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.

The worst teams to win the cup?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-26-2007, 05:19 PM
  #51
Pensfan86
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Steel City(Pittsburgh)
Posts: 760
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Pensfan86
I'd say 93' Habs. Roy was unreal in that playoff run and they played a fairly crummy Kings team in the final with friggen Kelly Hrudey in net. More than anything though, this was a case of the Pens completely dropping the ball. That series loss to the Islanders was somewhat disgraceful considering how good that team was.

Pensfan86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2007, 07:58 PM
  #52
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,307
vCash: 500
habs 71 & 86. Leafs 67.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2007, 08:42 PM
  #53
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisent View Post
It is because the 86 Canadiens boasted behind their 4 HoFers the likes of Kjell Dahlin, Bobby Smith and Ryan Walter. Granted, Naslund was outstanding but their secondary scoring (at least on paper) is not oustanding.
Wow...
Bobby Smith was a big man and a wicked stickhandler, as someone stated before me. Kjell Dahlin had a run at rookie of the year before completely losing his game by mid-january, yet still finished the year with 70 points, not bad for a rookie. Dahlin was nearly a non-factor in the playoffs, I might add. And the Habs gave up a future HOF'er for Ryan Walter, and while he had slown down by '86, he was still a player that most teams could count on. With the pair of future HOF'er (Robinson-Chelios, which could go down easily in the Top-10 of defensive pairings), and a very competent defense -- Svoboda, Ludwig, Green and Lalor --... Oh... Guy Carbonneau was no slouch, either.

This team wasn't the Oilers powerhouse, for sure. But it was a much better team than '93. They also had very poor goaltending for some 20-odd games from Steve Penney on this year.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2007, 09:51 PM
  #54
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
It is amazing how uneducated some people are regarding the 86 and 93 Canadiens. Those were very good hockey teams. The best teams to ever win the cup? No. But they were a LOT better than the 82 Canucks.

Do some research.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2007, 10:05 PM
  #55
LVIsles*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper View Post
I'll echo the statements on the '93 Habs. Not to slag the team, but I don't feel I know enough pre-1990 to make a sound judgment on the talent of the teams that preceded them. Roy was incredible during those playoffs, but the O.T. wins that year was absolutely unreal. A Cup is a Cup but IMO one of the biggest factors in that win was Kevin Stevens suffering that awful injury (i can still picture it and I was only 10 at the time).

how was that a big factor,,Canadiens didnt even play the Penguins, and that injury happend in Game 7 of the Islanders series,, if Stevens didnt get hurt I doubt you can say the Penguins would have definetly won that game

LVIsles* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2007, 10:21 PM
  #56
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 21,301
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberation View Post
The Hurricanes from last year were one of the weaker teams IMO, they only had three players that could be considered overly talented (Staal, Brind'Amour & Cole), while the rest were all average.
Justin Williams, Doug Weight, Mark Recchi, Ray Whitney, Cory Stillman. Not an average player among them.

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2007, 10:26 PM
  #57
TheRedressor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caniacforever View Post
Justin Williams, Doug Weight, Mark Recchi, Ray Whitney, Cory Stillman. Not an average player among them.
mostly 2nd liners at this point of their career with the exception of Stillman.

TheRedressor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2007, 10:33 PM
  #58
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 21,301
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheChief View Post
mostly 2nd liners at this point of their career with the exception of Stillman.
Justin Williams scored 76 points in 82 games that year as a 24 year old penalty killing forward. 30 goals. Named to the all star team this year. 25 goals and 48 points in 51 games.

Ray Whitney had 55 points in 63 games and battled injuries. He has 57 points in 51 games this year already. Probably the most underrated offensive player in the league.

Mark Recchi scored 64 points and had 28 goals while playing in every game for Pittsburgh and Carolina. Despite the fact that he's in the later stages of his career, he's a hall of fame player. 16 goals this year and just netted #500 tonight.

Doug Weight had 57 points in 70 games and was still the physical leader and offensive wizard that he always has been.

Even if you consider all of those players "2nd liners", how many teams out there had totally legit first liners for their first three lines anyways? Not to mention Matt Cullen who if you're going by the 2nd liner criteria fits there by his play last year.

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 09:22 AM
  #59
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
It is amazing how uneducated some people are regarding the 86 and 93 Canadiens. Those were very good hockey teams. The best teams to ever win the cup? No. But they were a LOT better than the 82 Canucks.

