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.

Most underachieving teams ever

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-08-2008, 08:37 PM
  #1
captainpierce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 232
vCash: 500
Most underachieving teams ever

We've had a number of threads with names like "best lineup ever" or "most stacked team ever," so I thought we should have a thread on teams that underachieved the most relative to their talent level.

captainpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 08:45 PM
  #2
Snipeshow
Registered User
 
Snipeshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Newmarket, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,668
vCash: 500
Pick a Sens team from the past couple years. They had some real good teams, back with Hossa, Chara et al.

As well, some Sharks teams have been good as of late.

I'll go into some earlier teams from 90s, 80s, 70s when I get back.

Snipeshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:08 PM
  #3
Pascal
Registered User
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,467
vCash: 500
Any Rangers team between 95-00.

Pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:09 PM
  #4
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipeshow View Post
Pick a Sens team from the past couple years. They had some real good teams, back with Hossa, Chara et al.

As well, some Sharks teams have been good as of late.

I'll go into some earlier teams from 90s, 80s, 70s when I get back.
I think the list begins and ends with the Chicago Black Hawks of the 1960's and early 1970's.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:10 PM
  #5
Selanne08*
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,899
vCash: 500
the Avs team with Selanne and Kariya. 2003-2004? or was it 2002-2003?

I think 03-04. Anyway, that team was an allstar line up.

Selanne08* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:45 PM
  #6
Riffo*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,226
vCash: 500
Boston Bruins, 2002 and 2004 featuring playoffs chokers like Joe Thornton, Glen Murray, Mike Knuble, PJ Axelsson.

Riffo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:19 PM
  #7
Passchendaele
Registered User
 
Passchendaele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laval, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal View Post
Any Rangers team between 95-00.
I'd say more like 2001-04.

Passchendaele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:32 PM
  #8
Airborne Troll*
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,862
vCash: 500
Last year's Sens

Airborne Troll* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:36 PM
  #9
Al Bundy*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,073
vCash: 500
The Sharks are bigger underachievers than the Sens.

Ottawa at least can claim they made a recent trip to the Cup Finals, unlike San Jose.

Al Bundy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 11:35 PM
  #10
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
The Rangers from 2001-2004 were atrociously bad for their skill level.

Leetch, Richter, Lindros, Bure, Messier, Fleury, Kovalev, Nedved, Holik, Jagr, Carter, Rucinsky, etc...

No playoffs.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 11:54 PM
  #11
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
 
EpochLink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Bundy View Post
The Sharks are bigger underachievers than the Sens.

Ottawa at least can claim they made a recent trip to the Cup Finals, unlike San Jose.
Word, unless San Jose can reach the cup finals, they are the undisputed underachievers.

Calgary Flames post lockout gets a vote for me.

Vancouver Canucks from 2002/2003 til 2005/2006 aka Burke/Crawford era.

EpochLink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 01:16 AM
  #12
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
The Rangers from 2001-2004 were atrociously bad for their skill level.

Leetch, Richter, Lindros, Bure, Messier, Fleury, Kovalev, Nedved, Holik, Jagr, Carter, Rucinsky, etc...

No playoffs.
I think you named the problem right there. Besides an aging Leetch who was on their blueline again?

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 06:20 AM
  #13
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
The Rangers from 2001-2004 were atrociously bad for their skill level.

Leetch, Richter, Lindros, Bure, Messier, Fleury, Kovalev, Nedved, Holik, Jagr, Carter, Rucinsky, etc...

No playoffs.
Jagr played full season as a Ranger after the lockout and he did carry them into the playoffs.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 06:49 AM
  #14
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,544
vCash: 500
What about the 80's Caps? They had some pretty good teams for a lot of the decade, but never got out of the Patrick Division in the playoffs until 89/90 (which ironically was there worst regular season in 8 years).

JaymzB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 06:57 AM
  #15
ArGarBarGar
Global Moderator
Defense Please
 
ArGarBarGar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 24,816
vCash: 500
2002-2003 Red Wings. Coming off winning the Stanley cup with hall of famers and getting swept in the first round against Anaheim.

ArGarBarGar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 07:07 AM
  #16
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
The Minnesota North Stars of the 80's. I really thought they had the ingredients to become a great team, but other than ending the Habs run in 1980 and getting smoked by the Isles in the finals, they never really accomplished what I thought they were capable of. The turning point in the franchise was taking Lawton, instead of Yzerman or Lafontaine in 1984. What the hell was Sonmour thinking? One of those guys may have put them over the top.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 07:15 AM
  #17
Palinka
Registered User
 
Palinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
The Minnesota North Stars of the 80's. I really thought they had the ingredients to become a great team, but other than ending the Habs run in 1980 and getting smoked by the Isles in the finals, they never really accomplished what I thought they were capable of. The turning point in the franchise was taking Lawton, instead of Yzerman or Lafontaine in 1984. What the hell was Sonmour thinking? One of those guys may have put them over the top.
He couldn't see what everyone else could.

Palinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 07:21 AM
  #18
brianscot
Registered User
 
brianscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: portland, me
Posts: 1,330
vCash: 500
The early to mid 80's Minnesota North Stars.

