95-96 Avalanche vs 00-01 Avalanche

[vadim sharifijanov]

That 2001 team did win a few Game 7s, both at home, one against a tough Kings team, and the other against the defending Stanley Cup champs.

That awesome defense of the 2001 Avs was able to overcome such a huge loss down the middle with no Forsberg. Not too dissimilar with the 2007 Ducks who were anchored by Pronger and Niedermayer.

i guess that 01 team cut it too close for my comfort. up 3-1, how do you get shut out by felix potvin two games in a row? and that’s with forsberg in the lineup. the 96 team would have a mike keane or mike ricci or rene corbet or chris simon step up.

as a fan who followed and cheered on both teams i was much more worried that they would lose to the devils in 01 than to the wings in 96.

One interesting facet to bring up is the Avs minus Chris Simon in following the 96 season. Adrian Dater has a book entitled "Blood Feud/Wings-Avalanche/The Story of Hockey's Nastiest Rivalry." Simon apparently was picked on quite a bit by Marc Crawford, and although he had the fierce-looking exterior he was bothered a bit by Crawford. Lacroix didn't want to give him money to stay so he went to Washington (don't know what Simon would've wanted). I wonder if my Red Wings have a tougher time in 97 if Simon is still with the Avs.

very interesting point. wouldn’t have stopped mccarty but someone on the wings would have been beaten to a bloody pulp and maybe the balance of power doesn’t shift? i know they had the great joey kocur too but maybe the wings don’t play quite so big with another simon beating lying in wait?

 

[Langdon Alger]

2001 probably, but both teams were great. How clutch was Sakic in 96? I mean, he was always great in the playoffs, but that was probably his coming out party as far as the playoffs were concerned. 6 game winners I believe? 18 goals and 34 points in 22 games. What a great player.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg was right in his prime in 2001. However, his scoring wasn't overwhelming in the 11 games he appeared in

He was the leading scorer of the playoffs at the time.

Yeah, it seems like people are picking the 01 team because of the names more than anything else. If you remember watching them though, the 96 team was just plain better.

I don't think it's just the names. They also had the best regular season record - even when removing overtime losses (52-20-10) in that gap between the 1996 Detroit Red Wings and the addition of shootout points in 2006. You would have to go back to the 1993 Pittsburgh Penguins and 1986 Edmonton Oilers to find President's Trophy winners with better records than the 2001 Colorado Avalanche.

i guess that 01 team cut it too close for my comfort. up 3-1, how do you get shut out by felix potvin two games in a row? and that’s with forsberg in the lineup. the 96 team would have a mike keane or mike ricci or rene corbet or chris simon step up.

Sakic had just separated his shoulder, so they weren't at full strength, but I don't know that back-to-back 1-0 losses to a goalie who had just knocked off Detroit is too egregious. What wasn't working offensively was certainly working defensively, and Los Angeles would have needed a third-straight 1-0 victory in Game 7 to actually win.

If I'm picking series that felt like they're going sideways, it's 1996 Chicago. The 2001 Avalanche felt more in control, which is probably why it took 21 playoff games for someone to open up a 2-goal lead on them in a game.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Hawks won game one in 1996 against Colorado on the road, but Belfour got food poisoning and missed game 2. You wonder if they win the series if that doesn’t happen.

Hawks had some great teams with Belfour, Roenick, Chelios and Amonte.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

Hawks won game one in 1996 against Colorado on the road, but Belfour got food poisoning and missed game 2. You wonder if they win the series if that doesn’t happen.

Hawks had some great teams with Belfour, Roenick, Chelios and Amonte.

And then there was that crazy story of Chicago's trainer numbing Chelios' "wrong" groin before a game??!!! Sheesh!

 

[Big Phil]

Look, both teams had some close calls. In 1996 Vancouver wasn't exactly an elite team, yet the Avs needed a Joe Sakic overtime goal in Game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead. Against the Hawks they needed another Sakic overtime goal, this time in triple overtime, just to tie the series at 2-2. Other than the Florida series in which they swept, the ironic thing is they were in control in the Detroit series more than anything. I like that team, I like them a lot.

But I have to pick the 2001 team. Yes they struggled to close out the Kings, but the team they played in the final is one of the best in the last generation to not win, the Devils. That defense is pretty epic. Remember, they were calling them the "Big 3" (Bourque, Blake and Foote). Sakic, Roy and Forsberg were as good as they ever were, and I think losing Forsberg the last two rounds and still winning tells you all you need to know about this team. Could Forsberg in 1996 bow out and have them still beat the Wings? Who knows? But the 2001 team was without him and won.

