1996 Pens-Panthers series: Harbinger of DPE?

Hobnobs

Pinko
Nov 29, 2011
8,864
2,236
94 Canucks trapped? I wish (not really) they were.

94 Canucks had a lot of big rough guys though (Momesso, Antoski, McIntyre, Antoski, Hunter, Odjick, Antoski) but only forwards. We (I never say "we" when talking about my favorite team otherwise but I'll make an exception here) didn't have any nasty defensemen though but they still looked big and nasty when playing the Jets compared to Housley, Olausson & Company.

Trap might be a stretch but they utilized a similar strategy to Nolans Sabres. Big defenseman is not needed for a trap system but nucks were gearing for it with draft picks like Öhlund, Allen, Wilson, Robertsson, Cullimore. They obviously followed the same trend. It wasnt like Panthers had huge defensemen in 96 either.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Ah, the 1996 semis between the Panthers and Pens. Oh how I dread this series. There are a few moments in hockey history where as a fan you are watching from a neutral standpoint and you are thinking to yourself "Oh Please God no...……." this was one of those times. Because it was something that you knew was going to be bad for the game even as it was happening. Once in a while you get that lump in your stomach when seeing things unfold. Recently it was watching the 3rd period of Game 7 between Vegas and San Jose after that horrible major penalty call that resulted in San Jose scoring all of those goals and winning in overtime. As I was watching that I knew right at that moment that Vegas had better win this or else the domino effect for the game of hockey and the NHL would be bad. Well, 1996 had that same sort of feel. Before I get into that I will say that I agree this was what helped popularize the trap and get rid of the bandwagon hockey we loved so much, the natural flow of the game, the talented teams thriving etc. It wasn't the only reason, but it was one reason. Here are others:

- Penguins losing in 1993. It wasn't a "trap" per se, but a far, far less talented team beats them and the Habs who were relying more on Roy than their offense never play the Pens and end up winning the Cup.
- Florida coming in back in 1994 and playing .500 as an expansion team which was unheard of, using a defensive game to do it
- Devils winning the Cup, although they could score and did have more talent than other teams
- Lastly, the Panthers beating the Flyers and then the Pens in 1996. Even though they got swept by the Avs in the final the writing was on the wall. Teams realized they could be successful if they didn't have a star-studded team by basically waterskiing their more talented opponents, and the NHL allowed it.

Look, there are times in sports when an underdog wins and it isn't always a bad thing. For a Patriots fan in the NFL you still have nigthmares about David Tyree's catch and it hurts to not have that perfect record in 2007. But that Super Bowl was legendary, it gave us some good memories and the Giants won again in 4 years so they weren't horrible either. Even last year's Super Bowl wasn't the offensive fest we were expecting, but it wasn't sloppy. Good defense isn't always boring, or bad, and I can respect that, but I never thought the 1996 Florida Panthers were doing it the right way where you just shrug and say "Well, they wanted it more." The 2010 Capitals lost because a hot goalie thwarted them, as did the 2010 Pens. But they were still not boring games, they were still generating tons of scoring chances. As a neutral fan, that was good hockey to watch.

The 1996 series was NOT good hockey to watch. You saw Mario and Jagr and it wasn't thinking that "Oh well, they just can't penetrate" it was just based on the fact that you could understand where Mario was coming from when he would complain about the holding. If anything this series might have been why he retired in 1997. Imagine the Pens win the Cup in 1996, or at least make the finals and lose to the Avs but it is a pretty even series. I don't think he retires in 1997. First time I thought of that. But it wasn't pretty seeing him frustrated like that.

We were robbed of a lot of things from 1996. It would have been a wicked Cup final for the ages. But instead starting in 1996-'97 so many teams switched over to the trapping method and they could since the NHL was allowing hooking and holding all of the time. I can appreciate a team playing defense, and playing great all around, but there were times when you just knew a talented team lost because the other team was just hanging on for their life and did it in such an ugly way.

A couple things, the Pens were missing Ron Francis which would have made a difference. Secondly, while the Penguins generally outshot the Panthers in each game it was Game 3 that was insane with the Panthers getting 61 shots on net. How that happened or why that happened that game I don't know. I looked up the boxscore and the Pens had a lot of penalties, so maybe it was because of the power plays and such but it was double what the Panthers got any other game more or less.
 

