Should the NHL "asterisk" the 80's Oilers Cups?

Its clear as pneps research has showed that the East team in the Finals had a distinct disadvantage against the Oilers who fairly breezed through to the finals in their Cup years in the 80's. Its akin to the Blues being guaranteed a place in the Finals in the 60's. What if they'd won?

We see the Flyers for instance being beat up and destroyed and injured in 87 by the time they reached the finals and still taking the well rested and healthy Oilers to 7 games.

We see the inordinate days off before the finals the OIlers always had because of the easy road in the West. Like before they played the Islanders in 84. Thats why they won not becasue they had "learned to win" or some other nonsense. Meanwhile the Isles had to hack through 3 tough rounds - remember v. Habs how the teams tried to kill each other - even Gainey went after Potvins knees and he was gone for a few days and wasnt the same the rest of the playoffs.

Keenan said recently referring to their 85 team who also lost to those same Oilers - "I wish we could have played them healthy (Kerr etc hurt)".

Well you couldnt have Mike, because the odds were stacked against you in the East while the OIlers were sailing through teams like the 85 Hawks scoring 44 goals in 12-9 joke playoff wins.

You were banged and tired by the time you got to the Finals - I recall the tough road the Habs had in 86 and then they destroyed a weak Flamers team which had knocked off 99's Oilers. Its high time an asterisk was placed next to the Oilers Dynasty "accomplishments" same as for Bonds.

Well- Researched comments only.

 

i agree. Not only that but to buy a player like the Oilers did in Gretz, well that's just unfair

 

84-85

Flyers played NYR, NYI, and QUE. Those teams had a combined 239 regular season points. Flyers made the finals in 14 games.

Oilers played LAK, WPG, CHI. Those teams had a combined 261 regular season points. Oilers made the finals in 13 games.

Oilers demolished the Flyers 4 games to 1. Doesn't look like the Flyers had it any tougher then the Oilers that year.

 

why should we reply with well researched comments to an inane post which is less reason and more whine?

I think instead there should be an asterisk beside all the eastern teams because many of them didn't and don't have the bone wearying travel as the west teams do. you don't see teams out west having 4 game "road" trips where they can spend each night in their own beds.

geeze, pal.

 

No.

 

Wow, how unbelievably stupid is this argument. I guess they should place a big bold asterisk over all of those Montreal Cups since they had first dibs on all French Canadian born players and also played in a six team league.

 

can we just make a chooch board?

 

Calgary was the second best team in the league during many of those years.

 

An utterly absurd suggestion. It's just bizarre to want to punish the Oilers for things that were entirely out of their control (i.e., the skill of their opponents.) Furthermore, their competition is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they won the Cup.

 

Didn't that only last about 2 years in the '30s because the Montreal Canadiens had gotten so bad? They didn't even win the cup in those years.

 

Wow chooch, I just noticed that your face is one of the smilies on this site! →

 

Wow, some people really hate the 80's Oilers huh? The answer to this flawed question is a resounding "NO!"

 

if there's gonna be an asterix why not where it's deserved, like an asterix on Dallas' cup win since according to the rules being heavily enforced at the time they didn't score the winning goal

 

Maybe you should work on that first.

 

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Basically "can we have an asterix because they were just too damn good?"

 

I would prefer to see an asterisk beside any cup winning team whose minions endangered innocent telephone poles during rampant periods of intoxication or enticed innnocent children into drinking phony sports tonics. Perhaps the hall of fame could remove any mention of teams who paid their players so poorly they have to auction off all their momentos on e-bay in order to keep in smokes and booze in their golden years.

Perhaps someone could put an asterisk beside anyone who has to be an ******* and has nothing to contribute to this forum other than their feeble attempts to be controversial.

 

That's a great idea chooch. I think we should also put an asterix beside Gretzky's numbers because Lafleur was better than him becuase he played in the east because I saw him play because Greatzky just floated at center but Lafleur would play all night and he was like magic but gretzki didn't even try.

Me too I research a lot for hockey talk.

