goalies, the team still ended up 12th in GA/G. And then adding Spacek and Samsonov just put them to a new level. Its not fair to say they rode Pronger to the finals. Roloson was phenomenal as well and even Pisani scoring many important goals. You'd have to say they "rode" 3 players, which makes them look less like a cinderella team. Usually cinderella teams rely on excellent goaltending to steal many games (ie Giguere, Kiprusoff, and Smith for the yotes last year taking them to the third round). Roloson stole only a few games. They even took the canes to 7 games with Markkanen, outscoring them 12-9 in the last 5 games.

RapidFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 02:00 AM
  #57
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
Ah I see, I read it wrong, I see the G now. My mistake

Anyhow, point still stands which you ignored, those players are not merely just "decent" and that North Star team, I would not consider weak by any means. 1 I listed my reasons why and others have chimed in why that team in not weak.

2 What get's me the most, is you admittedly say you never saw these guys play, so, I must ask, how did you come up with your opinion that they were "just 'decent". Propp and Bellows were not just "decent" players. They were not super stars but they were stars in the league. And please don't come at me with that tiresome excuse of "the high scoring era" because I bet you droll over Gretzky's point totals and he played in that era too.
1Oh com'on. They couldn't hold a candle to strong teams. If your leading scorer is Gagner you're going to have a bad time no matter of era. Your argument "me and others" is silly, as there are users who claimed why Stars are weak team, too.

2Calm down. I admitted that I didn't see Stars' run, but I've seen enough of Gagner or Bellows. I admits again that I've watching NHL from 1994 onwards. It would be nice to claim your starting point. Anyway, it really doesnt matter, because any say O6 discussion would be really elite discussion here. Many people didn't read Hitler's Mein Kampf too and have their own opionion.

Finally, I have strong feeling base on your Gartner mistake, that you just randomly picked my another post and starts your another attack on me.

1991 Stars were, are and always will be considered cinderella run, doesnt matter how you're gonna slice decent, stars and superstars status of their players. Question is if they are worst finalist from 90's by roster (arguably) by regular season performance (probably yes) or by playoff season performance (probably not).


Last edited by begbeee: 02-24-2013 at 02:06 AM.
begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 02:08 AM
  #58
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
I was thinking more so the roster and regular season performance (roster more so). I mean if 2 teams are close and one went 12-2 in the first 3 rounds like the Ducks and the other barely made it to the finals, the weaker team was the latter. However, that's more of a tiebreaker. The Wild had a more impressive run than the Canucks in the first 3 rounds and actually looked better in the finals, however there's no way they were stronger than the Canucks.
but would they have beaten the '11 canucks? if hamhuis still gets injured in game one, i think that's a decent possibility. that's where i take issue with the definition of weaker/stronger.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 05:42 AM
  #59
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
The Oilers didnt win their division because they werent that good of a team. They managed to stay in playoff contention until they loaded up at the deadline. It also helped the LA and Vancouver choked down the stretch. They then rode a hot Roloson and Pronger to the Cup finals. Look how bad they were after trading Pronger the next year.
So goaltenders providing a team save % of .884 really wasn't a big deal then? Good luck finding a playoff team from the last 18 years that can say this, I can't imagine there are more than two or three.

They were bad the next year after half the team was gutted. In addition to Pronger, they also lost Peca, Samsonov, and Spacek to free agency. Ethan Moreau missed pretty much the entire season, Jarret Stoll missed 30 games as well. And they were still in the hunt for a playoff spot when Ryan Smyth was traded for draft picks. No other finalist in recent memory had their team dismantled to this extent, not even the Blackhawks.

