The #1 Best NHL Team You've Seen in any Playoff year

[The Panther]

Simple question: In the years that you've watched hockey (and I guess you might specify when that is, for context), what is the single best team you've seen in the playoffs? The relevant matter should be the performance of that team in the playoffs only, of that spring only. So, regular season is irrelevant, as is what they did later, etc.

I've missed some teams in more recent years, but I've seen most since 1987 (and a couple before that, but I was too young to really remember).

It's the home-team vote, but I think the 1988 Oilers might be the best playoff team I've seen. They dropped one game against so-so Winnipeg (some of the Oilers had the Flu), but, after that, here's what they did in rounds two, three, and four:
vs. #1 team in NHL = 4 game sweep
vs. #5 team in NHL = 5 game win
vs. #4 team in NHL = 4 game sweep

They outscored those three top teams 59 to 36. Their power-play was suddenly great after a so-so season, and they just seemed unstoppable. After they won, Sports Illustrated wrote that their championship felt more like a coronation than a celebration. This was a slightly less run-and-gun team than in the past (no Coffey), and it was quite solid defensively.

After that, I think I have to say the 2001-02 Red Wings, for many obvious reasons. After dropping the first two against Vancouver, the Wings stormed back to go 16-5 after that. They did need the full 7 games to get rid of Colorado, which is why I can't say this is the best playoff team I've seen, but close anyway. Despite their stacked line-up, it was more of a defensive win than an offensive win (4 goals against in the last 4 games against Carolina).

So... your choice(s)?

Click to read more...

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Gotta go with the 97 Red Wings. Even though they had a scare vs the blues, that team was written off by everyone then managed to rip through all of their competition. Minus 1 bad game vs the Avs that team was straight dominant. They also pretty much took the cup away from Lindros and the Flyers whom everyone thought would finally get over the hump that year. As much as I hate the Flyers that 97 team was pretty dominant as well until they ran into Detroit.

 

[overg]

Starting with the '91 playoffs, and giving some extra credit for "getting better as the playoffs go on," that '95 Devils team was a monster. They just mauled an extremely good Wings team in the finals. Other than maybe the '97 finals, I can't think of another final where one team so thoroughly bazooka punched such a strong opponent in the finals. It's one thing to beat up on Cinderella, but another when running roughshod over a team that was the favorite going into the finals.

The '08 Wings were also ridiculously in control of things throughout the entire playoffs. Which is pretty crazy when you compare that lineup to what they iced in '97,'98 and '02. But they were going to outshoot you, they were going to outscore you, and they were going to beat you. That was just the way things were for that team the entire year, including the playoffs.

 

[GMR]

I started watching somewhere in the mid 90's when I was in elementary school. I'd have to go with the 2012 Kings, just based on how easy their playoff run was. They were a lower seed in every series, yet started every series 3-0. When you win the first two games of every series on the road, and then win game 3 at home, that's probably a good way to ensure that you'll win the series.

I don't think they're the best team I've ever seen, but their run was the easiest.

Honorable mention goes to the 1995 Devils, who went 16-4 in the playoffs. That was a dominant run.

 

[quoipourquoi]

1997 Detroit and 1988 Edmonton are the two that came to mind from the four-round era, while 1952 Detroit and 1960 Montreal would be the best through two-rounds.

It took 21 games before anyone got so much as a two-goal lead on the 2001 Avalanche.

 

[Bluesguru]

Nobody was more dominant than the 76-77 Canadiens. Virtually impossible for any other NHL team to beat that team that year.

 

[mbhhofr]

1959-1960 Montreal Canadiens. I was at the 3rd game of the Stanley Cup Final and saw them beat Toronto 5-2. They won the next game to make it a four game sweep and 5 Cups in a row. In the Semi Final they swept Chicago four games to zero.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Agree mbhhofr including three road shutouts where it seemed that the game could go all night and the opposition would not score.

