1990's-2000's: Colorado Avalanche vs Detroit Red Wings

[User9992]

1990's-2000's: Colorado Avalanche vs Detroit Red Wings


Who had better squad during 1990-2000's: Colorado Avalanche or 1990-2000's Detroit Red Wings?


Colorado Avalanche's best players during 1990-2000's: Patrick Roy, Adam Foote, Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Milan Hejduk etc.

Detroit Red Wings' best players during 1990-2000's: Nicklas Lidstrom, Steve Yzerman, Sergey Fedorov, Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Brendan Shanahan etc.

Click to read more...

 

[bathdog]

I consider the DPE Wings quite easily better in large due to depth, but you seem to be wanting to include post-lockout time? In which case it's not even remotely close.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Datsyuk and Zetterberg are post lockout guys, not part of the rivalry. Slight edge to Detroit though.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

For the entire two centuries? Detroit AINEC. From 95-05 when the rivalry existed it was very very close.

 

[Epsilon]

For core players it's relatively even:

Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan vs. Roy, Sakic, Forsberg, Foote

(note: this is my subjective assessment of who the "core" players were who where key contributors throughout the entire period)

Slight edge to the Red Wings in that all four core guys are HOFers whereas Foote is HOVG.

Now if one were to list out all the impact players that passed through those two teams over the 95-05 time period, I'd say Detroit comes out ahead. And obviously way ahead if one stretches things out to their last playoff meeting in '08.

 

[oconnor9sean]

I miss those late '90's Dallas/Detroit/Colorado battles.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The Avalanche took the playoff head-to-head 17 games to 13. Had Colorado taken Game 7 in 2002, it would have been seen as a largely one-sided rivalry. That wasn't the case, so it's narrowly the Avalanche. Their top-three players were series-changers who could help overcome Detroit's often overwhelming advantage in depth.

 

[Ace of Hades]

Giving it to Detroit.

 

[member 202355]

If the Avs had won those game 7s against Dallas in '99 and '00, the answer would be them.

 

[jw2]

Detroit by a few games.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Detroit was the better team, but blowing the best season in history sure doesn't do them any favors.

 

[GMR]

If we're counting both decades, it's not even close. Colorado stopped becoming relevant after the lockout. If we're just counting the 90's, it's still Detroit, because of the two Cups and advantage in Presidents trophies.

 

[threetimer*]

Depends on what the "good" squad means. In 99, the Avalanche were loaded. They had a huge scoring depth. But...

Dallas and Detroit were better teams in terms of balance.

Saying stuff like "had they taken Game 7... it would have been-" ...is outrageous. No one knows what would have happened under just slightly different circumstance.

What we know is what did happen. And what often did happen was that the Avs' game changers (be it Mr. Joe, Pete or Patrick) changed the game in favor of the opposition. I.e. they did not show up and lost. Or passed on winning goals from behind the crease -- and lost.

 

[Trendkill101]

Was always a huge Forsberg fan so I sided with the Avs as a kid during this rivalry but looking back I think the Red Wings had the slightly better team. Acquiring Shanahan might have been the move that gave them the edge. It became 3 elite forwards vs 2.

Voted Red Wings but it was close.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Based on actual series and championships won, the only correct answer is "close, but Wings."

Avs stars were a little better, but Wings easily had the better depth.

 

[bathdog]

Depends on what the "good" squad means. In 99, the Avalanche were loaded. They had a huge scoring depth. But...

Dallas and Detroit were better teams in terms of balance.

Saying stuff like "had they taken Game 7... it would have been-" ...is outrageous. No one knows what would have happened under just slightly different circumstance.

What we know is what did happen. And what often did happen was that the Avs' game changers (be it Mr. Joe, Pete or Patrick) changed the game in favor of the opposition. I.e. they did not show up and lost. Or passed on winning goals from behind the crease -- and lost.

In 1999 Avs got knocked out in the conference finals with Forsberg being their sole ppg player, while leading the entire playoffs in scoring without even playing the final round.

This is actually hilarious. With not showing up, are you referring to the Avs duo outproducing the Wings duo offensively in just about every measurable way?

The Avalanche took the playoff head-to-head 17 games to 13.

Avs seemed to struggle quite a lot with Dallas.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Avs seemed to struggle quite a lot with Dallas.

I wasn't factoring in their performance against other teams - just against each other.

 

[bathdog]

I wasn't factoring in their performance against other teams - just against each other.