As you say, this team loaded up near the deadline. Roloson, Spacek, and Samsonov were big additions. This agrees with my point that the team they were icing by the time the playoffs started was significantly better than the one that played most of the regular season.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 05:54 AM
  #60
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cursednumber6 View Post
I remember Pisani having a great playoff and I was not aware the Horcoff ever had that good a year given what he became. (Research would have helped there) However nothing personal with the comparison, I just don't think the Oilers were a strong finalist....lot of career years there.
This point is also brought up often to discredit the 2006 Hurricanes. I really don't understand why what players did before or after the season in question is of any relevance. You're talking about one single year, not "what team had the players who had the overall weakest careers". Yeah Horcoff became a shadow of what he was in 2006, Stoll never came close to duplicating his 68 points, Hemsky was rarely healthy for a full season again, and Torres never matched his 27 goals. But so what? For that one year, they were great players.

If the Oilers had somehow made the finals with the 2009 versions of the aforementioned players, then yes they'd definitely be amongst the weakest. But the seasons produced by most of the key performers were seasons not unlike those of many other finalists.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 06:30 AM
  #61
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
This point is also brought up often to discredit the 2006 Hurricanes. I really don't understand why what players did before or after the season in question is of any relevance. You're talking about one single year, not "what team had the players who had the overall weakest careers". Yeah Horcoff became a shadow of what he was in 2006, Stoll never came close to duplicating his 68 points, Hemsky was rarely healthy for a full season again, and Torres never matched his 27 goals. But so what? For that one year, they were great players.

If the Oilers had somehow made the finals with the 2009 versions of the aforementioned players, then yes they'd definitely be amongst the weakest. But the seasons produced by most of the key performers were seasons not unlike those of many other finalists.
It's relevant to whether the observed performance was primarily luck-driven or ability-driven.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 06:59 AM
  #62
DaveG
Global Moderator
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 38,363
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
The 99 Sabres were a part of the best 4 year run in the history of the franchise and don't belong in this discussion.
And?

They were a 7th seed with the worst offensive production of all Eastern Conference playoff teams that year, 3rd worst of all teams in the NHL playoffs. They went 3rd, 6th, 7th (finals year), 8th in the conference standings. Saying that it was part of the best 4 year run in franchise history is just not a strong argument that the 99 team doesn't belong in this conversation.


Last edited by DaveG: 02-24-2013 at 09:37 AM.
DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 09:16 AM
  #63
frontsfan2005
Registered User
 
frontsfan2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 583
vCash: 500
I find it odd how the 96 Panthers are considered one of the worst teams in the finals, despite finishing the season with 92 points, following up with an 89 point the next year. They didn't have the offensive "star", but the club was a middle of the pack team offensively, with elite goaltending and defense. The 96 Panthers had more points than other recent finalists like the 94 Canucks (85 pts), 93 Kings (88 pts), 92 Hawks (87 pts) and of course the 91 North Stars (68 pts). The 96 Panthers also had more points than recent Stanley Cup winners of that time, as the 90 Oilers had 90 pts, and the 91 Penguins had 88 pts, while the 95 Devils were on pace for 89 pts in an 82 game schedule. This Panthers team completely shutdown the likes of Eric Lindros, Jaromir Jagr and Mario Lemieux, while getting timely goals.

I think people remember them being swept by the Avalanche, and being blown out 8-1 in the second game, but the other three losses were close games, with Florida limiting Colorado to seven goals in the other three games. They had no answer for Patrick Roy.

They weren't an exciting team or the greatest team out there, but they definitely weren't a bad team either.

frontsfan2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 02:28 PM
  #64
BigKing
Too Funky
 
BigKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belmont Shore, CA
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 500
It's got to be the '03 Ducks as Giguere was the only reason they made the Finals along with getting a favorable matchup in the WCF against the Wild, although they did have to beat Detroit and Dallas in the previous rounds.

Unlike the '99 Sabres with Hasek, Giguere was nowhere near as good in the regular season as he was in the playoffs. They couldn't score a goal to save their lives in the playoffs but Giguere was so insane that it didn't matter. I'll never forget his skate blade save on Modano. As a Kings fan, it was the most frustrating playoff year I've ever witnessed...like there was a force field behind Giguere.