Do some research.
Well, 82 Canucks haven't won the Cup, but I get your point...
Thanks for agreeing with me, at least with the 86 Habs. It wasn't quite attractive name-wise than, say, Caps defense 2 years later (S.Stevens, L.Murphy, K.Hatcher, R. Langway, G. Galley, G. Ledyard) but the Robinson-Chelios-Svoboda wasn't quite far from the Original Big 3 at that time.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 09:39 AM
  #60
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Well, 82 Canucks haven't won the Cup, but I get your point...
Thanks for agreeing with me, at least with the 86 Habs. It wasn't quite attractive name-wise than, say, Caps defense 2 years later (S.Stevens, L.Murphy, K.Hatcher, R. Langway, G. Galley, G. Ledyard) but the Robinson-Chelios-Svoboda wasn't quite far from the Original Big 3 at that time.
Svoboda played only 8 games and got 0 points in the playoffs in 1986.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 12:58 PM
  #61
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,401
vCash: 500
I fail to see why everyone thinks the 93 Canadiens were so weak. They had 2 90 point scorers, 2 80 point scorers, and great offensive depth. Excellent offense from the blueline from Schneider and Desjardins, and the best goaltender ever.

Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 01:57 PM
  #62
Killiecrankie*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Wilson View Post
I fail to see why everyone thinks the 93 Canadiens were so weak. They had 2 90 point scorers, 2 80 point scorers, and great offensive depth. Excellent offense from the blueline from Schneider and Desjardins, and the best goaltender ever.
They got lucky that Pittsburgh was knocked out by the Islanders. (Franicis was out )

Killiecrankie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 04:07 PM
  #63
Phaneufed
🔥🔥🔥
 
Phaneufed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Köln, Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,285
vCash: 500
'04 Lightning.

Phaneufed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2007, 04:53 PM
  #64
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
It is amazing how uneducated some people are regarding the 86 and 93 Canadiens. Those were very good hockey teams. The best teams to ever win the cup? No. But they were a LOT better than the 82 Canucks.

Do some research.
The thread is called "worst teams to win the cup" so that just might explain why the 82 Canucks aren't being mentioned much.

Do some reading comprehension.

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 12:08 AM
  #65
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensinPittsburgh View Post
They got lucky that Pittsburgh was knocked out by the Islanders. (Franicis was out )
And then the Islanders had their legs cut out from them by a Dale Hunter cheap shot.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 12:14 AM
  #66
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn View Post
The thread is called "worst teams to win the cup" so that just might explain why the 82 Canucks aren't being mentioned much.

Do some reading comprehension.

I apologize that you couldn't understand my point. Perhaps stick to the treehouse message boards from now on.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 02:17 AM
  #67
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
I apologize that you couldn't understand my point. Perhaps stick to the treehouse message boards from now on.
OK, let's go over this really slowly so that you understand the problem here.

This thread, it's called "worst teams to win the cup". Notice that key word in there? Win. It's kind of vital to to the whole topic.

See the category of teams that have "won" the Stanley Cup doesn't include teams that made it to the finals and didn't win, or teams that failed to make the finals, or teams that failed to make the playoffs. It really does only refer to teams that, well, won the Stanley Cup. Hence, saying that any team in that category compares favourably to a team that didn't (wait for it...) win... the Stanley Cup is kind of irrelevant if we're comparing teams within that category.

Hence my confusion at why saying the '86 or '93 Habs were better than the '82 Canucks is of any relevance to the topic at hand. It's kind of like if I said "Geez, why are people being so hard on the '95 Devils, they were WAY better than the '06 Oilers". See, that doesn't really help my case at all, because the '06 Oilers didn't win the Stanley Cup. If anything, it would just kind of make me sound like some loser who just irrelevantly brings up the Oilers because he wants to take a shot at the team. (Not that I am casting any aspersions on you, Ogopogo, as I'm sure your motivations were completely legitimate, and have nothing but respect for the keen analytical skills which you frequently demonstrate).

But yeah... I am a little confused as to why the '82 Canucks (who, for the record, didn't win the Stanley Cup) are of any relevance to the discussion?

Maybe I just need to do some more research!

