95snipes
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2019
- 1,038
- 1,314
1985 Birth Year vs 1997 Birth Year
- Thread starter 95snipes
- Start date
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
JohanFranzenstein
Registered User
- Dec 6, 2013
- 2,222
- 2,259
Empoleon8771
Registered User
The 1997 team has a huge advantage at F while the 1985 team has a huge advantage on D. I voted 1985 at first due to the defense, but having McDavid and Matthews for the 1997 team makes me really reconsider that.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Mike Green was a 1985 birthyear and he was a downright monster at his best. 2nd place in Norris voting in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 with 50 goals and 149 points in 143 games.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Mike Green was a 1985 birthyear and he was a downright monster at his best. 2nd place in Norris voting in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 with 50 goals and 149 points in 143 games.
Gurglesons
Registered User
I dunno. It says prime. Prime Ovi versus Prime McDavid is a hard bet.
Like when I look at these two teams at their prime I see 3 hart finalists versus 3 and 5 Norris finalists versus 0.
Empoleon8771
Registered User
I think it's more that the 1997 team has 2 generational talents to only 1 for the 1985 team.
I think the defense for the 1985 team makes me take them, especially if you include Green. But having Matthews in addition to McDavid makes that a lot tougher.
Gurglesons
Registered User
But we are talking peak.
Can you imagine a peak line of Loui Eriksson - Mike Richards - Jeff Carter. That's a two way wet dream that can each put up 80 pts.
Peak Bergeron and Getzlaf are incredible too defensively.
Then throw in the defense and that team is f***ed.
'85 forwards have a lot more weaknesses in a career perspective but if you're spotting me their peaks I'm taking '85.
The D groups aren't even close and we have real world results with McDavid and Matthews, as great as they are, being unable to carry teams past squads constructed like 1985's.
The D groups aren't even close and we have real world results with McDavid and Matthews, as great as they are, being unable to carry teams past squads constructed like 1985's.
Mr Bojanglez
Registered User
This thread lacks Carcillo....
I kid. But those forwards for 1985 are severely underrated. Getzlaf, Carter, Richards and Perry were amazing players in their primes. And also you have Ovechkin is, in my own opinion, possibly the greatest goal scorer in NHL history.
Having said that... that '85 defense is tremendous. And plus that's without Mike Green's 73 points in 68 game season.
I kid. But those forwards for 1985 are severely underrated. Getzlaf, Carter, Richards and Perry were amazing players in their primes. And also you have Ovechkin is, in my own opinion, possibly the greatest goal scorer in NHL history.
Having said that... that '85 defense is tremendous. And plus that's without Mike Green's 73 points in 68 game season.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 33,933
- 30,467
97 group pretty easily for me. I think their defensive group is pretty underrated. Werenski is their only bad defender. Burns and Byfuglien were both very poor in their own end.
I think the speed of that forward group would just completely overwhelm the 85 group. That defensive corp really lacks footspeed. McDavid, Barzal, Marner, Aho etc would cause them nightmares.
I think the speed of that forward group would just completely overwhelm the 85 group. That defensive corp really lacks footspeed. McDavid, Barzal, Marner, Aho etc would cause them nightmares.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
bert
Registered User
Where is Chabot?
There is no way this is an easy decision. You could come back the other way and say that the 97 group could not handle the size and physicality. In the regular season 97 group playoffs i take the 85 group.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 33,933
- 30,467
I just feel like in todays NHL speed & skill trumps physicality, even in the playoffs.
95snipes
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2019
- 1,038
- 1,314
Complete oversight. Thank you. Will fix OP. I'm dumb because I had Chabot on the team when I was initially looking at the players.
As for the poll, slightly surprised by the results so far. I would have predicted '97 to win.
If anything, I think these teams illustrate why scoring is up compared to 10 years ago. Not the sole reason, but more skill and less grit in today's players just as a theme.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
But that begs the question. OP didn't say anything about the game being played in today's environment. The guys in the 1985 group mostly peaked a decade ago, when physicality was higher and scoring was much lower.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 33,933
- 30,467
That does make it more interesting. How about we just say that each team would win in their home environment?
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
- Apr 27, 2005
- 33,933
- 30,467
Then I would take the 1975 FlyersOk, but what about if they play under 1920s rules?
