Stuy*
Guest
Had they stayed together?
The last Dynasty...I say they could have pushed for 7.
The last Dynasty...I say they could have pushed for 7.
Stuy said:Had they stayed together?
The last Dynasty...I say they could have pushed for 7.
chooch said:
The Oilers had no business winning ANY cups much less 5. They took advantage of a weak conference and galloped unmolested to the finals every year while the East teams battered themselves silly. The St Louis Blues went to 3 straight Finals also, kid.
This is by far the weakest multiple cup winner in history. Perhaps of any Sports.
hmm, how do you figure? A team with Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, etc...chooch said:
The Oilers had no business winning ANY cups much less 5. They took advantage of a weak conference and galloped unmolested to the finals every year while the East teams battered themselves silly. The St Louis Blues went to 3 straight Finals also, kid.
This is by far the weakest multiple cup winner in history. Perhaps of any Sports.
Just pay chooch no mind. Quietly put him on your ignore list and move on. His revisionist history (claims the Smythe was a weak division despite most people at that time touting the Smythe as the strongest division in hockey) is a perfect example. He tries to discredit the accomplishments of Gretzky and other Oilers through petty, irrelevant arguments.mjb45 said:hmm, how do you figure? A team with Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, etc...
God Bless Canada said:Just pay chooch no mind. Quietly put him on your ignore list and move on. His revisionist history (claims the Smythe was a weak division despite most people at that time touting the Smythe as the strongest division in hockey) is a perfect example. He tries to discredit the accomplishments of Gretzky and other Oilers through petty, irrelevant arguments.
I only saw his St. Louis argument because someone quoted his post. Reality is, when the Blues went to the Cup final three times, they were in there with the other five 1967 expansion teams. As stated before, the Smythe was regarded as the strongest division in hockey from about 1985 to 1991.
The Oilers are one of the top four dynasties ever, along with the late 50s Habs (likely the best) the 1976-1979 Habs and the 1980-1983 Islanders.
Are we talking if the Oilers from the first three Cups had stayed together, or if the Oilers from 1990 had stayed together? If the Oilers from 1984 to 1987 had stayed together, their potential was unlimited. When you look at how Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Fuhr and Coffey continued to thrive well into their 30s, this team would have been a power through 1996. Also, they had Anderson and Lowe, and they had young guys like Tikannen coming up. That team could have won a total of seven or eight Cups.
They lost Coffey in 1987, but gained Craig Simpson. He scored 56 goals the year the Oilers won their fourth Cup, and finished tied for the playoff scoring lead in 1990. A clutch player who would have shredded the league for years if not for his bad back. Moog was sent to Boston for Bill Ranford that year. We all know about what Ranford did for the Oilers.
They traded Gretzky, McSorely and Krushylneski in 1988. The return can never match what Gretzky was worth, but they flipped Carson, the centrepiece of the return package, to Detroit for Klima, Graves and Murphy. Graves-Murphy-Gelinas comprised the Kid Line, and Klima, while inconsistent, scored a couple big goals in 1990. Tikannen, Ranford and Simpson continued their development into stars, and those were three of the most valuable players in the 1990 championship team. (I've long maintained that Tikannen was the most valuable player after Ranford). That team could have likely won two or three more Cups.
Kurri went to Europe for a year after the 1990 Cup run. Despite Kurri's absence, and injuries that plagued Messier the following year, they reached the conference final. The following year, they lost Messier, Smith, Anderson, Graves and Fuhr (gaining Nichols, Damphousse, Richardson and Manson) and still managed to get back to the conference finals. Murphy, Simpson, Gelinas, Tikannen and Lowe left in 1993, and that basically spelled the end of the dynasty.
Had the Oilers even kept together the team from 1991-92, that team could have won multiple Cups, health permitting, of course.
chooch said:Youre the Don Cherry of logic. Comparing the Oilers to the 50's or 70's Habs... Based on what ..the equal defences?
Coaching?
Toughness?
You must have been impressed by the scoring record versus Chicago in the playoffs. Boy they made the great Bannerman look bad...
Ogopogo said:For the most part, what ifs are useless but...
The Oil would likely have won in '89, '91, '93 and '94.
Even if you take away the '89 cup and give it to Calgary, the team was almost good enough in '91 and Edmonton south (LA) was a finalist in '93 and Edmonton east was a champion in '94. So, adding three more for a total of 8 is completely reasonable.
shawnmullin said:Of course this is impossible to know. The thing about this team is that they all grew up as players together and still had long careers ahead of them.
