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.

Rate Team Canada's (Canada Cup) rosters for 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2010, 05:59 PM
  #1
Habsfan18
Registered User
 
Habsfan18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,477
vCash: 500
Rate Team Canada's (Canada Cup) rosters for 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991

Rate the rosters, from 1-4 (1 being the best) on how they look on paper. Also take into account the level of play that these players were playing at, at this point in their careers.

1981:

Barry Beck
Mike Bossy
Ray Bourque
Marcel Dionne
Ron Duguay
Don Edwards (G)
Brian Engblom
Bob Gainey
Danny Gare
Clark Gillies
Butch Goring
Wayne Gretzky
Craig Hartsburg
Guy Lafleur
Ken Linseman
Mike Liut (G)
Rick Middleton
Gilbert Perreault
Denis Potvin
Paun Reinhart
Larry Robinson
Billy Smith (G)
Bryan Trottier

1984:

Glenn Anderson
Brian Bellows
Mike Bossy
Bob Bourne
Ray Bourque
Paul Coffey
Grant Fuhr (G)
Mike Gartner
Michel Goulet
Randy Gregg
Wayne Gretzky
Charlie Huddy
Rejean Lemelin (G)
Kevin Lowe
Mark Messier
Rick Middleton
Pete Peeters (G)
Larry Robinson
Peter Stastny
Brent Sutter
John Tonelli
Doug Wilson
Steve Yzerman

1987:

Glenn Anderson
Ray Bourque
Doug Crossman
Paul Coffey
Kevin Dineen
Grant Fuhr (G)
Mike Gartner
Doug Gilmour
Wayne Gretzky
Michel Goulet
Craig Hartsburg
Dale Hawerchuk
Ron Hextall (G)
Kelly Hrudey (G)
Claude Lemieux
Mario Lemieux
Mark Messier
Larry Murphy
James Patrick
Brian Propp
Normand Rochefort
Brent Sutter
Rick Tocchet

1991:

Ed Belfour (G)
Sean Burke (G)
Paul Coffey
Shayne Corson
Russ Courtnall
Eric Desjardins
Theoren Fleury
Dirk Graham
Wayne Gretzky
Dale Hawerchuk
Steve Larmer
Eric Lindros
Al MacInnis
Mark Messier
Larry Murphy
Bill Ranford (G)
Luc Robitaille
Brendan Shanahan
Steve Smith
Scott Stevens
Brent Sutter
Mark Tinordi
Rick Tocchet

Habsfan18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2010, 06:34 PM
  #2
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
87=1
81=2
84=3
91=4

Looking at the 91 roster, one has to wonder what went wrong in the selection process imo.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2010, 07:40 PM
  #3
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Ranking

In order 1 to 4. 1987,1991, 1984, 1981.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2010, 07:46 PM
  #4
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
87=1
81=2
84=3
91=4

Looking at the 91 roster, one has to wonder what went wrong in the selection process imo.
To answer your question about 1991 it was truly a weird year. On paper if you looked at the NHL players at the time you would assume that Canada would have had a stacked team. They didn't. So many things came up. Lemieux and Bourque chose not to play although Bourque was perfectly healthy. Roy was suspiciously not asked while Ranford, Belfour and Burke were the goalies. I can see the first two but Burke? Yikes. Messier barely ended up playing and needed Gretzky to convince him. Oates wasn't asked. Yzerman believe it or not was cut. Neely was injured. Not sure why Recchi wasn't there. Sakic wasn't asked either, Lindros who was 18, was however. Hull chose to play for Team USA, which was the wrong choice. Then there were guys like Bellows, Francis, Nieuwendyk who were bubble guys to start with and just weren't asked.

That being said Canada still had a good enough team to win and their roster on paper still wasn't bad at all. And they never lost a game in the tournament.

But here is my rankings:

1987 - Is there any other choice?