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 26,182
- 11,257
Two great years, and certainly a fascinating comparison. The stark contrast in the "style" and overarching characteristics of the team is really interesting.
'85 is built with a lot of size, a lot of grit and "two-way" players. Whereas '97 is just pure, unadulterated speed and skill.
It's also a tricky comparison, because when you start to look at "ultimate success" and the Cups won by these guys, the 97 group still being quite young really skews things. But there's like a couple guys on the 97 group who actually do have a Stanley Cup ring? And they're two of the most polished "two-way" performers out of the whole group. In terms of style of play, i think McAvoy and Cirelli are probably the two who would be most "at home" in amongst the 85 group. Which certainly feels like an interesting coincidence. Whereas a lot of the other guys on the 97 group are obviously still early in their careers...but have started to develop reputations as "chokers" or guys who "can't get it done when it counts" (in spite of some herculean personal accomplishments).
It just feels like there's a different level of "buy in" from those 85 guys. That whole roster is just almost top-to-bottom, guys who played a Selke/Norris-worthy type of game.
The other factor nobody is mentioning here is the "Special Teams Battle" - which is often pretty decisive. We see it at the "best on best" tournaments, as well as in the playoffs. I think both teams could field a pretty darn compelling Powerplay or two. But when it comes to top tier Penalty Killing, i think that's a pretty big ace in the hole for the 1985 group. Being comprised of a lot of guys who were very good offensive players, but can still "play a role", really tips it for me.
Again, like we saw the last time we had true "best on best" hockey, Canada tended to dominate and part of it was bringing guys who could play a "checking role", "grinding 4th line minutes", "killing penalties" etc. Not everyone on team 97 is going to be able to play to their biggest strengths on the Powerplay at the same time. It can be a real challenge for players who are used to handling the puck all the time and being a real offensive "focal point" to play more limited "4th line minutes". You need some guys who are "star players" in their own right, but are also capable of going out there, winning a faceoff, getting in on the forecheck and creating those "ugly goals" with a "simple game".
'85 is built with a lot of size, a lot of grit and "two-way" players. Whereas '97 is just pure, unadulterated speed and skill.
It's also a tricky comparison, because when you start to look at "ultimate success" and the Cups won by these guys, the 97 group still being quite young really skews things. But there's like a couple guys on the 97 group who actually do have a Stanley Cup ring? And they're two of the most polished "two-way" performers out of the whole group. In terms of style of play, i think McAvoy and Cirelli are probably the two who would be most "at home" in amongst the 85 group. Which certainly feels like an interesting coincidence. Whereas a lot of the other guys on the 97 group are obviously still early in their careers...but have started to develop reputations as "chokers" or guys who "can't get it done when it counts" (in spite of some herculean personal accomplishments).
It just feels like there's a different level of "buy in" from those 85 guys. That whole roster is just almost top-to-bottom, guys who played a Selke/Norris-worthy type of game.
The other factor nobody is mentioning here is the "Special Teams Battle" - which is often pretty decisive. We see it at the "best on best" tournaments, as well as in the playoffs. I think both teams could field a pretty darn compelling Powerplay or two. But when it comes to top tier Penalty Killing, i think that's a pretty big ace in the hole for the 1985 group. Being comprised of a lot of guys who were very good offensive players, but can still "play a role", really tips it for me.
Again, like we saw the last time we had true "best on best" hockey, Canada tended to dominate and part of it was bringing guys who could play a "checking role", "grinding 4th line minutes", "killing penalties" etc. Not everyone on team 97 is going to be able to play to their biggest strengths on the Powerplay at the same time. It can be a real challenge for players who are used to handling the puck all the time and being a real offensive "focal point" to play more limited "4th line minutes". You need some guys who are "star players" in their own right, but are also capable of going out there, winning a faceoff, getting in on the forecheck and creating those "ugly goals" with a "simple game".
bert
Registered User
Bergeron and Ovy still look pretty good. Not like that 1985 team isn't fast either. Look who has been winning cups. Big teams that still hasn't changed. The idea that 1985 team gets overwhelmed by anything is not realistic.
I, probably, agree that the younger group might be better individually(but it's certainly debatable) but I just feel like the older ones would make a better team so depends on what you wan't me to rank. I would bet on the older ones in a bo7.
