Why NY Islanders were Dynasty in early 80s?

[Gillies9]

Heart.

Example, from wikipedia on John Tonelli:

"During the playoffs in 1982, The Islanders were five minutes away from being eliminated by a much weaker Pittsburgh Penguin team, trailing 3-1 in the deciding game. John Tonelli had an assist on a Mike McEwen goal that closed the champions within one, and tied the game himself with ninety seconds to play. For an encore, he scored in overtime to win, thus extending the Islanders' long reign as Stanley Cup champions."

3 HoF forwards, but even without them, someone else was always there to step up.

 

[sunb]

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this issue then:

Why is it that after the Islanders' 19 straight series win, they simply failed to become a playoff threat in the following years? Although they didn't crash and burn, the following year they were eliminated in the playoffs after 10 games, the next year only 3 games, the next year 14 games and 6 in the following.

The year the lost in the Finals, the Isles also had a blossoming 18 year old star, Pat Lafontaine, step into their line-up and contribute right away. Bossy was only 26, Trottier was 27, Potin was 29, Tonelli was 26, Gilbert was 21, Bourne was 29, B. Sutter was 21, Jonsson was 23, D. Suter was 23, Gilles was 29, Persson was 28, Dineen was 20, Morrow was 26, Hrudey was 22, Langevin was 29 and even Smith was only 31. With their core of stars in their primes and a blooming Lafontaine, why weren't the Isles perennial Stanley Cup threats after their five straight finals appearances? I know Bossy's injury three years later and the retirement of Torres (or was it Arbour?) had a traumatic effect but the future looked so bright - even their four cups. This was a team that should've continued to dominate for the next five years. What was the downfall of this dynasty?

 

[Jumptheshark]

I was born in the middle of Islanders dynasty, so unfortunately I have not been able to witness their success personally. But the fact remains that Islanders set the record for 19 (!) straight playoff series, making them definetly one of the greatest dynasties ever [I am not interest on a debate about the comparable merits of different dynasties].

I know that Islanders had collection of exceptional players, especially Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier and Mike Bossy, all players who are among Top-30 in HHOF Top 100 list.

If I have understood correctly, the coach Al Arbour is an additional huge factor.

However, what actually made Islanders stand that much above all the others?

Not wanting to discredit NYI, but was the overall talent leven in NHL lower in eraly 80s, making the NYIs collection of players truly unique?

Did NY manage to avoid some tought matchups enroute to finals (due the playoff format or otherwise)?

Did they employe game plan that was before its age?

How could they be that dominant?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000521982.html


piece together a lineup--you have a well balanced team


When Sather Built the oilers--he used the NYI as a blue print

 

[Bert Marshall days]

What made the Isles stand above all others was they could beat you at any type of game no matter how it was played.

They beat the skill and finesse teams like Montreal/Edmonton. They beat the physical teams like Flyers/Bruins. They beat the Sabres/Vancouver/Minnesota who were a combination of styles. They had more heart than the Rangers to win the mental battles.

They had Arbour who was brilliant coaching the incredible core of Trottier/Bossy/Potvin/Smith.

They had the best supporting cast ever.


I saw it all from Day 1.....................those were the reasons.

 

[vivianmb]

i was 10 when the isles won their first cup.
i remember my dad's favorites were clark gillies ,duane sutter, bob bourne, bob nystrom,john tonnelli and butch goring.these would be known as the isles secondary scorers
they are the reason the isles were a dynasty. TOUGH and talented. CLUTCH players who left their heart on the ice after every game.
their defence was awesome as well . steffan perrsson and ken morrow are severly underated as they were both excellent in their own end. and perrsson was an excellent puck mover.
as for goal tending. right around mid february, bill smith would start amping up his game and by the end of the first round he was in cruise control. if you had a game you needed to win . he was the man.
and al arbour is one of the best motivators ever.and he treated that team like they were his own children. he really loved those guys and brought out all of their individual talents.
add to all of the above mike bossy, bryan trottier, and dennis potvin, and that's how you make a dynasty.