1984 - First off, this team won and they did it against some super competition like the Russians. On paper it's still a great team. Gretzky, Bossy, Messier, Anderson, Gartner, Goulet, Middleton and a solid defense of Robinson, Wilson, Coffey, Bourque. Goalies could have been better, but both Peeters and Lemelin were good choices at that time and Fuhr was young. In 1984 maybe only Smith would have been as good of a choice in net.

1991 - This team won even if it could have looked a lot stronger. Still pretty good though. And while the Russians weren't quite as good the Americans had a very strong team that was difficult to beat.

1981 - Got to put this team last. Just have to. On paper they look fine. But there were bad decisions right from the word go. I understand the "old guard" was in a little bit of a transition with the newbies but they still left out some good ones. Players like Sittler, McDonald, Shutt, Barber, Clarke were left out and it wasn't as if these guys were seniors either, they were all 28-32 years old. The biggest thing was on defense. It was extremely weak. Potvin and Robinson were there and I realize Bourque was great when he was young but it was just a really bad time for defensemen in Canada. Carlyle didn't even make the team and he won the Norris. Coffey was a rookie, Wilson hadn't won his Norris yet, Lapointe and Savard and Park were older although Park may not have looked out of place. Orr was long retired as well. There just weren't a whole lot of options.

In net was the biggest mistake. I am not going to grill on Liut for the one bad game because I've done that enough. The mistake was NOT having Smith the #1 goalie from the start. He had two Cups to his name just fresh off the last one. Liut had two seasons to his name. Edwards was a little more seasoned but wasn't Smith either in big games. I know Smith got injured during the tourny but if he was #1 from the get go maybe things are different. This team blew the last game to Russia but they had two lacklustre games prior to that. They beat USA 8-3 but the game was tied halfway through the 3rd. Then in the semis they looked mediocre to the USA in a 4-1 victory. Maybe if Perreault doesn't break his foot things are different, but there are too many what ifs with this team. They are at the bottom of this list.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2010, 09:48 PM
  #5
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
To answer your question about 1991 it was truly a weird year. On paper if you looked at the NHL players at the time you would assume that Canada would have had a stacked team. They didn't. So many things came up. Lemieux and Bourque chose not to play although Bourque was perfectly healthy. Roy was suspiciously not asked while Ranford, Belfour and Burke were the goalies. I can see the first two but Burke? Yikes. Messier barely ended up playing and needed Gretzky to convince him. Oates wasn't asked. Yzerman believe it or not was cut. Neely was injured. Not sure why Recchi wasn't there. Sakic wasn't asked either, Lindros who was 18, was however. Hull chose to play for Team USA, which was the wrong choice. Then there were guys like Bellows, Francis, Nieuwendyk who were bubble guys to start with and just weren't asked.

That being said Canada still had a good enough team to win and their roster on paper still wasn't bad at all. And they never lost a game in the tournament.

But here is my rankings:

1987 - Is there any other choice?

1984 - First off, this team won and they did it against some super competition like the Russians. On paper it's still a great team. Gretzky, Bossy, Messier, Anderson, Gartner, Goulet, Middleton and a solid defense of Robinson, Wilson, Coffey, Bourque. Goalies could have been better, but both Peeters and Lemelin were good choices at that time and Fuhr was young. In 1984 maybe only Smith would have been as good of a choice in net.

1991 - This team won even if it could have looked a lot stronger. Still pretty good though. And while the Russians weren't quite as good the Americans had a very strong team that was difficult to beat.

1981 - Got to put this team last. Just have to. On paper they look fine. But there were bad decisions right from the word go. I understand the "old guard" was in a little bit of a transition with the newbies but they still left out some good ones. Players like Sittler, McDonald, Shutt, Barber, Clarke were left out and it wasn't as if these guys were seniors either, they were all 28-32 years old. The biggest thing was on defense. It was extremely weak. Potvin and Robinson were there and I realize Bourque was great when he was young but it was just a really bad time for defensemen in Canada. Carlyle didn't even make the team and he won the Norris. Coffey was a rookie, Wilson hadn't won his Norris yet, Lapointe and Savard and Park were older although Park may not have looked out of place. Orr was long retired as well. There just weren't a whole lot of options.