No team outside of Edmonton or the Islanders drafted theoretically better during the era (Bobby Smith, Craig Hartsburg, Brian Bellows, Steve Payne, Neal Broten, Dino Ciccarelli, Tom McCarthy, Don Beaupre, etc).

A classic example of how name prospects/players don't add up to a winning unit if the unit lacks chemistry and heart.

brianscot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 07:44 AM
  #19
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,042
vCash: 500
The 1993 Quebec Nordiques were young, but oh so talented. If I recall correctly, their first two lines consisted of...

Valeri Kamensky-Joe Sakic-Andrei Kovalenko
Martin Rucinsky-Mats Sundin-Owen Nolan


Then a third line anchored by Mike Ricci-Scott Young, and then emerging tough guy Chris Simon and steady Claude Lapointe on the fourth...with Steve Duchesne quarterbacking the PP. Man, I loved that team, but they did nothing in the playoffs after jumping out in front of the Habs.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 09:14 AM
  #20
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
I'm going to add, the 1990's Penguin squads. That team really should have won at least 1 or 2 more cups considering they were far and away the most talented group of players in the NHL at the time. The early 70's Bruins should have won more cups and the early 70's Hawks should have won at least one cup.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 09:19 AM
  #21
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
2002-2003 Red Wings. Coming off winning the Stanley cup with hall of famers and getting swept in the first round against Anaheim.
I thought it was a choke at the time... but Anaheim did go to game 7 of the SCF. Rare to see a goalie put in a performance like Giguere did that year.

The Rangers win - unbelievable veteran talent and no playoffs. At least most of the teams being mentioned made the playoffs and won a round or two.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 04:13 PM
  #22
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,387
vCash: 500
In recent years, I'd say the '06 Sens. You've got Alfredsson, Heatley, Spezza, Havlat, Chara, Redden and Hasek (although he was injured in the PO). They had a good group of secondary players and a good defensive corps. Yet they blew it against Buffalo. It isnt wrong to suggest that this such team could have won 2-3 Cups in a row. But they lost a lot of depth after that.

The Bruins of the early '70s. They still won but they could have done a lot more. Esposito even says himself. In '71 and '74 they have the top 4 scorers in the NHL and both times are thwarted by a great goaltender. It happens, but that team should have scored with it's eyes shut.

The Hawks of '62-71. Look I know there was a study done on why they flopped, they did get a lack of secondary support after the big names but how in the world does that team only win once in '61? Hull, Mikita, Hall, Pilote are all Hall of Famers. Wharram isnt one, but was playing like one times in the '60s. They had decent secondary support with guys like McDonald, Mohns, and even a young Phil Esposito. Not to mention Dennis Hull and Pappin came later as well as Tony Esposito.

The Habs of the '40s. They had Lach and Richard in their primes. Blake was still great at the time and Bouchard was an anchor on defense. Not to mention Durnan might be the best goalie of the '40s. They might have fallen into the trap that the '60s Hawks had with lack of depth though, but that lineup alone should have faired better than a Cup in '44 and '46.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 04:34 PM
  #23
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
In recent years, I'd say the '06 Sens. You've got Alfredsson, Heatley, Spezza, Havlat, Chara, Redden and Hasek (although he was injured in the PO). They had a good group of secondary players and a good defensive corps. Yet they blew it against Buffalo. It isnt wrong to suggest that this such team could have won 2-3 Cups in a row. But they lost a lot of depth after that.

The Bruins of the early '70s. They still won but they could have done a lot more. Esposito even says himself. In '71 and '74 they have the top 4 scorers in the NHL and both times are thwarted by a great goaltender. It happens, but that team should have scored with it's eyes shut.

The Hawks of '62-71. Look I know there was a study done on why they flopped, they did get a lack of secondary support after the big names but how in the world does that team only win once in '61? Hull, Mikita, Hall, Pilote are all Hall of Famers. Wharram isnt one, but was playing like one times in the '60s. They had decent secondary support with guys like McDonald, Mohns, and even a young Phil Esposito. Not to mention Dennis Hull and Pappin came later as well as Tony Esposito.

The Habs of the '40s. They had Lach and Richard in their primes. Blake was still great at the time and Bouchard was an anchor on defense. Not to mention Durnan might be the best goalie of the '40s. They might have fallen into the trap that the '60s Hawks had with lack of depth though, but that lineup alone should have faired better than a Cup in '44 and '46.
that's a good example, i think. a similar case is the '30s leafs.

clancy, conacher, primeau, jackson, apps, day, drillon, ace bailey, horner, etc. but they only won once ('32).

they even managed to lose to the 14-25-9, '38 blackhawks, probably the worst team ever to win the cup.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2008, 04:36 PM
  #24
Koivu84*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,917
vCash: 500
http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagu...000331993.html

Koivu84* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2008, 02:12 PM
  #25
Gapper
 
Gapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 651
vCash: 500
The 99/00 to 02/03 Blues averaged 104 points and won a Presisent's trophy. However, they won just three series' in their four playoff appearences. With MacInnis and Pronger on defense they were unable to make a finals appearance. 2000 was the worst with Turek and Pronger having amazing seasons only to lose in the first round.

Gapper 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 11:13 PM.

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.