3 swedes( kallur and persson and later jonnson)
2 americans( morrow and langevin)
2 french canadians(potvin and bossy)
2 ontarians ( tonnelli and smith)
and the rest western canadians( goring , lane,trottier,gillies,bourne, the sutters,nystrom(born in sweden bred in canada)
perfect mix of grit and style.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Two Factors

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this issue then:

Why is it that after the Islanders' 19 straight series win, they simply failed to become a playoff threat in the following years? Although they didn't crash and burn, the following year they were eliminated in the playoffs after 10 games, the next year only 3 games, the next year 14 games and 6 in the following.

The year the lost in the Finals, the Isles also had a blossoming 18 year old star, Pat Lafontaine, step into their line-up and contribute right away. Bossy was only 26, Trottier was 27, Potin was 29, Tonelli was 26, Gilbert was 21, Bourne was 29, B. Sutter was 21, Jonsson was 23, D. Suter was 23, Gilles was 29, Persson was 28, Dineen was 20, Morrow was 26, Hrudey was 22, Langevin was 29 and even Smith was only 31. With their core of stars in their primes and a blooming Lafontaine, why weren't the Isles perennial Stanley Cup threats after their five straight finals appearances? I know Bossy's injury three years later and the retirement of Torres (or was it Arbour?) had a traumatic effect but the future looked so bright - even their four cups. This was a team that should've continued to dominate for the next five years. What was the downfall of this dynasty?

Two factors. Players on dynasties tend to wear-out faster from the demands of winning. When a dynasty ends the rest of the league knows what it takes to beat them.

 

[Henkka]

One key builders for their dynasty was scout Jimmy Devellano. He scouted those suberb players for them at the 70´s and left the organization 1982 to build the next dynasty.

He drafted the 80's and 90's for the Red Wings, and we have seen the results. At the moment he is the Senior Vice Presiden't of the Red Wings, IMO the man mainly responsible of Wings last almost two decades of success.

 

[vivianmb]

One key builders for their dynasty was scout Jimmy Devellano. He scouted those suberb players for them at the 70´s and left the organization 1982 to build the next dynasty.

He drafted the 80's and 90's for the Red Wings, and we have seen the results. At the moment he is the Senior Vice Presiden't of the Red Wings, IMO the man mainly responsible of Wings last almost two decades of success.

the isles also trained darcy regier before he split.

 

[Trottier]

What was the downfall of this dynasty?

As someone mentioned, a lot of "old" younger players. A lot of miles on a guy like Trottier and Potvin, both of whom in addition to possessing other great skills, hit everything that moved. That takes a toll, especially if you play 19 playoff rounds over 5 seasons.

Secondly, another dynasty immediately followed them. It took the Oilers several years, but ultimately they eclipsed the NYI jaggernaut.

Finally, after drafting Lafontaine in '83, the draft well went dry. Painfully dry.

 

[vivianmb]

As someone mentioned, a lot of "old" younger players. A lot of miles on a guy like Trottier and Potvin, both of whom in addition to possessing other great skills, hit everything that moved. That takes a toll, especially if you play 19 playoff rounds over 5 seasons.

Secondly, another dynasty immediately followed them. It took the Oilers several years, but ultimately they eclipsed the NYI jaggernaut.

Finally, after drafting Lafontaine in '83, the draft well went dry. Painfully dry.

what you didn't think dave czyzowski was a good pick?

 

[Lowetide]

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this issue then:

Why is it that after the Islanders' 19 straight series win, they simply failed to become a playoff threat in the following years? Although they didn't crash and burn, the following year they were eliminated in the playoffs after 10 games, the next year only 3 games, the next year 14 games and 6 in the following.