In net was the biggest mistake. I am not going to grill on Liut for the one bad game because I've done that enough. The mistake was NOT having Smith the #1 goalie from the start. He had two Cups to his name just fresh off the last one. Liut had two seasons to his name. Edwards was a little more seasoned but wasn't Smith either in big games. I know Smith got injured during the tourny but if he was #1 from the get go maybe things are different. This team blew the last game to Russia but they had two lacklustre games prior to that. They beat USA 8-3 but the game was tied halfway through the 3rd. Then in the semis they looked mediocre to the USA in a 4-1 victory. Maybe if Perreault doesn't break his foot things are different, but there are too many what ifs with this team. They are at the bottom of this list.
Yzerman was cut for Dirk Graham. I remember it, but If you go by whats on paper without knowing the results that team was pretty weak in comparison imo.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2010, 10:11 PM
  #6
Scott1980
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 371
vCash: 500
Perreault was playing unconscious in that '81 Canada Cup. Honestly, that was some of the best hockey I've ever seen him play. Okay, I know who was his center, but did they ever click!

Assuming Kevin Lowe makes the Hall of Fame, doesn't the '84 team have 12 HOF? Oh, Stastny played? 13 then. That's better than I remember it. Plus a few guys like Middleton, Bellows and Wilson who just miss being HOF. Also, Dennis Savard, Al Secord, Scott Stevens, Sylvian Turgeon and Rick Vaive were in training camp.

I give the '87 team the nod!

Scott1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2010, 10:22 PM
  #7
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Roy was suspiciously not asked while Ranford, Belfour and Burke were the goalies.
Roy was asked, but a sinus operation in August 1991 kept him out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Oates wasn't asked. Yzerman believe it or not was cut. Neely was injured. Not sure why Recchi wasn't there. Sakic wasn't asked either, Lindros who was 18, was however. Hull chose to play for Team USA, which was the wrong choice. Then there were guys like Bellows, Francis, Nieuwendyk who were bubble guys to start with and just weren't asked.
In fact, Oates, Sakic, Bellows and Nieuwendyk were asked and all of them attended Team Canada's training camp. However, Nieuwendyk hurt his left knee during training and went home, while Sakic, Oates and Bellows were cut just like Yzerman. Pretty astonishing, but Coach Keenan justified his selection: "The idea was to pick people who would make the necessary sacrifices. We selected the lineup most likely to win the tournament, though not necessarily the most entertaining or thrilling one." (How perception changes. Yzerman and Sakic, flashy but not determinated, they don't have what it takes to win...sound familiar? Ovechkin and Syomin anyone? Nevertheless, Sakic and Yzerman became Canada's patron saints, so just sit back and watch the Caps grow.)
Canada won the Cup, so it kinda worked out right for Keenan, but still, a strange selection for the only 'best on best' tournament back then.
Recchi, by the way, opted against participation because of insurance issues. He was a FA at that time and would have had to
play without health insurance or purchase his own insurance.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2010, 10:34 PM
  #8
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
(How perception changes. Yzerman and Sakic, flashy but not determinated, they don't have what it takes to win...sound familiar? Ovechkin and Syomin anyone? Nevertheless, Sakic and Yzerman became Canada's patron saints, so just sit back and watch the Caps grow.)
That is some flawed logic right there.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 12:27 AM
  #9
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Roy was asked, but a sinus operation in August 1991 kept him out.
Hmm, I don't seem to remember that. I remember in 1996 when he was just flat out not even asked to play for some peculiar reason. Might have been because Scotty Bowman originally picked the team