They finished 13th the season before and 12th the season after making the Finals. Kariya leaving plays a part in the drop-off the following season but Giguere regressed heavily as well.
Of course, Kariya bolting the following Summer shows you how much the team's best player believed in the ability of that squad to win a Cup: even their captain knew it was a complete fluke.

Basically, this:

Giguere posted a 15–6 record, 7–0 in overtime, with a 1.62 GAA, a .945 sv. pct. and a record 168 minute, 27 second shutout streak in overtime.

I mean, it was so ridiculous that team was in the Finals that Giguere won the Conn Smythe while playing for the losing team.


Last edited by BigKing: 02-24-2013 at 02:33 PM.
BigKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 02:39 PM
  #65
Jinsell
Registered User
 
Jinsell's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
on the other hand, they upset the presidents trophy winners in the first round (backstopped by the vezina/calder winner who also was a hart finalist), the second best team in the league in round two (featuring two of the league's top three scorers, including the hart winner), then the defending champs. i don't know, i was young but i remember that run pretty clearly: that team looked really good. when i saw the '93 habs and '95 devils, those teams reminded me of the '91 north stars but with franchise goalies and depth on d.

that team was obviously not good in the regular season, but if we're talking about weakest team on the ice, not weakest team on paper, those north stars are a step above the panthers, ducks, hurricanes, oilers, etc.: a wealth of playoff and big game experience playing at a high level (smith, propp, broten), the kind of really good grinders that wouldn't look out of place on a cup winner (stew gavin playing out of his mind, gaetan duchesne, ulf dahlen), and an excellent system (gainey was behind the bench). add to that three offensive stars in peak gagner, bellows one season removed from 55 goals and a second team all-star nod, and young modano, and that's a pretty average stanley cup finalist... maybe even just a franchise goalie and/or another top pair d-man away from winning that cup.

one wonders, though, what they hell they were doing trading away larry murphy for two undrafted journeymen that year (jim johnson and chris dahlqvist). of course, murphy would skate around the arena with the cup that year. looks insane in retrospect; anyone remember how and why this went down? did that swing the cup right there?
Keep in mind that at the time Jon Casey was one of the league's better netminders. The previous year he was in the running for the Vezina.

As for Larry Murphy, I'm not really sure why they traded him (and Peter Taglianetti) for Jim Johnson and Chris Dahlquist. I would have to look into it, but the trade was made December 1990 when the North Stars were 9-17-4 and certainly not thinking about any sort of Cup run in the spring. I seem to recall this school of thought that Murphy's departure allowed Mark Tinordi to step up his game, but I don't know.

Jinsell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 04:05 PM
  #66
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
It's relevant to whether the observed performance was primarily luck-driven or ability-driven.
So a player having a career year means it must have been luck driven? I disagree. Just because a player didn't achieve those heights again doesn't mean he simply got lucky that one year.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 04:42 PM
  #67
Winreims
Registered User
 
Winreims's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,943
vCash: 500
Weakest team based on reg season play: 1990-91 Minnesota North Stars (27-39-14)
Weakest team on paper - 2002-03 Ducks

Weakest performance in the SCF: Wings in 1995 perhaps. Thanks to Brodeur and Lemaire, the Wings never scored more than 2 goals in a game during the 4-0 sweep (outscored 16-7). Flyers could be a candidate in 1997 against the Wings as well (outscored 16-6 in a four game sweep). Panthers in '96 played well against the Avs outside of the 8-1 game two rout.

Winreims is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 04:56 PM
  #68
tony d
Irish Spring Soap
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,427
vCash: 500
The 1991 Minnesota North Stars. The 1995 Detroit Red Wings was the strongest IMO. They just got stopped stone cold in the finals.

__________________


Celebrating 10 yrs. at hfboards today. Thanks everyone for making the past decade so memorable. Here's to 10 more years.
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 05:11 PM
  #69
AlMo
Registered User
 
AlMo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: Portugal
Posts: 9,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BamBamCam View Post
Seriously? You folks need to pull yourselves out of the you know where.