The year the lost in the Finals, the Isles also had a blossoming 18 year old star, Pat Lafontaine, step into their line-up and contribute right away. Bossy was only 26, Trottier was 27, Potin was 29, Tonelli was 26, Gilbert was 21, Bourne was 29, B. Sutter was 21, Jonsson was 23, D. Suter was 23, Gilles was 29, Persson was 28, Dineen was 20, Morrow was 26, Hrudey was 22, Langevin was 29 and even Smith was only 31. With their core of stars in their primes and a blooming Lafontaine, why weren't the Isles perennial Stanley Cup threats after their five straight finals appearances? I know Bossy's injury three years later and the retirement of Torres (or was it Arbour?) had a traumatic effect but the future looked so bright - even their four cups. This was a team that should've continued to dominate for the next five years. What was the downfall of this dynasty?

Injuries were a factor, for sure. Mike Bossy was a shadow of himself when the Oilers won the Stanley in 1984 and there were certainly others. Also, Denis Potvin retired early, he really did. I'm not saying he had a Sandy Koufax career but he wasn't 40 or anything either.

Plus they made some decisions (Hrudey, Lafontaine) that ran counter to their own established recipe for success (draft well, keep your players).

But that Islander run from Billy Harris being drafted through the 1983 Stanley win was the perfect example of team building in hockey.

 

[Ogopogo*]

what you didn't think dave czyzowski was a good pick?

I went to school with Dave Chyzowski, he was a nice enough guy. I remember asking him who he wanted to get drafted by and he said New York. He wanted to be an Islander.

Years later, he was playing beer league hockey in Kamloops and another ex-Blazer friend of mine asked him "So, what happened Dave? You were drafted #2, you had all the potential in the world, why didn't it work out?"

Chyzowski's answer was "I was 18, in New York with $1,000,000...."

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Having the right players at the right time

Trottier was the best forward in my opinion
Bossy was the a prolific goal scorer
Potvin is one of the best defensemen to ever play

Aside from the big 3 stars they had some great roleplayers on the team, everyone had a place on the team whether it was first line or fourth line

Billy Smith was a great playoff reformer as well, you can't have a dynasty without a top goalie.

Pretty much spot-on. The role players were solid as well (Nystrom, Morrow, Gillies, Tonelli, Goring)

 

[vivianmb]

I went to school with Dave Chyzowski, he was a nice enough guy. I remember asking him who he wanted to get drafted by and he said New York. He wanted to be an Islander.

Years later, he was playing beer league hockey in Kamloops and another ex-Blazer friend of mine asked him "So, what happened Dave? You were drafted #2, you had all the potential in the world, why didn't it work out?"

Chyzowski's answer was "I was 18, in New York with $1,000,000...."

he actually was rated quite high by most of the league, and i guess after all the home runs they hit in the 70's , they were bound to strike out a few times. funny thing though alot of those picks from the late 70's/early 80's are RUNNING teams whether in the nhl or wha. kevin cheveldayoff, dean chyenowth, regier,brent sutter. at least they got something from the isles organization.

 

[dcinroc]

I was born in the middle of Islanders dynasty, so unfortunately I have not been able to witness their success personally. But the fact remains that Islanders set the record for 19 (!) straight playoff series, making them definetly one of the greatest dynasties ever [I am not interest on a debate about the comparable merits of different dynasties].

I know that Islanders had collection of exceptional players, especially Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier and Mike Bossy, all players who are among Top-30 in HHOF Top 100 list.

If I have understood correctly, the coach Al Arbour is an additional huge factor.

However, what actually made Islanders stand that much above all the others?

Not wanting to discredit NYI, but was the overall talent leven in NHL lower in eraly 80s, making the NYIs collection of players truly unique?

Did NY manage to avoid some tought matchups enroute to finals (due the playoff format or otherwise)?

Did they employe game plan that was before its age?

How could they be that dominant?

They simply had too much depth at every position, plus some of the best players playing at that time (Trottier, Bossy, Potvin). Al Arbour did a great job preparing the players and getting the right matchups on the ice.

I wouldn't say they had any revolutionary style or game plan...they just did what other teams did, only much better. One thing I will say though is that they were probably the most aggressive checking team in the league at that time, both forechecking and back checking...and they had a lot of big aggressive players who played both ends of the ice (Gillies, Nystrom, Tonelli, Trottier, Goring).