Quote:
In fact, Oates, Sakic, Bellows and Nieuwendyk were asked and all of them attended Team Canada's training camp. However, Nieuwendyk hurt his left knee during training and went home, while Sakic, Oates and Bellows were cut just like Yzerman. Pretty astonishing, but Coach Keenan justified his selection: "The idea was to pick people who would make the necessary sacrifices. We selected the lineup most likely to win the tournament, though not necessarily the most entertaining or thrilling one." (How perception changes. Yzerman and Sakic, flashy but not determinated, they don't have what it takes to win...sound familiar? Ovechkin and Syomin anyone? Nevertheless, Sakic and Yzerman became Canada's patron saints, so just sit back and watch the Caps grow.)
Canada won the Cup, so it kinda worked out right for Keenan, but still, a strange selection for the only 'best on best' tournament back then.
Recchi, by the way, opted against participation because of insurance issues. He was a FA at that time and would have had to
play without health insurance or purchase his own insurance.
For some reason I just seem to remember Oates being flat out never asked. Oh well, neither made the team anyways and it was a rather odd team in the first place. Yes they won but Keenan had this nasty power trip against Yzerman. I mean in all honesty the guy was a world class talent. Maybe he didn't fit a role he liked but when you have a guy like Yzerman you just simply make room for the guy. Look at Team Canada 2010. They found room for Staal and Toews and Richards because it just didn't make any sense to leave them off the team. Keenan dodged a bullet at that time

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 12:58 AM
  #10
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,155
vCash: 500
Since this is about how strong each team appears on paper as opposed to how they actually faired, I won't be penalizing 1981 for being spanked by the Soviets.

1. 1981 - I like the bottom six forwards on this team, the top end defencemen and I prefer Smith to every other goaltender listed.
2. 1987 - For a team that many consider one of the best international teams ever the depth seems surprisingly lacking to me.
3. 1984 - Somewhat weak at forward. I probably would have put them at #2 if Trottier had played for Canada.
4. 1991 - As other have said, some of the best players in the world either didn't bother playing or were cut from the team.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 04:30 AM
  #11
Gylf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Timrå
Country: Sweden
Posts: 123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
To answer your question about 1991 it was truly a weird year. On paper if you looked at the NHL players at the time you would assume that Canada would have had a stacked team. They didn't. So many things came up. Lemieux and Bourque chose not to play although Bourque was perfectly healthy. Roy was suspiciously not asked while Ranford, Belfour and Burke were the goalies. I can see the first two but Burke? Yikes. Messier barely ended up playing and needed Gretzky to convince him. Oates wasn't asked. Yzerman believe it or not was cut. Neely was injured. Not sure why Recchi wasn't there. Sakic wasn't asked either, Lindros who was 18, was however. Hull chose to play for Team USA, which was the wrong choice. Then there were guys like Bellows, Francis, Nieuwendyk who were bubble guys to start with and just weren't asked.

That being said Canada still had a good enough team to win and their roster on paper still wasn't bad at all. And they never lost a game in the tournament.
I really like the 1991 team. Talk about picking the best players for every role in a team. A guy like Yzerman had a bad defensive game at the time and Graham scored the last goal of the tournament after defending the 3-2 lead in the last minute. Although the only good competition came from USA as the Czechs and Soviets were on a free fall at the time, they looked like didn´t care. Sweden choked as I remember it. Some guys were getting old and guys like Sundin and Lidström was still very young. Bad goaltending too.

The 87-team is clearly the best though, Gretzky and Lemieux on the same line. I wonder why Lemiuex didn´t make the 84-team? Yzerman was on the roster and Lemieux had scored 282 points in QMJHL. He must clearly have been seen as a better talent than Yzerman? Was it like Crosby and Torino 2006? "The whole world" wanted him on the roster and everyone will always wonder how he didn´t make the team?

Another funny thing about 1981 and 1984 is that the 81-team played outplayed everyone in the round-robin but were crushed in the final and the 84-team came 4th in the round-robin and beat Soviets in sudden death and got an "easy" final against Sweden.


