80s Isles vs. '49-55 Red Wings

[Big Phil]

Which of these dynasties is better. Here's my the profile for both of them.

NY Islanders - Cups in '80, '81, '82, '83. Regular season points in that order: 91, 110, 118, 96. Twice led the league in points those years. HOFers are Bossy, Trottier, Potvin, Smith and Gilles.

Detroit - Cups in '50, '52, '54, '55. Regualr season points in order: 88, 100, 88, 95. Led the league in points all four times, plus the two non Cup years (51, '53). This was also a 70 game season. HOFers are Howe, Lindsay, Abel, Delvecchio, Kelly, Pronovost, Sawchuk.

Here's my take on it. The Islanders had a tough Cup final opponent in '80 in the Flyers who led the league in points. But in '81 Minnesota and '82 Vancouver were not even close to the best team in the league or even second best. In fact Vancouver was below .500. In '83 the Oilers were a good test but they were still unproven. Still, four Cups in a row in the 80s is tremendous. Compare that to the Red Wings. They won the Cup in '50 in seven games vs. a much weaker Ranger team. But then they went 8-0 in the '52 playoffs and beat the Canadiens in '54 and '55 in both seven game series. They didnt dominate the post season like the Isles but they had to play the Habs twice. That's harder than playing the Canucks for sure.

And you look at individuals as well. Howe was better than either Trottier or Bossy, Sawchuk was better than Smith and Kelly was at least as good as Potvin. Throw in Delvecchio and Lindsay and they were better than Gilles and Bourne or Goring or Tonelli. Personally I think the Red Wing Teams were better than the Isle teams. Much more dominant. Remember the Habs were still very good in the early 50s and by the time the Isles won in '80 the Habs of the '70s were finished and the Oilers hadnt quite emerged. So there wasnt a dominant team around to challenge them as much in the early 80s. The red Wings had the Canadiens. Plus in those years Howe was the best player in the game, Bossy or Trottier weren't.

I love the Isles, but they wouldnt have beaten the Red Wings.

Click to read more...

 

[NYIsles1*]

To me a Dynasty is a team that wins for consecutitive years, not four in six or five in seven.

Islanders won four straight cups, went to five finals in a row and won nineteen consecutitive playoff series in a row.

No pro sports team has done it since, no NHL team has ever won nineteen playoff series in a row. No American Hockey Franchise has won four cups in a row.

Nine of ten year this organization won the cup, made the finals or went as far as the semi-finals.

All due respect to the Wings but it's not even close because the Isles did not play in a six team league at the time.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

To me a Dynasty is a team that wins for consecutitive years, not four in six or five in seven.

Islanders won four straight cups, went to five finals in a row and won nineteen consecutitive playoff series in a row.

No pro sports team has done it since, no NHL team has ever won nineteen playoff series in a row. No American Hockey Franchise has won four cups in a row.

Nine of ten year this organization won the cup, made the finals or went as far as the semi-finals.

All due respect to the Wings but it's not even close because the Isles did not play in a six team league at the time.

By the same token, the wings were staffed in a league which accepted only the 120 best players as opposed to the best 420.. pretty hard to compare unless you've got a time machine on this one..

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

The fact that the Isles didn't play in a six team league worked to their advantage...

Simple fact, the talent pool was dilluded.

In the early days there were less bad players and more great players on the same team. The competition was tougher.

 

[CH]

The fact that the Isles didn't play in a six team league worked to their advantage...

Simple fact, the talent pool was dilluded.

In the early days there were less bad players and more great players on the same team. The competition was tougher.

In a 6 team league, it is far easier to be a dynasty. You only have to be better than 5 others.

In a 21 team league, you have to beat 20 others. You have to win more playoff rounds. Its harder in a bigger league.

You got it backwards.

And the Islanders in a league with more teams were a more clear dynasty winning 4 cups in a row.

The Islanders were the better team.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

In a 6 team league, it is far easier to be a dynasty. You only have to be better than 5 others.

In a 21 team league, you have to beat 20 others. You have to win more playoff rounds. Its harder in a bigger league.

You got it backwards.

And the Islanders in a league with more teams were a more clear dynasty winning 4 cups in a row.

The Islanders were the better team.

THe Islanders may have been a more dominant dynasty, but definitions of dynasty are varied and matters of semantics..

To say the Isles were a better TEAM, however, is a stretch.. You can't compare across a 30 year time frame.. The Isles were dominant in an era where the talent had become very diluted. By the same token, societal evolution had made players bigger, stronger and faster .. There is no way to determine which team is better.

 

[BM67]

To me a Dynasty is a team that wins for consecutitive years, not four in six or five in seven.

The Wings hold the record for finishing in 1st place 7 straight years. The Isles had the leagues best record only 3 times.

Islanders won four straight cups, went to five finals in a row and won nineteen consecutitive playoff series in a row.

The Wings won 4 Cups in 6 years, and played in 7 Finals in 9 years.

No pro sports team has done it since, no NHL team has ever won nineteen playoff series in a row. No American Hockey Franchise has won four cups in a row.

The Wings being the first team to go 8-0 to win the Cup in 52 is pretty good to. The beat the #2 Montreal and #3 Toronto by a combined 24 to 5.

Nine of ten year this organization won the cup, made the finals or went as far as the semi-finals.

And in the first 5 of those years, they won 7 playoff series, but the only quality team they beat was Buffalo, twice.

All due respect to the Wings but it's not even close because the Isles did not play in a six team league at the time.

If you went year against year, 50 vs 80, I'd take the Isles, but it would be close. Of course the Wings played with a smaller roster, so who they get to fill in the extra spots might swing it in their favour.

If you go with a best of the dynasty team, I'd pick the Wings. Sawchuck and Hall, with Lumley as a spare! A 50 Abel, and a 55 Delvecchio would be a killer 1-2 punch at center. Just adding Black Jack Stewart to their 52 D of Kelly, Pronovost, Goldham, Woit and Reise would be killer.

 

[NYIsles1*]

THe Islanders may have been a more dominant dynasty, but definitions of dynasty are varied and matters of semantics..

In the Isles case semantics were not necessary which makes them special and unique in NHL history. They were the last dynasty in the pure sense of the word.

To say the Isles were a better TEAM, however, is a stretch.. You can't compare across a 30 year time frame.. The Isles were dominant in an era where the talent had become very diluted. By the same token, societal evolution had made players bigger, stronger and faster .. There is no way to determine which team is better.

How many teams did the Wings have to beat to win a cup? Two. Montreal won five cups in a row and only had to win two playoff series each year (ten overall) to win five cups. Isles almost doubled this with nineteen and did it as a new team in easily Hockey's best conference at that time that dominated the cup finals in that era.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

In the Isles case semantics were not necessary which makes them special and unique in NHL history. They were the last dynasty in the pure sense of the word.


How many teams did the Wings have to beat to win a cup? Two. Montreal won five cups in a row and only had to win two playoff series each year (ten overall) to win five cups. Isles almost doubled this with nineteen and did it as a new team in easily Hockey's best conference at that time that dominated the cup finals in that era.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post.... The Red Wings existed in a time when only the best made the NHL- the Isles played teams that were stocked with guys who never would have made it out of the old central league if not for the dilution of talent. My point was that you can't say which team was BETTER, the passage of decades makes it impossible.