IMO, the reasons why they were so dominant were Bossy, Trottier and Potvin. You could stop one or two of them, but keeping all three from the net was near impossible. Also, because of their depth, the Islanders didn't tire as much and won a lot of their games in the third period. For a while they were notorious for giving up early leads but coming back to win.

I can't count the number of times that Bossy was mauled for 99% of the time he was on the ice and then he slams home the game winner in that 1% that he gets free. His falling backhand against Vancouver is still one the most incredible goals I've ever seen.

The fall of the Islander dynasty was, in part, a result of their success. Dynasty burnout has been mentioned before. But also, they lost of their depth. Nystrom, Tonelli, Gillies and Goring didn't stay much longer after the last cup. Morrow was plagued by knee problems. Except for LaFontaine, their 80's drafts were pretty bad. They probably could've traded away Trottier, Bossy or Potvin for some younger guys...but they always seemed to tantalizingly close to competing for the Cup.

 

[MS]

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this issue then:

Why is it that after the Islanders' 19 straight series win, they simply failed to become a playoff threat in the following years? Although they didn't crash and burn, the following year they were eliminated in the playoffs after 10 games, the next year only 3 games, the next year 14 games and 6 in the following.

The year the lost in the Finals, the Isles also had a blossoming 18 year old star, Pat Lafontaine, step into their line-up and contribute right away. Bossy was only 26, Trottier was 27, Potin was 29, Tonelli was 26, Gilbert was 21, Bourne was 29, B. Sutter was 21, Jonsson was 23, D. Suter was 23, Gilles was 29, Persson was 28, Dineen was 20, Morrow was 26, Hrudey was 22, Langevin was 29 and even Smith was only 31. With their core of stars in their primes and a blooming Lafontaine, why weren't the Isles perennial Stanley Cup threats after their five straight finals appearances? I know Bossy's injury three years later and the retirement of Torres (or was it Arbour?) had a traumatic effect but the future looked so bright - even their four cups. This was a team that should've continued to dominate for the next five years. What was the downfall of this dynasty?

For starters, careers weren't as long at that time. Now, it's expected that start players will continue to excel until they're 35-40 years old, but then it just didn't happen. It's hard to name a star of the late '70s/early '80s who played past 35, except for Larry Robinson. Guys like Sittler, Perreault, Lafleur, Middleton were all done by the age of 34-35 or so. And in NYI it was no different. Most of their top players were finished at 32-33. Bossy due to injury, but a lot of the others - Trottier, Bourne, Gillies, Persson, Nystrom - were just worn out.

The 'veteran core' there kept the team afloat and a solid .500+ team until 1988, when Potvin retired (he actually had a lot left when he quit) and Bossy officially retired. The the team fell on its face in 1988-89.

In the 1984-88 period, the team tried to groom their 'next generation' of young talent. Lafontaine was the most obvious, and he was a great success. On the blueline, guys like Gerald Diduck, Gord Dineen, Paul Boutilier, and Ken Leiter looked like a good young core for awhile, but as a group they flopped when Potvin left and only Diduck had a serviceable career. Similarly, up front Pat Flatley was always hurt and guys like Mikko Makela and Alan Kerr fell off the face of the earth after looking very promising as young players. Greg Gilbert was never able to re-capture his 30-goal form, either, and became a grinder. Why a group of young players that looked very decent for awhile fizzled so badly I can't answer, however.

And, as is always the case when a team goes into the tank, bad trades don't help. Dealing away Kelly Hrudey was a huge error and left a goaltending void for years. John Tonelli was traded for Rich Kromm. Brent Sutter - the heart and soul of the team - for lazy Adam Creighton.

End result was a team that, by 1988-89 was essentially Pat Lafontaine and a bunch of scrubs, and finished 2nd-last in the league.