 

[VanIslander]

I started watching hockey during the Habs dynasty years with Dryden my fav player. (I have fond memories of two New Year's Eve games against the Soviets.) I remember the last two cups when the Montreal-Boston rivalry provided plenty of great moments and in the end happy results for my team! Dryden retired and Bowman went to Buffalo and so I cheered on the Sabres, which had the French Connection. Perreault was in his prime and the team was the NHL's best, we all thought. Then... the friggin' New York Islanders! I hated them and became scared of them. They beat my hopeful Buffalo and went on to beat the bullies of Philly (though I didn't watch the finals 'cuz I didn't like either team). The following year I was on the bandwagon for cinderella team North Stars and the Islanders beat them 4-1 in the Finals. The Isles began to really annoy me. Then Roger Neilson led my towel-waving Canucks team to the Finals and it was clear in the first period of the first game that we would loose and loose badly. I cannot recall having watched a more one-sided Finals ever than that one. It was embarrassing. Then, the following postseason, I was by then a huge Oilers fan and looked forward to getting some revenge on the Isles and New York swept the Oilers 4-0!

 

[decma]

Then Roger Neilson led my towel-waving Canucks team to the Finals and it was clear in the first period of the first game that we would loose and loose badly. I cannot recall having watched a more one-sided Finals ever than that one.

I agree completely. Was apparent from the get go that the series would not be competitive.

 

[Whaleafs]

A bit off the board because in the end they couldn't pull it off, but the '03 Mighty Ducks run was amazing to watch. I was a big Ducks fan during the Kariya years. Swept the heavily favoured Red Wings in round 1, beat Dallas in 6, then swept Minnesota to reach the finals. If anything they were too good for their own good, ending up with 7 days off between the Minnesota series and the finals, waiting for someone to win the East. They were visibly rusty the first 2 games of the finals against New Jersey. Managed to claw back and force it to game 7,but just couldn't seal it in the end. I've never been more disappointed in a finals result.

 

[Evincar]

After that, I think I have to say the 2001-02 Red Wings, for many obvious reasons. After dropping the first two against Vancouver, the Wings stormed back to go 16-5 after that. They did need the full 7 games to get rid of Colorado, which is why I can't say this is the best playoff team I've seen, but close anyway. Despite their stacked line-up, it was more of a defensive win than an offensive win (4 goals against in the last 4 games against Carolina).

Sure they needed 7 games to beat Colorado but they were a better team than anyone the Oilers faced. I was never too impressed with competition in the 1980s.

 

[frisco]

First team I actually thought of was the 1988 Oilers. Then the 1982 Islanders. But I'm going to say the 1992 Penguins with a caveat. They barely got by the first round and seemed to be dead in the water against the Rangers after Graves hacked Lemieux but then they rang off 11 straight to win the Cup.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

Sure they needed 7 games to beat Colorado but they were a better team than anyone the Oilers faced. I was never too impressed with competition in the 1980s.

As mentioned, the '88 Oilers lost one game in taking down the #1, #5, and #4 teams in the NHL.

The Oilers had won only 4 of the previous 16 games against Calgary -- and lost their previous playoff series -- but then swept them out in '88.

 

[Evincar]

As mentioned, the '88 Oilers lost one game in taking down the #1, #5, and #4 teams in the NHL.

The Oilers had won only 4 of the previous 16 games against Calgary -- and lost their previous playoff series -- but then swept them out in '88.

Their rankings still dont make the 1980 any less of a watered down era.

 

[The Panther]

Their rankings still dont make the 1980 any less of a watered down era.

Do you want to explain how a 21-team League in 1988 was a watered-down League, while a 26-team League just eight years later was not?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Do you want to explain how a 21-team League in 1988 was a watered-down League, while a 26-team League just eight years later was not?

Question of composition, feeder streams and the transition from a long to short shift game. Most evident in the goaltending where you had a shortfall since the feeder systems had adopted the two goalie system and goalies entering the NHL were not ready for the workload. Other examples abound.