Hobnobs

Pinko
Nov 29, 2011
8,864
2,236
Ah, the 1996 semis between the Panthers and Pens. Oh how I dread this series. There are a few moments in hockey history where as a fan you are watching from a neutral standpoint and you are thinking to yourself "Oh Please God no...……." this was one of those times. Because it was something that you knew was going to be bad for the game even as it was happening. Once in a while you get that lump in your stomach when seeing things unfold. Recently it was watching the 3rd period of Game 7 between Vegas and San Jose after that horrible major penalty call that resulted in San Jose scoring all of those goals and winning in overtime. As I was watching that I knew right at that moment that Vegas had better win this or else the domino effect for the game of hockey and the NHL would be bad. Well, 1996 had that same sort of feel. Before I get into that I will say that I agree this was what helped popularize the trap and get rid of the bandwagon hockey we loved so much, the natural flow of the game, the talented teams thriving etc. It wasn't the only reason, but it was one reason. Here are others:

- Penguins losing in 1993. It wasn't a "trap" per se, but a far, far less talented team beats them and the Habs who were relying more on Roy than their offense never play the Pens and end up winning the Cup.
- Florida coming in back in 1994 and playing .500 as an expansion team which was unheard of, using a defensive game to do it
- Devils winning the Cup, although they could score and did have more talent than other teams
- Lastly, the Panthers beating the Flyers and then the Pens in 1996. Even though they got swept by the Avs in the final the writing was on the wall. Teams realized they could be successful if they didn't have a star-studded team by basically waterskiing their more talented opponents, and the NHL allowed it.

Look, there are times in sports when an underdog wins and it isn't always a bad thing. For a Patriots fan in the NFL you still have nigthmares about David Tyree's catch and it hurts to not have that perfect record in 2007. But that Super Bowl was legendary, it gave us some good memories and the Giants won again in 4 years so they weren't horrible either. Even last year's Super Bowl wasn't the offensive fest we were expecting, but it wasn't sloppy. Good defense isn't always boring, or bad, and I can respect that, but I never thought the 1996 Florida Panthers were doing it the right way where you just shrug and say "Well, they wanted it more." The 2010 Capitals lost because a hot goalie thwarted them, as did the 2010 Pens. But they were still not boring games, they were still generating tons of scoring chances. As a neutral fan, that was good hockey to watch.

The 1996 series was NOT good hockey to watch. You saw Mario and Jagr and it wasn't thinking that "Oh well, they just can't penetrate" it was just based on the fact that you could understand where Mario was coming from when he would complain about the holding. If anything this series might have been why he retired in 1997. Imagine the Pens win the Cup in 1996, or at least make the finals and lose to the Avs but it is a pretty even series. I don't think he retires in 1997. First time I thought of that. But it wasn't pretty seeing him frustrated like that.

We were robbed of a lot of things from 1996. It would have been a wicked Cup final for the ages. But instead starting in 1996-'97 so many teams switched over to the trapping method and they could since the NHL was allowing hooking and holding all of the time. I can appreciate a team playing defense, and playing great all around, but there were times when you just knew a talented team lost because the other team was just hanging on for their life and did it in such an ugly way.

A couple things, the Pens were missing Ron Francis which would have made a difference. Secondly, while the Penguins generally outshot the Panthers in each game it was Game 3 that was insane with the Panthers getting 61 shots on net. How that happened or why that happened that game I don't know. I looked up the boxscore and the Pens had a lot of penalties, so maybe it was because of the power plays and such but it was double what the Panthers got any other game more or less.

I disagree. That series was insane. And no, Lemieux seemed to just get aggrevated to the point of giving up. Unlike the guys from Avs who actually wanted to win the cup and swept Florida. Not easily obviously but they still did. However one thing that I will agree with that you actually didnt bring up is that after 96 or 97 there around, head hunting became much more prevalant. This actually robbed us of many things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeBlondeDemon10

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
Never wrote that they were on the 94 team.
The post you responded to was entirely about the 1994 team, and this thread deals entirely with the teams that served as early bellwethers for the DPE, so bringing in that group of Canucks was entirely a non-sequitur, sorry to say.
 

Hobnobs

Pinko
Nov 29, 2011
8,864
2,236
The post you responded to was entirely about the 1994 team, and this thread deals entirely with the teams that served as early bellwethers for the DPE, so bringing in that group of Canucks was entirely a non-sequitur, sorry to say.

No, I wrote that huge defensemen isnt needed for playing the trap then I also added that the nucks were gearing up to get bigger on defense for the future. Meaning that they wanted to get bigger. The whole thing about the prospects its in the spirit of this thread as it is about when the trend started isnt it?

In any case, nucks was hardly an offensive power house in 94 and used a defensive measure similar to Nolan.
 

Dread Clawz

LAWSonic Boom
Nov 25, 2006
27,301
8,649
Pennsylvania
The Panthers cup run wasn't the harbinger, it was the handwriting on the wall.