Last edited by Gylf: 08-22-2010 at 04:38 AM.
Gylf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 04:44 AM
  #12
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,320
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
To answer your question about 1991 it was truly a weird year. On paper if you looked at the NHL players at the time you would assume that Canada would have had a stacked team. They didn't. So many things came up. Lemieux and Bourque chose not to play although Bourque was perfectly healthy. Roy was suspiciously not asked while Ranford, Belfour and Burke were the goalies. I can see the first two but Burke? Yikes. Messier barely ended up playing and needed Gretzky to convince him. Oates wasn't asked. Yzerman believe it or not was cut. Neely was injured. Not sure why Recchi wasn't there. Sakic wasn't asked either, Lindros who was 18, was however. Hull chose to play for Team USA, which was the wrong choice. Then there were guys like Bellows, Francis, Nieuwendyk who were bubble guys to start with and just weren't asked.

That being said Canada still had a good enough team to win and their roster on paper still wasn't bad at all. And they never lost a game in the tournament.

But here is my rankings:

1987 - Is there any other choice?

1984 - First off, this team won and they did it against some super competition like the Russians. On paper it's still a great team. Gretzky, Bossy, Messier, Anderson, Gartner, Goulet, Middleton and a solid defense of Robinson, Wilson, Coffey, Bourque. Goalies could have been better, but both Peeters and Lemelin were good choices at that time and Fuhr was young. In 1984 maybe only Smith would have been as good of a choice in net.

1991 - This team won even if it could have looked a lot stronger. Still pretty good though. And while the Russians weren't quite as good the Americans had a very strong team that was difficult to beat.

1981 - Got to put this team last. Just have to. On paper they look fine. But there were bad decisions right from the word go. I understand the "old guard" was in a little bit of a transition with the newbies but they still left out some good ones. Players like Sittler, McDonald, Shutt, Barber, Clarke were left out and it wasn't as if these guys were seniors either, they were all 28-32 years old. The biggest thing was on defense. It was extremely weak. Potvin and Robinson were there and I realize Bourque was great when he was young but it was just a really bad time for defensemen in Canada. Carlyle didn't even make the team and he won the Norris. Coffey was a rookie, Wilson hadn't won his Norris yet, Lapointe and Savard and Park were older although Park may not have looked out of place. Orr was long retired as well. There just weren't a whole lot of options.

In net was the biggest mistake. I am not going to grill on Liut for the one bad game because I've done that enough. The mistake was NOT having Smith the #1 goalie from the start. He had two Cups to his name just fresh off the last one. Liut had two seasons to his name. Edwards was a little more seasoned but wasn't Smith either in big games. I know Smith got injured during the tourny but if he was #1 from the get go maybe things are different. This team blew the last game to Russia but they had two lacklustre games prior to that. They beat USA 8-3 but the game was tied halfway through the 3rd. Then in the semis they looked mediocre to the USA in a 4-1 victory. Maybe if Perreault doesn't break his foot things are different, but there are too many what ifs with this team. They are at the bottom of this list.
Agree with your comments and rankings.

Great avatar

timekeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 04:45 AM
  #13
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1980 View Post
Assuming Kevin Lowe makes the Hall of Fame, doesn't the '84 team have 12 HOF? Oh, Stastny played? 13 then. That's better than I remember it. Plus a few guys like Middleton, Bellows and Wilson who just miss being HOF. Also, Dennis Savard, Al Secord, Scott Stevens, Sylvian Turgeon and Rick Vaive were in training camp.

I give the '87 team the nod!
First, why would you assume that?

Second, Brian Bellows is not a "just missed the HHOF" guy.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 10:25 AM
  #14
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
"The idea was to pick people who would make the necessary sacrifices. We selected the lineup most likely to win the tournament, though not necessarily the most entertaining or thrilling one." (How perception changes. Yzerman and Sakic, flashy but not determinated, they don't have what it takes to win...sound familiar? Ovechkin and Syomin anyone? Nevertheless, Sakic and Yzerman became Canada's patron saints, so just sit back and watch the Caps grow.)
Or they could turn out like all the young stars over the years who had some early playoff exits, but never went on to win a Stanley Cup.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 10:40 AM
  #15
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
Or they could turn out like all the young stars over the years who had some early playoff exits, but never went on to win a Stanley Cup.
Yeah, could turn out like that, but who's to say by now? It's to early to write them off.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 12:26 PM
  #16
vadim sharifijanov
Rrbata
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Yeah, could turn out like that, but who's to say by now? It's to early to write them off.
who is writing off ovechkin?