 

[The Panther]

Question of composition, feeder streams and the transition from a long to short shift game. Most evident in the goaltending where you had a shortfall since the feeder systems had adopted the two goalie system and goalies entering the NHL were not ready for the workload. Other examples abound.

Uhh.... what?

I highly doubt Joe Sakic's shifts in 1995-96 were appreciably shorter than in 1988. In fact, I know they weren't.

As far as the "feeder streams" of goalies, Grant Fuhr in 1988 played 75 games, Vernon played 64, Hextall 62. In 1996, Fuhr again led the NHL in games played (79), while such legends of the newly competitive NHL like Jim Carey and Guy Herbert were playing 60 to 70 games each.

In any case, I would agree that goaltending in general was in a state of gradual improvement at the time (1996), but how does that make the entire League more competitive, since every team was improving at the same rate...?

Five extra teams in 8 years means about 120 players that wouldn't have been NHL-caliber in 1988 were now NHL players. Let's assume the influx of Russian player makes up some of that difference, sure. But does it make up 120 roster spots...? I think not.

 

[Howie Hodge]

Nobody was more dominant than the 76-77 Canadiens. Virtually impossible for any other NHL team to beat that team that year.

This, and the back end of that Canadians dynasty in the late seventies.

Robinson, Savard, and Lapointe just dominated in the back. Three superb work horses. Three HOF defenseman on the same team at the same time. When Rod Langway, and Brian Englblom are your forth and fifth defenseman you're in the luxury zone....

When Bill Nyrop, John Van Boxmeer, Rick Chartraw, Gaston Gingras, and Robert Picard are your spares, you are cruising......

(Specific to 76-77 it was Robinson, Savard, Lapointe, Nyrop, Chartraw, Pierre Bouchard, and VanBoxmeer.)

And the forwards I could go on about too.....

 

[Canadiens1958]

Uhh.... what?

I highly doubt Joe Sakic's shifts in 1995-96 were appreciably shorter than in 1988. In fact, I know they weren't.

As far as the "feeder streams" of goalies, Grant Fuhr in 1988 played 75 games, Vernon played 64, Hextall 62. In 1996, Fuhr again led the NHL in games played (79), while such legends of the newly competitive NHL like Jim Carey and Guy Herbert were playing 60 to 70 games each.

In any case, I would agree that goaltending in general was in a state of gradual improvement at the time (1996), but how does that make the entire League more competitive, since every team was improving at the same rate...?

Five extra teams in 8 years means about 120 players that wouldn't have been NHL-caliber in 1988 were now NHL players. Let's assume the influx of Russian player makes up some of that difference, sure. But does it make up 120 roster spots...? I think not.

Totally ignoring the transition process to the short shift game and the goaltending shift from tandems to a clear definition of #1 and #2 that happened between your cherry-picked years.

You also ignore how junior hockey evolved, that the 1988 or eighties still had the residue of the 20 year entry draft whereas by 1995-96 you had two extra years from the 18 year old entry draft.

Also Jim Carey and Guy Hebert playing high end game totals underlines the lack of goaltending depth in the league.

 

[TheMule93]

08 wings were the most dominant team I've ever watched. First of all they are the best possession team since we've started tracking cf%. Their defense was incredible, they also gave up the least shot attempts in an entire season by any team ever, excluding the shortened season

I don't have the playoff possession stats but they out shot their opposition by an average 12.9 shots per game for the entire playoff run. They scored 3.3 goals per game and gave up only 1.9 goals per game. Those stats are absurd... Amazing offense and amazing defense all around.

 

[The Panther]

NOTE: I somehow got confused in my posts, above -- I picked the '88 Oilers and '02 Red Wings as the best teams (that was correct), but in my response to Canadiens1958, I mistakenly thought I was talking about teams in 1988 and 1996, which I why I kept talking about those two seasons (it wasn't "cherry-picked"; I just made a mistake). Yes, 2002 is a notably different sort of League from 1988.