 

[scribe114]

Check out this thread as well, you will find it very informative.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=511402

 

[blogofmike]

Did NY manage to avoid some tought matchups enroute to finals (due the playoff format or otherwise)?
QUOTE]

The late 70's Habs benefitted more because the other good teams would usually have to beat each other in the semi-finals whil Montreal had a slightly easier matchup. The exception was the 79 Cup where Montreal edged out Boston in 7 games (too many men game) and the Isles got the easy matchup but were upset by NYR.

In 1980 the Isles had to beat the Bruins, Sabres and Flyers, who were all top teams. No easy matchups there, because they weren't a top seed.

In 1981 the playoff format helped because they were now top seed. (The format reshuffled all teams in the playoffs so team 1 faced team 16, and the lowest surviving seed in each round thereafter.) The Isles faced teams that were ranked 16, 14, 13 and in the Finals they met their first winning record in the 9th seed North Stars. The playoff format let them benefit as top seeds, since upsets shielded them from having to face top teams themselves.

In 1982 the format shifted to the divisional format they used until 93. Division winners Edmonton and Montreal were eliminated in 5 games (best of 5 1st round), while NYI survived the Penguins to take their game 5. The Rangers were 5th best team in the conference, but due to upsets, they had the best record of any Isles opponent. The 30-win Canucks beat the 30-win Black Hawks to see who got thumped by the Isles.

In 1983 the Isles beat good teams, because their whole conference was good, and Edmonton came out of the Campbell instead of Vancouver.

In 1984 the Isles division was good again, so the format was bad for them for the second year. The division winning Isles survived a first round game 5 and made to the Finals, but this time the Oilers were better.

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this issue then:

Why is it that after the Islanders' 19 straight series win, they simply failed to become a playoff threat in the following years? Although they didn't crash and burn, the following year they were eliminated in the playoffs after 10 games, the next year only 3 games, the next year 14 games and 6 in the following.

The year the lost in the Finals, the Isles also had a blossoming 18 year old star, Pat Lafontaine, step into their line-up and contribute right away. Bossy was only 26, Trottier was 27, Potin was 29, Tonelli was 26, Gilbert was 21, Bourne was 29, B. Sutter was 21, Jonsson was 23, D. Suter was 23, Gilles was 29, Persson was 28, Dineen was 20, Morrow was 26, Hrudey was 22, Langevin was 29 and even Smith was only 31. With their core of stars in their primes and a blooming Lafontaine, why weren't the Isles perennial Stanley Cup threats after their five straight finals appearances? I know Bossy's injury three years later and the retirement of Torres (or was it Arbour?) had a traumatic effect but the future looked so bright - even their four cups. This was a team that should've continued to dominate for the next five years. What was the downfall of this dynasty?

In 1985 they were slowing down for many of the reasons touched on earlier. One that wasn't mentioned was Philly. The Flyers had the #1 or #2 regular season record in the NHL from 1985 to 1987, and was either #1 or #2 in goal differential each year (Edmonton was the other one.)

Mostly they stopped being a playoff threat because lost because the Flyers got really good and there was no opportunity to sneak into the later rounds with a fortunate matchup. Both times NYI hit the second round (in 85 and 87), they met the Flyers, who both times went to the Finals to face Edmonton.

In 1985 the Isles lost two OT games before winning 3 straight to beat the Caps. Then Pelle Lindbergh stopped the Isles cold, earning shutouts in Games 1 and 5 (the last game).

In 1986 NYI lost in the first round to the Caps (50 wins, 106 pts, 2nd to Philly in the division)

In 1987 The Isles beat the Caps in the Easter Epic, and took Philly to seven games, but Kelly Hrudey played to his usual "just good enough to lose" standard and was going up against Conn Smythe Ron Hextall.

Had they been in the Norris, the Isles could have made the final four once or twice in this span, but the Patrick was strong enough to produce a 2-3 seeded team that could challenge the Isles, and a 1-seed that was a very good Philly team.