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 05:15 AM
  #68
Wisent
Registered User
 
Wisent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Mannheim
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Wow...
Bobby Smith was a big man and a wicked stickhandler, as someone stated before me. Kjell Dahlin had a run at rookie of the year before completely losing his game by mid-january, yet still finished the year with 70 points, not bad for a rookie. Dahlin was nearly a non-factor in the playoffs, I might add. And the Habs gave up a future HOF'er for Ryan Walter, and while he had slown down by '86, he was still a player that most teams could count on. With the pair of future HOF'er (Robinson-Chelios, which could go down easily in the Top-10 of defensive pairings), and a very competent defense -- Svoboda, Ludwig, Green and Lalor --... Oh... Guy Carbonneau was no slouch, either.

This team wasn't the Oilers powerhouse, for sure. But it was a much better team than '93. They also had very poor goaltending for some 20-odd games from Steve Penney on this year.
Robinson was well past his prime. Dahlin was a complete non-factor during the playoffs (as you mentioned). Chelios was not yet a defender competing for the Norris. And as you said as well, Ryan Walter was not what he used to be and hardly played in the playoffs. Richer had his breakout 3 years later. In addition, the regular season wasn`t all that great for Montreal. For me the worst Cup winner in the last 20 years.

Wisent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 10:30 AM
  #69
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisent View Post
Robinson was well past his prime. Dahlin was a complete non-factor during the playoffs (as you mentioned). Chelios was not yet a defender competing for the Norris. And as you said as well, Ryan Walter was not what he used to be and hardly played in the playoffs. Richer had his breakout 3 years later. In addition, the regular season wasn`t all that great for Montreal. For me the worst Cup winner in the last 20 years.
Robinson was 3rd in Norris trophy voting and a 2nd team All star in 85/86. Carboneau was 3rd in Selke voting and Gainey was 6th. Mats Naslund was a 2nd team All-Star. Chelios was not as good as he would become but was a force nonetheless. Lemieux and Richer were huge factors in the playoffs.

And Patrick Roy is a member of the team is he not? Everyone seems to rate the two most recent Habs Cup wins as the team minus Roy. Well they had Roy and he is a part of the team. So in 85/86 Chelios, Robinson, Naslund, Bobby Smith, Carboneau, Gainey, Roy, Richer and Lemieux. All playing very good hockey in the playoffs makes the 85/86 Habs far from the worst team to win the Cup.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 10:46 AM
  #70
GSK*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Uzbekistan
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 2,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisent View Post
Robinson was well past his prime. Dahlin was a complete non-factor during the playoffs (as you mentioned). Chelios was not yet a defender competing for the Norris. And as you said as well, Ryan Walter was not what he used to be and hardly played in the playoffs. Richer had his breakout 3 years later. In addition, the regular season wasn`t all that great for Montreal. For me the worst Cup winner in the last 20 years.
Past prime ? So 82pts past prime for a d-men is amazing... We doN,t give a **** about Dahlin not playing well in playoff... Claude Lemieux was not playing the season but came in playoff with something like 10 goals 6 assist in 20 games.


See my post on the first page, two MTL winning team stats are there for the regular season, not for the playoffs..

Mat Naslund: 8-11-19 (20GP)
C. Lemieux: 10-6-16 (20GP)
B. Smith: 7-8-15 (20GP)
L. Robinson: 0-13-13 (20GP)
G. Carbonneau: 7-5-12 (20GP)
C. Chelios: 2-9-11 (20GP)
B. Gainey: 5-5-10 (20GP)

Naslund was top forward of the league, he was finishin top-5 or top-10 couple year in a row... Robinson was still the best d-men in the league while Chelios was amazing. Bobby Smith was one of the best stickhanlder in the league, very good offensive forward, Carbonneau and Gainey was/are the two best 2-way forward all time while Lemieux is the most "clutch" player of all time. And Roy the best goaltender of all time...

Take a chill pill !

GSK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 10:48 AM
  #71
Wisent
Registered User
 
Wisent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Mannheim
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2007 Sens Rule! View Post
Robinson was 3rd in Norris trophy voting and a 2nd team All star in 85/86. Carboneau was 3rd in Selke voting and Gainey was 6th. Mats Naslund was a 2nd team All-Star. Chelios was not as good as he would become but was a force nonetheless. Lemieux and Richer were huge factors in the playoffs.