after that '91 team, there always guys like dirk graham on team canada, so it seems that the success of keenan's idiosyncratic roster was influential. in retrospect, the only surprising thing about that selection is that carbonneau was never given that spot in his career. in '91, graham was a keenan guy obviously, and he was coming off a selke season where he captained his team to the best record in the league. no brainer.

the names that stand out to me on that team are corson, courtnall, and desjardins. all good players, though desjardins had only played half a season in the league at that point, and i know corson would go on to make the '98 team, but courtnall and corson seem out of place on a team that already has graham and sutter, and i remember being genuinely shocked that desjardins was on the team and rob blake (who had one hell of a rookie year) wasn't. were these pat burns picks?

re: yzerman, sakic, and oates, there were only so many center spots on that team. gretzky and messier were no brainers, and, it seems silly now because hawerchuk had been slowly declining for a couple of years, but they were all considered in the same league of all-star center. the difference is that hawerchuk had played for keenan in '87, was successful, and had shown that he could play a non-scoring role. sakic was young and looked to some as a big scorer on a bad team guy, oates was considered many as a product of hull (i.e., if hull had played for canada, oates would almost certainly have made that team), and between yzerman and hawerchuk, it actually makes sense to go with the one you know.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 01:19 PM
  #17
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,419
vCash: 500
For me it is:

87
84
91
81

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 05:36 PM
  #18
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
Quote:
the names that stand out to me on that team are corson, courtnall, and desjardins. all good players, though desjardins had only played half a season in the league at that point, and i know corson would go on to make the '98 team, but courtnall and corson seem out of place on a team that already has graham and sutter, and i remember being genuinely shocked that desjardins was on the team and rob blake (who had one hell of a rookie year) wasn't. were these pat burns picks?
Not to nitpick, but Desjardins had played 3 NHL seasons up until that point. But I wouldn't have put him on either. Thank Ray Bourque for being perfectly healthy and choosing not to play I guess.

Quote:
re: yzerman, sakic, and oates, there were only so many center spots on that team. gretzky and messier were no brainers, and, it seems silly now because hawerchuk had been slowly declining for a couple of years, but they were all considered in the same league of all-star center. the difference is that hawerchuk had played for keenan in '87, was successful, and had shown that he could play a non-scoring role. sakic was young and looked to some as a big scorer on a bad team guy, oates was considered many as a product of hull (i.e., if hull had played for canada, oates would almost certainly have made that team), and between yzerman and hawerchuk, it actually makes sense to go with the one you know.
I hear ya, in retrospect some will think it's insane that Stamkos didn't make the 2010 team all the while tying for the NHL lead in goals. I guess the same idea is there with Oates. But the truth is many of us complained about Stamkos not being there and even then Oates was a guy who was noticeably missing. And like I said before, I don't care about the roles so much, but when you have Steve Yzerman for the pickings you do whatever you have to do to put him on the team. The 2010 team didn't leave Staal off the team did they? And they were correct. Sometimes a player is too good to ignore and even in 1991 Yzerman couldn't have done much more in his career to get a spot on the team. It was a Keenan gamble.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 05:53 PM
  #19
oilersfan11
Registered User
 
oilersfan11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 11,540
vCash: 50
1987
1984
1991
1981

oilersfan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 02:38 AM
  #20
greatgazoo
Registered User
 
greatgazoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cobourg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
1. 87 (Gretzky at his peak with Lemieux just starting his)
2. 91 (Gretzky still playing lights-out with Messier at his peak backing him up)
3. 84 (watered down by Sather's picking of too many Oilers (ie) Gregg & Huddy)
4. 81 (they didn't win when it mattered)

greatgazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 08:49 AM
  #21
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatgazoo View Post
1. 87 (Gretzky at his peak with Lemieux just starting his)
2. 91 (Gretzky still playing lights-out with Messier at his peak backing him up)
3. 84 (watered down by Sather's picking of too many Oilers (ie) Gregg & Huddy)
4. 81 (they didn't win when it mattered)
We are suppose to be ranking them based on how the look on paper. Not winning when it mattered shouldn't even be considered, but seems it is by most.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 09:03 AM
  #22
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
The Old Board Paradox

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
We are suppose to be ranking them based on how the look on paper. Not winning when it mattered shouldn't even be considered, but seems it is by most.
The old board paradox in another form. Stanley Cup counting is bad, Canada Cup counting is good.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 12:18 PM
  #23
vadim sharifijanov
Rrbata
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Not to nitpick, but Desjardins had played 3 NHL seasons up until that point. But I wouldn't have put him on either. Thank Ray Bourque for being perfectly healthy and choosing not to play I guess.



I hear ya, in retrospect some will think it's insane that Stamkos didn't make the 2010 team all the while tying for the NHL lead in goals. I guess the same idea is there with Oates. But the truth is many of us complained about Stamkos not being there and even then Oates was a guy who was noticeably missing. And like I said before, I don't care about the roles so much, but when you have Steve Yzerman for the pickings you do whatever you have to do to put him on the team. The 2010 team didn't leave Staal off the team did they? And they were correct. Sometimes a player is too good to ignore and even in 1991 Yzerman couldn't have done much more in his career to get a spot on the team. It was a Keenan gamble.
hmm, i remembered desjardins being a rookie that year, having played bits and pieces of seasons before, but i just looked at his stats again and you're right, he'd played a lot more games to that point than i thought. still, very surprising that a 22 year old guy who had never played more than 62 NHL games in a season would make the team.

yeah, i'm with you. not taking yzerman was a crime, especially since he could do anything that courtnall could do, but obviously much better. my point was just that all of those omissions seemed more defensible at the time (e.g. if i squint, i can accept '91 hawerchuk over yzerman because of experience) and came to look more and more ludicrous as time goes on.

the team was loaded with keenan guys, or keenan-type guys. you could make a great case for graham, tocchet, larmer, and sutter being there either way, but the problem is not any one guy individually, but too many "role" players, many of them there to play very similar roles. it felt like keenan was trying to make a point about how he didn't need yzermans, that he could roll into an all-star game with his sutters and still win. lucky for him, his ego didn't get in the way of the team winning.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 01:21 PM
  #24
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
hmm, i remembered desjardins being a rookie that year, having played bits and pieces of seasons before, but i just looked at his stats again and you're right, he'd played a lot more games to that point than i thought. still, very surprising that a 22 year old guy who had never played more than 62 NHL games in a season would make the team.

yeah, i'm with you. not taking yzerman was a crime, especially since he could do anything that courtnall could do, but obviously much better. my point was just that all of those omissions seemed more defensible at the time (e.g. if i squint, i can accept '91 hawerchuk over yzerman because of experience) and came to look more and more ludicrous as time goes on.

the team was loaded with keenan guys, or keenan-type guys. you could make a great case for graham, tocchet, larmer, and sutter being there either way, but the problem is not any one guy individually, but too many "role" players, many of them there to play very similar roles. it felt like keenan was trying to make a point about how he didn't need yzermans, that he could roll into an all-star game with his sutters and still win. lucky for him, his ego didn't get in the way of the team winning.
IMO the team won in spite of all the poor decisions made by Keenan, not because of them.

I voted them last, not because they played bad, they didn't. I voted them last because many of our best players were left off the team for whatever reasons. The roster on paper looks the weakest to me.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 04:23 PM
  #25
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,970
vCash: 500
1987
1981
1984
1991

Zine 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 06:23 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.