The collapse didn't come until 88-89, when they had goaltending so poor they may as well have played with an empty net so that someone besides Lafontaine could score.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Puck went up ice, Edmonton faithful were going nuts, and Denis Potvin, skating behind the play, raised his arm to the crowd.

When asked after the game why he did so, he said it was his way of honoring the Oilers and their fans, a symbolic passing of the torch (Cup), an acknowledgement of respect for what they accomplished.

I never heard that before, that is an absolutely fantastic tidbit/story.

 

[Isles72]

alot has been covered already , so I'll just add .....

I dont know why or how , but the isles d-men(as a group) were so damn good at keeping the puck in the offensive zone when their opponents tried to clear it on the PK.

steel curtain

 

[BraveCanadian]

I love that story. The moral of it really though was that it was the end of the Islanders dynasty and the beginning of the Oilers.

No, the moral of the story was that the Oilers had no clue what it took to win a Stanley Cup at that point. A beaten up, older team with a ton more mileage on them beat the Oilers handily.

After all, the Isles still had enough left in the well to go to the finals the next year for the 5th time in a row. They just ran out of gas against the up and coming Oilers the second time around and the torch was passed.

 

[mm11]

ahhhhhh refreshing to see a positive NYI thread eh? I was an old 8 year old in May 1980 lol Witnessed the first semi finals in person vrs Gilbert Perreault and co.


Those Isles team could play it any way and beat you. Physical western guys were the lunch pail group along with a Swede/Canadian in Nystrom, they had an awesome PP with Potvin, Bossy and Trottier, they had awesome PK with goring and co, they had heart and determination and had a coach that took no BS being as their father figure. It was the perfect storm on Long Island to which in 1984 lost at their quest for 5 STANLEY CUPS IN A ROW to the kids from Edmonton one being Messier with hair who could fly!

The Isles were so beat up that series that the Oilers steam rolled them. Kudos to the new kids on the block but the early 80 Isles teams were dominant as dominant could be and always seemed to peak come playoff time taking their cue from battlin Billy Smith. Another words, they adapted to whatever a team threw at them and came out on top with 19 playoff series in a row. They stuck through injuries and all sorts of adversity to win. Legendary team. Let's hope the NYI stay on Long Island just because of this chapter in the NHL record book and besides no doubt Long Island has the deep pockets and fan base to support a NHL team.

hope this helped.

 

[mm11]

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this issue then:

Why is it that after the Islanders' 19 straight series win, they simply failed to become a playoff threat in the following years? Although they didn't crash and burn, the following year they were eliminated in the playoffs after 10 games, the next year only 3 games, the next year 14 games and 6 in the following.

The year the lost in the Finals, the Isles also had a blossoming 18 year old star, Pat Lafontaine, step into their line-up and contribute right away. Bossy was only 26, Trottier was 27, Potin was 29, Tonelli was 26, Gilbert was 21, Bourne was 29, B. Sutter was 21, Jonsson was 23, D. Suter was 23, Gilles was 29, Persson was 28, Dineen was 20, Morrow was 26, Hrudey was 22, Langevin was 29 and even Smith was only 31. With their core of stars in their primes and a blooming Lafontaine, why weren't the Isles perennial Stanley Cup threats after their five straight finals appearances? I know Bossy's injury three years later and the retirement of Torres (or was it Arbour?) had a traumatic effect but the future looked so bright - even their four cups. This was a team that should've continued to dominate for the next five years. What was the downfall of this dynasty?

good question, IMO, the Isles players laid everything on the line for years and years, playing more hockey than everyone and with their compete level so high I think their bodies and minds just broke down. to be that elite for so many years takes a toll. just my humble opinion.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The Islanders actually had their French-Canadian sniper backchecking.
Simply the best two-way team in the past 30 years.

 

[WheatiesHockey]

In that era the Isles were the hottest ticket in town everywhere they played.
In the salary cap world of today dynasties like the Isles had will not be found.
The Isles had great depth players like Bourne, Goring and Carroll.
So hard to believe that the incredible dynasty team of the early 80's has been reduced to ruins for what seems like an eternity.