Plus, just a side note, the Sakic runs in both years were epic. He never played better. I know others are talking about how much more forward depth the 1996 had and maybe they did, but I think it is a lot closer than people think. Tanguay, Drury and Hejduk are still pretty good, and were that year.

 

[Hasbro]

Hawks won game one in 1996 against Colorado on the road, but Belfour got food poisoning and missed game 2. You wonder if they win the series if that doesn’t happen.

That was a lie. Belfour blamed it on an item that wasn't even on the menu where they ate.

 

[Doctor No]

That was a lie. Belfour blamed it on an item that wasn't even on the menu where they ate.

Indeed (Lyonnaise potatoes).

 

[Sadekuuro]

Interesting. But why did Eddie miss Game 2 then?

 

[Langdon Alger]

That was a lie. Belfour blamed it on an item that wasn't even on the menu where they ate.

Never heard that before. So do we know why he missed that game?

 

[FerrisRox]

I'm not saying the '95-96 team was better or even quite as good, but I think it's a lot closer than a lot of people might think.

Thoughts?

I think the '01 team is better and by a substantial margin. Ray Bourque and Rob Blake added to that defense is absolutely insane.

I think they are on a whole other level.

 

[Hasbro]

Never heard that before. So do we know why he missed that game?

Heard it was a back issue.

 

[FerrisRox]

2. They defeated the best RS team in history.

No they didn't.

 

[Hasbro]

but, after forsberg ruptured his spleen,

tanguay sakic hejduk
nieminen drury hinote
podein yelle messier
dingman reinprecht reid

Dungman was clutch.

the '96 fourth line combined for 7 goals, 5 at ES. if you don't count forsberg and drury, the '01 bottom three lines combined for 12 goals, 9 at ES. so in 2001, the bottom 8.5 roster spots on forward had less than 2x of the goals scored by the bottom 3 on the '96 team. even considering the differing scoring rates in those two years, that's a huge disparity. at the same time, the '96 team didn't have a single defenseman who would have cracked the top three of the '01 team.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I think Foote had a shot.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I don't know. I think Foote had a shot.

haha, true enough. young adam foote was more handsome, nose slightly less broken.

 

[Doctor No]

Dungman was clutch.

Two-time Stanley Cup champion Chris "The Dinger" Dingman?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'm a bit surprised the 96 edition is getting as much support as they are. It's arguable that we still haven't seen a team as good as that 01 team since. 118 points in a tough Western conference (4 via the OT loss) is significantly better than the 96 team's 104 in what was a pretty shallow West at the time. They were basically a wire-to-wire champion.

The names of the depth players might not be as glamorous on the 01 team, but they were playing excellent hockey. I remember Jon Klemm in particular playing out of his mind that spring, and Greg de Vries was an over-qualified #5 at that point in time. Guys like Podein and Messier were doing all the stuff a champion needs from their 4th liners. It's hard to question the depth of a team that overcame the loss of one of the best playoff performers of his generation and still cruised past a very good Blues team and outlasted the defending champs in the Final.

I guess the one knock is almost letting LA off the hook in round 2. But it's pretty rare for a post-dynasty era team not to have a scare somewhere along the way. And that was probably the best team the Kings iced between the 1993 and 2012 editions.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

haha, true enough. young adam foote was more handsome, nose slightly less broken.

lol! The back of that hockey card is so funny/epic!!

 

[Talisman]

of topic but 1998-99 Avs team was also stacked!!. sakic,Foppa,lemieux,hejduk,Drury and adding Theo fleury in TDL..... although they didnt make it to the promise land!!.

 

[FerrisRox]

Never heard that before. So do we know why he missed that game?

Murray Craven also missed the game with food poisoning as well. I have heard Lyonnaise potatoes cited as the culprit (by Craven, not Belfour) but I've never heard the restaurant identified so I'm not sure how anyone could determine if it was on the menu or not.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Heard it was a back issue.

Why did they lie then?

 

[Hasbro]

Murray Craven also missed the game with food poisoning as well. I have heard Lyonnaise potatoes cited as the culprit (by Craven, not Belfour) but I've never heard the restaurant identified so I'm not sure how anyone could determine if it was on the menu or not.

I believe it was Old Chicago, but it’s been a while.

The Avs had a team meal at the place later on.