I'm not sure, even then, however, that I would call it "more competitive". Maybe more defensive, with a bit more parity. I maintain, though, that a late-80s' team that took down four top-5 NHL teams with almost no single loss among them is easily the better of a early-00s' team that needed seven games to get rid of a top-opponent.

(I do suspect that the '76 to '78 Canadiens would be the best team I've seen if I'd seen them, but that was well before my time and I never did.)

 

[Evincar]

In 1988 8 of the 16 playoff teams had a negative goal differential, which is mind blowing. That's where I question the competition of the 1980s.

Is a top 5 team from 1988 the same as a top 5 team from 2002? I dont think so.

And the 2002 Avs werent just any "top opponent" they were the defending Cup champions. So needing 7 games to beat them isnt a negative thing, if anything its expected.

 

[The Panther]

In 1988 8 of the 16 playoff teams had a negative goal differential, which is mind blowing. That's where I question the competition of the 1980s.

The relevant point is not a bunch of non-playoff teams, but the three top-five teams the Oilers beat in the playoffs:
Calgary +92 (1st overall)
Detroit +53 (5th overall)
Boston +49 (4th overall)

Against these teams, they lost 1 game and won 12.

Is a top 5 team from 1988 the same as a top 5 team from 2002? I dont think so.

How do you mean, exactly? A top team is a top team, period. The Oilers were a 1988 team in 1988, and the Red Wings a 2002 team in 2002.

And the 2002 Avs werent just any "top opponent" they were the defending Cup champions. So needing 7 games to beat them isnt a negative thing, if anything its expected.

Exactly. Which is why I rate the '02 Wings as maybe the second-best playoff team I've seen.

 

[VanIslander]

In 1988 8 of the 16 playoff teams had a negative goal differential, which is mind blowing. That's where I question the competition of the 1980s.

Is a top 5 team from 1988 the same as a top 5 team from 2002? I dont think so.

Huh? From the 8 of 16 you are jumping to conclusions. Maybe the differentials are not due to very bad teams but to there being a handful of oh so great teams: it is quite possible that there were 4 or 5 dominant teams that could have been Stanley Cup championship clubs in another era.

In 1988, Edmonton won the Stanley Cup with a dynasty line-up, but Alberta rival Calgary Flames won the President's trophy (won the Stanley Cup the following year), Detroit Red Wings easily won their division with Steve Yzerman scoring 102 points and Jack Adams winning coach Jacques Demers weaving his magic, Montreal's Patrick Roy led them to the divisional title with his league-leading save percentage, Boston rocked with Neely having 40+ goals and Bourque 60+ assists. All 5 of these teams had a significantly positive goal differential. It was a year of have's and have not's and these were the elite teams.

Toronto, Winnipeg, L.A, Hartford and Buffalo had a negative goal differential and were bounced out in the first round by teams that didn't have negatives. Washington - with a significant positive differential - beat even differential Flyers. Both St. Louis and Chicago had a negative differential and the Blues went on to the second round where they lost easily to Yzerman's Wings.

Dynasty Oilers, plus great Flames and Wings dominated their conference in the regular season and won in the playoffs, as did positive differential Montreal, Boston and Washington (all with healthy positive differentials). There were 5 or 6 great teams that season and they showed it in the regular season and the playoffs.

(The one exception to all this was the exceptional New Jersey Devils who were the lower seed and a negative differential (barely, -1) and upset the Islanders then the next round beat Washington in Game 7 as well. The Devils must have played very differently that postseason as the team's top-3 scorers in the playoffs were not top-3 in the regular season and even the dmen scoring was very different than the regular season.)

So, you can't conclude anything ABOUT THE TOP-5 teams in 1988 vs. 2002 simply by looking at goal differential!!!