And Patrick Roy is a member of the team is he not? Everyone seems to rate the two most recent Habs Cup wins as the team minus Roy. Well they had Roy and he is a part of the team. So in 85/86 Chelios, Robinson, Naslund, Bobby Smith, Carboneau, Gainey, Roy, Richer and Lemieux. All playing very good hockey in the playoffs makes the 85/86 Habs far from the worst team to win the Cup.
But there regular season was. Slipped in with 87 points, 6 teams with more points. The division they played in was not that strong either. They had basically four scorers (including Dahlin who disappeared in the play offs and Robinson who is a defender). I don`t subtract Roy from that theam but undoubtedly for me he was the factor they won the Cup.

Wisent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 11:37 AM
  #72
Transplanted Caper
Registered User
 
Transplanted Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Internet Underbelly
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVIsles View Post
how was that a big factor,,Canadiens didnt even play the Penguins, and that injury happend in Game 7 of the Islanders series,, if Stevens didnt get hurt I doubt you can say the Penguins would have definetly won that game
Thought the injury had happened earlier. Regardless, not having to play the Penguins was a huge bonus IMO. As I mentioned earlier I can't really comment on any time prior to the '93 Habs squad so I'm not calling them the worst of all time by any means, just probably the weakest squad (at least on paper) I recall watching.

Transplanted Caper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 11:51 AM
  #73
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisent View Post
But there regular season was. Slipped in with 87 points, 6 teams with more points. The division they played in was not that strong either. They had basically four scorers (including Dahlin who disappeared in the play offs and Robinson who is a defender). I don`t subtract Roy from that theam but undoubtedly for me he was the factor they won the Cup.
The 85/86 Habs regular season team was just an above average team. The 85/86 PLAYOFF Habs were a far, far better team than the regular season version.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 01:55 PM
  #74
ScaredStreit
Registered User
 
ScaredStreit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 7,821
vCash: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Zilla View Post
Not sure about Stanley Cup winners, although the 81-82 Vancouver Canucks had the easiest road to the Stanley Cup, as they never played any teams above 500 on their way to challenging the Islanders in the final. That is the year the LA Kings knocked out the favored Oilers in the first round.
That is very true, but the Islanders did destroy them in the finals. As for Tampa, I don't consider them an upset for the cup at all. They were the first seed in the East-second place in the NHL. How on Earth is that weak? Their team was much better than it is now-if not for the salary cap they'd be a great team. They'd still have their big three, Boyle and their underrated Fedotenko. Add in Kubina and Khabiboulin. That's a pretty strong team.

ScaredStreit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2007, 04:06 PM
  #75
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn View Post
OK, let's go over this really slowly so that you understand the problem here.

This thread, it's called "worst teams to win the cup". Notice that key word in there? Win. It's kind of vital to to the whole topic.

See the category of teams that have "won" the Stanley Cup doesn't include teams that made it to the finals and didn't win, or teams that failed to make the finals, or teams that failed to make the playoffs. It really does only refer to teams that, well, won the Stanley Cup. Hence, saying that any team in that category compares favourably to a team that didn't (wait for it...) win... the Stanley Cup is kind of irrelevant if we're comparing teams within that category.

Hence my confusion at why saying the '86 or '93 Habs were better than the '82 Canucks is of any relevance to the topic at hand. It's kind of like if I said "Geez, why are people being so hard on the '95 Devils, they were WAY better than the '06 Oilers". See, that doesn't really help my case at all, because the '06 Oilers didn't win the Stanley Cup. If anything, it would just kind of make me sound like some loser who just irrelevantly brings up the Oilers because he wants to take a shot at the team. (Not that I am casting any aspersions on you, Ogopogo, as I'm sure your motivations were completely legitimate, and have nothing but respect for the keen analytical skills which you frequently demonstrate).

But yeah... I am a little confused as to why the '82 Canucks (who, for the record, didn't win the Stanley Cup) are of any relevance to the discussion?

Maybe I just need to do some more research!
I was pulling a team out of the air to make a comparison. I was not in any way trying to say the '82 Canucks were Stanley Cup champions. I was simply using them as a comparison to say that the Canadiens were not as weak as the 82 Canucks.

MXD understood the point I was making. It isn't that big of a deal, is it?

Ogopogo* 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 10:00 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.