Yeah, I know. It was just a general note. It's hard to argue Dallas a better team than Detroit over that era, but Colorado seemed to have large struggles with them.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yeah, I know. It was just a general note. It's hard to argue Dallas a better team than Detroit over that era, but Colorado seemed to have large struggles with them.

What's funny is that they ended up knocking out a strong regular season Dallas team pretty quick in 2004 and 2006 (5 games each). A bit removed from the prominent Roy/Belfour matchup though.

 

[threetimer*]

In 1999 Avs got knocked out in the conference finals with Forsberg being their sole ppg player, while leading the entire playoffs in scoring without even playing the final round.

This is actually hilarious. With not showing up, are you referring to the Avs duo outproducing the Wings duo offensively in just about every measurable way?



Avs seemed to struggle quite a lot with Dallas.

They outproduced almost everyone, usually in Game 1 – 5. Their knack for not doing that well in Game 6 and 7 is well documented too. Is it one of those measurable ways though, is it?

This thread is about comparing the Avs and Red Wings as a whole. The reason I mentioned those three is that the Avs stood and fell with them (unless they had Lemieux or hot Drury).

See, not because I want a giant spoon of Avs-friendly numbers thrown at me everywhere I go / post.

 

[Sentinel]

Wings but close.

Wings had the greater overall success in both President Trophies and Cups.

I'd give the slight edge in the top end talent to the Avs, mainly because of Roy. On those occasions when the Wings got comparable performance in net (Vernon in 97, Hasek in 02), Wings won convincingly. The depth easily goes to the Wings: Lapoint, McCarty,The Grind Line, etc, although Deadmarsh, Yelle, and Ricci were pretty good. On defense it's even (Blake, Foote, Bourque, Kasparaitis vs. Lidstrom, Murphy, Chelios, Fetisov, Vladdy).

Those were the Golden Years of my hockey experience.

 

[quoipourquoi]

They outproduced almost everyone, usually in Game 1 – 5. Their knack for not doing that well in Game 6 and 7 is well documented too. Is it one of those measurable ways though, is it?

1996-2004
Game 1: 16-9, .640
Game 2: 17-7, .708
Game 3: 10-15, .400
Game 4: 17-6, .739
Game 5: 14-7, .667
Game 6: 9-8, .529
Game 7: 4-5, .444

Well documented Game 3 struggles.

 

[bathdog]

They outproduced almost everyone, usually in Game 1 – 5. Their knack for not doing that well in Game 6 and 7 is well documented too. Is it one of those measurable ways though, is it?

This thread is about comparing the Avs and Red Wings as a whole. The reason I mentioned those three is that the Avs stood and fell with them (unless they had Lemieux or hot Drury).

See, not because I want a giant spoon of Avs-friendly numbers thrown at me everywhere I go / post.

Yzerman did. Fedorov didn't.

But this goes wayy deeper than PPG, thus Fedorov/Yzerman would have been even more interesting because while scoring less in general, they must have scored more somewhere crucial. Would be interesting to see just where they picked it up. Not unreasonable to think it was exactly where the Avs duos' grip usually loosened.

I know it's a lot of wor though.

Did you head back to review the numbers?

I'm not sure why you would refer to it as well documented as you made that post a mere 5 days ago. Convenient you would differentiate so strongly between Game 5 and Game 6, not agenda driven, right? Because you know I was unaware at the time of compiling them.

Shall we proceed to compare Stanley Cup finals production, as the Wings were the only one with a loss on such occasion?

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

The Avs really screwed themselves out of a few more championships IMO. Detroit and Dallas both realized the importance of top notch coaching as well as checking lines. Colorado was always super cocky, they hired random coaches with little to no experience, and would get rid of important depth players if they crossed Lacroix the wrong way. With the amount of talent that Colorado had when they initially moved from Quebec they should have been a dynasty. This is coming from an Avs fan.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The Avs really screwed themselves out of a few more championships IMO. Detroit and Dallas both realized the importance of top notch coaching as well as checking lines. Colorado was always super cocky, they hired random coaches with little to no experience, and would get rid of important depth players if they crossed Lacroix the wrong way. With the amount of talent that Colorado had when they initially moved from Quebec they should have been a dynasty. This is coming from an Avs fan.

Absolutely. Yelle was crucial at weathering the storm, because they were consistently losing bottom-6 matchups after the 1997 season. If not for him, it would have been brutal. Keane was a gift that seemed to be quickly squandered, and Ricci came at a price that paid off years later but hurt them in the short-term (1998-2000).

The Red Wings' Grind Line had much more character, and could be counted on in pressure situations as much as anybody.