Messier won another cup in 94, Gretzky made another final in 93, the team without Gretzky won it in 90 and made the conference finals in 91, Coffey won a cup with the Penguins, Lowe won a cup with the Rangers in 94.
The OTHER question is how good could the trades of aging Oilers been if they were allowed to get equal value back? I mean where would the team be today?
Now if money's no object obviously most of the guys retire with the team, but you know some of the pieces could be dealt as they get older to try and rebuild the squad.
But in my view, without losing any pieces due to financial realities, you can be a competative team at least until 1995-96, which is about the time the careers of Kurri, Anderson, Coffey and Lowe start to unravel.
But Gretzky, Messier and Fuhr are still very good for 2 seasons after that.
The year Gretzky retired Fuhr dropped below 40 games started and down to an .892 save percentage, and then completely fell off the map in Calgary the next year.
So, I think the last chance at a cup is probably 95-96.
Meaning they have 5 Cups in 8 years of being competative for the cup and in their primes... and then 6 more chances as they age. I'd say adding 2-3 to the total is not at all unrealitic.
I was only 8 years old when the Flames won their Stanley Cup, but boy 1989 must have been an awful year for more aware Oilers fans. Lose Gretz, have him break the points record in a Kings uniform, lose to Gretz in the playoffs, and the FLAMES win the Stanley Cup.
I think the many believe the Oilers and Pens would have split the 91 and 92 cups and the 92 version of the Pens were a better version,would have been a great Stanley cup finals...very tough to give and edge to anyoneNOTENOUGHBREWER said:Just a question why do they lose in 92? 93 would've been a finals to remember. Roy at his best with one of the best defensive players of the era vs the Oilers firepower.
3991731 said:I think the many believe the Oilers and Pens would have split the 91 and 92 cups and the 92 version of the Pens were a better version,would have been a great Stanley cup finals...very tough to give and edge to anyone
Gretzky=Lemieux
Messier=Francis
Anderson=Stevens
Kurri=Mullen
Simpson=Reechi
Coffey??? which team would he been on
Fuhr>=Barrasso
Tikkanen<Jagr
Khrusyniski<Tocchet
the 92 Pens I believe would have the offensive edge....But the Oilers defensmen were very underated(Lowe,Smith,Huddy,Gregg,Muni) and give the Oilers the edge on defensive depth with goaltending being very close but the experience of Fuhr in big games gives the Oilers a slight edge
MightyOil said:Messier = Francis?
reckoning said:Edit: Can`t believe I wasted my 1,000th post on this.
NOTENOUGHBREWER said:Just a question why do they lose in 92? 93 would've been a finals to remember. Roy at his best with one of the best defensive players of the era vs the Oilers firepower.
It was a lot more than the Gretzky trade. Yes, they turned Carson into Klima, who scored the OT winner vs. Boston in Game 1, and they got Murphy and Graves, who provided a spark with Gelinas (also acquired in the Gretzky trade) on the Kid Line. They still had the veterans left over from the first four Cups, like Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Lowe, Huddy and Randy Gregg. (Grant Fuhr, the other player from the first four Cups, didn't play a minute).moneyp said:It's an unanswerable question, but I don't think they would have won. I'm not even sure they would have won in 1990 if the Gretzky trade wasn't made. This is not a knock on the Oilers team, which was great, but winning over and over again takes a lot out of a team mentally. Read Dryden's book, The Game on this topic. Inevitably, players need new and different challenges. Messier needed to be the Alpha Dog at some point.
God Bless Canada said:It was a lot more than the Gretzky trade. Yes, they turned Carson into Klima, who scored the OT winner vs. Boston in Game 1, and they got Murphy and Graves, who provided a spark with Gelinas (also acquired in the Gretzky trade) on the Kid Line. They still had the veterans left over from the first four Cups, like Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Lowe, Huddy and Randy Gregg. (Grant Fuhr, the other player from the first four Cups, didn't play a minute).
But to me, the real reason they won was the play of three players who were just entering their prime. Ranford played the best hockey of his career and won the Conn Smythe. Craig Simpson was an abrasive all-round force who tied for the playoff scoring lead. Tikannen was fantastic, shutting down Gretzky, Savard and Hawerchuk in the first three round, and Craig Janney in the Cup final. He also scored at over a point per game clip.