Propp made 5 trips to the All Star game, 1000 points for a career.

Mike Gartner, over 1300 points, Team Canada numerous times, record for more than 30 goals per season over a career), 7 All Star games, ranked 89th best player by Hockey News. 1 time All Star game MVP, NHL Hall of Famer.

Brian Bellows, another 1000 point guy, 3 All star games, 1 2nd team All Star.

Just those little blurbs about them should tell you all of them were considered top 10 in the game at some point of their career. (MOD)
No they weren't. Gartner is the best of the best of the bunch but he was never the focal point of an offense imo. Gartner was a very good player throughout his career but never in the same conversation with the true superstars of his era. Players like Gartner, Andreychuk, Anderson put together great careers but never carried a team on their back offensively. They were just great 2nd-3rd option type players that benefited from playing in a high scoring era. I don't want to take away from their carer accomplishments but every players numbers were a little inflated during that era.

Bellows, Propp, Gagner were great players in their day but I think you are overrating them to an extent. They would be the equivalent to a 20 goal - 50-60 point type players. Good players but not amongst the leagues best.

AlMo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 05:14 PM
  #70
AlMo
Registered User
 
AlMo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: Portugal
Posts: 9,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutbar View Post
What is the criteria here? Regular season performance or a team's roster?
I think both make a great case for the North Stars.

AlMo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 09:50 PM
  #71
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
So a player having a career year means it must have been luck driven? I disagree. Just because a player didn't achieve those heights again doesn't mean he simply got lucky that one year.
I don't recall using the word 'must.' There could be other factors.

Random variation explains a lot, though.

Certainly more than any other variable.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 10:27 PM
  #72
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlMo View Post
No they weren't. Gartner is the best of the best of the bunch but he was never the focal point of an offense imo. Gartner was a very good player throughout his career but never in the same conversation with the true superstars of his era. Players like Gartner, Andreychuk, Anderson put together great careers but never carried a team on their back offensively. They were just great 2nd-3rd option type players that benefited from playing in a high scoring era. I don't want to take away from their carer accomplishments but every players numbers were a little inflated during that era.

Bellows, Propp, Gagner were great players in their day but I think you are overrating them to an extent. They would be the equivalent to a 20 goal - 50-60 point type players. Good players but not amongst the leagues best.
bellows finished 3rd in league scoring the year before the finals run, tied with peak neely and behind only brett hull and yzerman.

the year before the finals run, jon casey finished 6th in vezina voting, 5th in all-star voting for goalies.

between 1980 and 1991, the only players with more playoff points than smith and propp were gretzky, kurri, messier, anderson, bossy, and trottier, i.e. all dynasty guys. and both smith and propp spent the majority of their careers on notoriously defensive teams.

anyway, hardly 20 goal/60 point guys. gagner was at his absolute peak in 1991 and i'd have to think he's a 30 goal scorer today.

i thinK we agree that none of those guys were superstars. but that north stars team was balls deep with second tier scorers, and all those guys (plus young modano and ulf dahlen) were better than any forward on the '96 panthers or '99 sabres.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 10:31 PM
  #73
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 25,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
but would they have beaten the '11 canucks? if hamhuis still gets injured in game one, i think that's a decent possibility. that's where i take issue with the definition of weaker/stronger.
Maybe. The 03 Ducks swept the 03 Wings and I think the Stars were really good that year too and they beat them. Doesn't mean they were better than those teams.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 11:06 PM
  #74
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Maybe. The 03 Ducks swept the 03 Wings and I think the Stars were really good that year too and they beat them. Doesn't mean they were better than those teams.
it kind of does, doesn't it? comparing paper rosters is not irrelevant, but isn't there a reason that they still play the games?

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2013, 11:59 PM
  #75
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
... but isn't there a reason that they still play the games?
Hell of a statement vadim. Not sure if I can deal with it.

Killion 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 06:07 AM.

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.