 

For those not familiar with the History of Hockey Forum, this is just the latest attempt by chooch to diminish the otherwise resoundingly best part of HF Boards.

What chooch's dreamt-up history repeatedly fails to take into account is that the Smythe was the consensus strongest division in hockey from 1984 to 1991. There were two years (1985 and 1988) when the top two teams in the league were Calgary and Edmonton. There were several other years when Calgary and Edmonton were two of the top three or four. chooch has this incredible dislike for the Oilers, and most things from the West. Inferiority complex, perhaps. Or maybe he his head's screwed up from one too many suicide passes.

Maybe it's time for arrbez to post the chooch cartoon again.

The Norris was a weak division. I'll never deny that. There were years in which the No. 4 team in the Smythe was a better team than No. 1 in the Norris. (Partially reflective of the Smythe's strength, partially reflective of the Norris' weakness). There's a reason why no team from the Norris advanced to the Cup final from 1981 to 1991. There were years in which you could honestly say that nobody in the Norris was among the top 10 teams in the league. But let's face it: from 1984-85 through 1989-90, the Patrick wasn't a powerhouse, either. In those years, Philly was their only hope to win a Cup. (Until 89-90, when they missed the playoffs). New Jersey had that one magical run in 1988. The Islanders were fading after the glory years. The Rangers were perenially mediocre. Pittsburgh made the playoffs once in that stretch. Washington had great regular season, but they were beset by the biggest choke artist of a coach in league history.

Should the Oilers dynasty win the Cup? Of course not. If you can win four best-of-sevens (or three best-of-sevens and a best-of-five in 1984 and 1985) it doesn't deserve an asterisk. The best-of-seven is the ultimate test of team superiority.

If you can beat a team that had won 19 straight playoff series, it doesn't deserve an asterisk. If you can beat a team as good as the 85 Flyers, it shouldn't be asterisked. If you can sweep a team as dominant as the 88 Flames, it doesn't deserve an asterisk. (The 88 Oilers were likely the best team in the dynasty).

The only way I could even think about putting an asterisk next to a Cup champion is if that champion won in an abbreviated playoff due to a work stoppage. And even then, I'd say no. I've heard murmurs that New Jersey should have had an asterisk when they won the Cup in 1995. A croc of crap. So what if the regular season was abbreviated? They won 16 games to win the Cup, and beat some good teams (defending Cup champion Rangers, division champions from Philly, President's Trophy champion Red Wings) along the way. New Jersey deserved that Cup.

 

does this make sense?

 

Why isn't this guy banned?

Chooch just trolls and trolls...

 

Ya, they should asterisk it, bold it, underline it, capitilize it, make it neon and flashy... anything to make it stand out in the record books so everyone can acknowledge the last true dynasty (sadly, perhaps the last dynasty we will ever see).

 

Meh, nobody takes him seriously (at least I hope not). He's like the crazy man on the corner who keeps talking about the end of the world.

I think he's funny. "Well-researched comments only"? This coming from a guy who has said he rarely watched Gretzky and the western conference in the 80s, yet keeps posting about it, pretending he knows what he's talking about.

 

This thread topic makes me think this

 

I guess you feel the same way about Keenan who made the same argument recently.

Why dont you go back and see who the Oilers played in the playoffs every year? It was a guaranteed Finals slot for them. You cant go on points because it wasnt a balanced league. The fLames werent exactly a top tier team with that D and Joel Otto etc at Forward. Or you mean the Jets with Pokey Reddick, Steve Penney or Bandit Berthiaume in nets? Never mind the Hawks or Blues. Yeah that was quite a Conference.

Did you find it a bit disconcerting, dog Bless Canada, that Dr Randy Gregg skated rings around Ray Bourque or Mark Howe in the playoffs? care to guess why?

Any of the top 6 east teams were better than the OIlers and Flames.

Oh and bring back Donair Bucky:

Just being honest and I'm not even bringing up the Sports Illustrated article (and mentioned in Messiers book)....wow what a team that was if all those devastating allegations were true...
Care to look it up?