Exactly, by 1995 the league already looked a lot different than a coupe years prior. Scoring was massively down from 93, coaches were paying much more attention to defensive hockey....the Panthers and coach MacLean were honestly just smart enough to notice the trend the game was going in and put all their eggs in the basket. I mean it wasn't thay hard to see, the Devils had just won the Cup playing that way the previous spring. I remember wondering at the time why more teams weren't playing the trap. Teams were very slow to adapt honestly and why I don't know, but the Panthers reaped the benefits of that. They were a very successful team for a couple of years because they trapped in their own end and the Beezer had a couple of great seasons. So it was pretty tough to score against the Panthers. Then you throw in some opportunistic scoring, good team speed, hard-working gritty vets like Bill Lindsay, Mike Hough, Brian Skrudland, Tom Fitzgerald...and the Ray Sheppard acquisition really made them a competitive team with a few different dimensions. It's not rocket science, the Panthers were just early to recognize the new recipe for success and milked it for all they could.
 

Dread Clawz

LAWSonic Boom
Nov 25, 2006
27,301
8,649
Pennsylvania
I disagree. That series was insane. And no, Lemieux seemed to just get aggrevated to the point of giving up. Unlike the guys from Avs who actually wanted to win the cup and swept Florida. Not easily obviously but they still did. However one thing that I will agree with that you actually didnt bring up is that after 96 or 97 there around, head hunting became much more prevalant. This actually robbed us of many things.

Exactly, Lemieux and Jagr just gave up. The Avs were a better over all team than the Pens that year but not by some gigantic proportion. You could see the Pens stars grow more and more frustrated over the series and gradually the Panthers wore them down. Maybe though, that helped the Avs scout the Panthers and they learned how they could beat them.
 

c9777666

Registered User
Aug 31, 2016
19,892
5,875
FLA/PIT '96 is the Pierre Turgeon of series- it's impossible to ignore on the History of Hockey
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,290
In any case, nucks was hardly an offensive power house in 94 and used a defensive measure similar to Nolan.

Offensive power house or not Canucks in 94 was pretty good offensively, I won't bother looking up the actual numbers of goals but they sure could score. They had Bure of course and two scoring lines rolling pretty nicely (Linden, Ronning, Courtnall, Adams, Craven). They didn't trap then. They may have trapped a bit later in the later stages of the 90s when everyone else were doing it too.
 

Hobnobs

Pinko
Nov 29, 2011
8,864
2,236
Offensive power house or not Canucks in 94 was pretty good offensively, I won't bother looking up the actual numbers of goals but they sure could score. They had Bure of course and two scoring lines rolling pretty nicely (Linden, Ronning, Courtnall, Adams, Craven). They didn't trap then. They may have trapped a bit later in the later stages of the 90s when everyone else were doing it too.

They were a bottom-5 team offensively of the playoff teams.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,429
The '94 Canucks were a team often described as lazy because they couldn't protect leads and played better when trailing. They did better on the road than at home and seemed a rollercoaster of energy and effort. They were entertaining but wild.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,290
They were a bottom-5 team offensively of the playoff teams.

They slumped a bit during that regular season. The previous season (92–93) only 3 teams scored more goals during the regular season being Detroit, Pittsburgh and Quebec.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I disagree. That series was insane. And no, Lemieux seemed to just get aggrevated to the point of giving up. Unlike the guys from Avs who actually wanted to win the cup and swept Florida. Not easily obviously but they still did. However one thing that I will agree with that you actually didnt bring up is that after 96 or 97 there around, head hunting became much more prevalant. This actually robbed us of many things.

I think a Cinderella story has to end eventually. It happened with Vegas, who I thought was a rightfully better team in 2018 than Florida in 1996. I just don't think a team can beat three elite teams in a row when they are the Florida Panthers. The Flyers, the Pens and the Avs? Nah, can't happen, I don't think. The Avs sort of put them back on earth. The 2010 Habs had that same sort of thing happen. Even the Flyers beat them that year, but if they had made the final I couldn't see them beating the Hawks, even if they upset the Pens and Caps.

Just watching that series in 1996 was frustrating as a fan. It honestly might be a reason Tom Barrasso isn't in the HHOF, or at least with a much better case. That shot from Fitzgerald from centre just killed the Pens and if they win that Game 7 and perform well vs. the Avs I think Barrasso, whether he was liked in the media or not, has an even better resume that just gets harder to ignore.

It just wasn't fulfilling to see the Panthers win. I guess this is an example of a "perfect storm" because this might be the only time in NHL history that a team like that could have beaten Pittsburgh the way they did. That was the thing with Mario, once in a while you could throw him off his game. I think the 1993 Islanders did sort of the same thing, but the 1996 Panthers did it more and they were basically holding and trapping and hooking the heck out of him in order to have a chance at winning. I just thought it was ugly, and unfortunate we didn't see a Pens/Avs final.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrhockey193195

jiboy

la game dans la game
May 2, 2007
1,820
1,045
This series is among my first vivid hockey memories and I remember pulling for the Panthers at this time. I actually liked both teams but the Pens had always been a flawed team and even when they played against my lowly Habs it was always entertaining games and they were giving a lots of goals.

Lemieux was a great player of course but the Pens were a team that did not seem to care much about playing defense and their top players didnt like playing against high energy grinders. They probably had no respect and a bit of disgust for this kind of game wich relied less on skills and more on effort. They also did not like physical play and got rattled fairly easy.

I think its why the Avalanche crushed the Panthers as they were much more used to physical play ( rivalry w Detroit probably helped) and were actually thriving when facing adversity. I remember being pretty sad that the final was not even close.

To answer OP : I think the 96 Florida Panthers showed that a team playing a good system with 100% effort could beat almost anyone if everyone was on board. It is much easier to destroy than to create but before that we had never seen a team with zero "star players" play this good and actually be such a PITA to play against. The Devils were in the same vein but they had some star players and great depth. Also the way the game was reffed helped this style of play to blossom but I dont blame those teams doing it as you got to use any competitive edge you can find at this level.
 

Hobnobs

Pinko
Nov 29, 2011
8,864
2,236
I think a Cinderella story has to end eventually. It happened with Vegas, who I thought was a rightfully better team in 2018 than Florida in 1996. I just don't think a team can beat three elite teams in a row when they are the Florida Panthers. The Flyers, the Pens and the Avs? Nah, can't happen, I don't think. The Avs sort of put them back on earth. The 2010 Habs had that same sort of thing happen. Even the Flyers beat them that year, but if they had made the final I couldn't see them beating the Hawks, even if they upset the Pens and Caps.

Just watching that series in 1996 was frustrating as a fan. It honestly might be a reason Tom Barrasso isn't in the HHOF, or at least with a much better case. That shot from Fitzgerald from centre just killed the Pens and if they win that Game 7 and perform well vs. the Avs I think Barrasso, whether he was liked in the media or not, has an even better resume that just gets harder to ignore.

It just wasn't fulfilling to see the Panthers win. I guess this is an example of a "perfect storm" because this might be the only time in NHL history that a team like that could have beaten Pittsburgh the way they did. That was the thing with Mario, once in a while you could throw him off his game. I think the 1993 Islanders did sort of the same thing, but the 1996 Panthers did it more and they were basically holding and trapping and hooking the heck out of him in order to have a chance at winning. I just thought it was ugly, and unfortunate we didn't see a Pens/Avs final.

I think the Panthers might be the only 4th seed in the modern era to be called a cinderella team. They were one of the best teams in the eastern conference that year. Pens lost because they were out worked and out played by the team that had just beat the #1 seed in 6 games.
 

Nerowoy nora tolad

Registered User
May 9, 2018
1,403
652
Gladstone, Australia
That was the thing with Mario, once in a while you could throw him off his game. I think the 1993 Islanders did sort of the same thing, but the 1996 Panthers did it more and they were basically holding and trapping and hooking the heck out of him in order to have a chance at winning. I just thought it was ugly, and unfortunate we didn't see a Pens/Avs final.

Its not an opinion that I see many other people share, but this aspect with Lemieux is what has me ranking him in a class lower than Gretzky, Orr, Howe. It just seems like it was too easy to throw Lemieux off his game if you unbalanced him with intensity and emotion.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I think the Panthers might be the only 4th seed in the modern era to be called a cinderella team. They were one of the best teams in the eastern conference that year. Pens lost because they were out worked and out played by the team that had just beat the #1 seed in 6 games.

They played Boston in the 1st round. I had Boston favoured, but it wasn't a huge shock that they beat them. But beating Lindros and the Flyers and then Lemieux and the Pens. Yeah, that wasn't expected to happen. I don't know if that is "Cinderella" territory but either way...……..

Its not an opinion that I see many other people share, but this aspect with Lemieux is what has me ranking him in a class lower than Gretzky, Orr, Howe. It just seems like it was too easy to throw Lemieux off his game if you unbalanced him with intensity and emotion.

Granted, we all know what Lemieux was capable of doing, and what he DID do. It is just that there are a couple of instances where a lesser talented team contained him and frustrated him. I suppose he was a bigger target for physical play too.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->