2007 Ducks greatest Cup team all-time...

[avs1986]

according to Ryan Kennedy's newest Hockey News blog...REALLY? hahaha,i just thought this was kind of hilarious.

Click to read more...

 

[jkrx]

according to Ryan Kennedy's newest Hockey News blog...REALLY? hahaha,i just thought this was kind of hilarious.

So did I... I think Avs '96 were better and Im a Red Wings fan.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Getzlaf and Perry were developing youths not even half of what they are today. This is merely someone overvaluing a team based upon the players they are today, not in 2007.

 

[Trottier]

Apparently the writer is another genius for who "all-time" = "anything that happened since I was born".

Pity those without a sense of hockey history or an ounce of curiousity.

 

[JackSlater]

That article is insane. Even though he partially covers his bases by saying that he is considering the 2007 Ducks as if they came out of a time machine against every other team in history, advantages and all, I highly doubt they would stand a chance against the best Colorado/Detroit/New Jersey teams of the last decade and a half. I also find it interesting that Gretzky in his prime would not have been able to beat 2007 Pronger. I could have sworn that i remembered late 90s Gretzky doing fine against late 90s Pronger.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Apparently the writer is another genius for who "all-time" = "anything that happened since I was born".

Pity those without a sense of hockey history or an ounce of curiousity.

Honestly, that only makes sense if he were 5 years old. The 2007 Ducks might have been the best team since the lockout (though 2008 Red Wings were just as good IMO). But they don't hold a candle to any of the Cup winners from 2000-2002 just for example.

With the salary cap and UFA at 27, we really aren't going to see powerhouse teams like that again, unless the stars align.

 

[Okposofan21]

the 1981-1982 Islanders are one of if not the greatest team of all time.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I can't think of any team of the last decade that would crack the usual list of the "the best ever". That includes:
1955-56 Montreal
1951-52 Detroit
1947-48 Toronto
1976-77 Montreal
1981-82 NY Islanders
1971-72 Boston (would be 1970-71 if they'd won)
1983-84 Edmonton

Maybe the better question is this. What IS the best team of the 2000s? And how could we best determine it in a manner that wouldn't involve looking at a roster and saying, "This team had this guy AND this guy! One was 15 years past his prime, but remember that one play he made back in 1987?"

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Maybe the better question is this. What IS the best team of the 2000s? And how could we best determine it in a manner that wouldn't involve looking at a roster and saying, "This team had this guy AND this guy! One was 15 years past his prime, but remember that one play he made back in 1987?"

In terms of the talent on the roster, plus how they played in the regular season and playoffs, I think the 2000 Devils, 2001 Avalanche, and 2002 Red Wings were all superior to any Cup winner that came after them. All three teams had the firepower to win a high-scoring game, but also had the defensive ability and goaltending to win a lower-scoring game.

IMO the conversation is between those three teams for "best of the 2000s." The 2001 Avalanche might take it if Forsberg were healthy, but how do you rate them knowing that he missed the final two rounds? For that reason, I'd lean towards the 2002 Red Wings, with the 2000 Devils and 2001 Avs in a tossup for a close 2nd place.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

2002 Red Wings.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The sad part is, clowns like this comprise a substantial portion of the media. I'm sure he also thinks Orr-Lidstrom is a viable comparison, Martin Brodeur is without a doubt the greatest goalie of all-time, and Scott Niedermayer is a top-10 all time defenseman.

Team of the decade, I'd have to echo the sentiments of TDMM. Early 2000's Devils and Avalanche clubs would be my top two choices.

 

[jkrx]

In terms of the talent on the roster, plus how they played in the regular season and playoffs, I think the 2000 Devils, 2001 Avalanche, and 2002 Red Wings were all superior to any Cup winner that came after them. All three teams had the firepower to win a high-scoring game, but also had the defensive ability and goaltending to win a lower-scoring game.

IMO the conversation is between those three teams for "best of the 2000s." The 2001 Avalanche might take it if Forsberg were healthy, but how do you rate them knowing that he missed the final two rounds? For that reason, I'd lean towards the 2002 Red Wings, with the 2000 Devils and 2001 Avs in a tossup for a close 2nd place.

I'd say the 96 avalanche were better than the 2001.

I dont even think that the 2007 Ducks were the best team post lock-out. Detroit and Pittsburgh are better. I might even consider Chicago a better team though because of cap trouble might get torn apart. I would even say that this guy is under eestimating the Canes cup team which had better centers than the ducks.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd say the 96 avalanche were better than the 2001.

I dont even think that the 2007 Ducks were the best team post lock-out. Detroit and Pittsburgh are better. I might even consider Chicago a better team though because of cap trouble might get torn apart. I would even say that this guy is under eestimating the Canes cup team which had better centers than the ducks.

The 1996 Avalanche had a pretty poor defense though, at least among Stanley Cup winners. Sandis Ozolinsh, Adam Foote... and?

The 2001 version had Ray Bourque (aging, but still a 1st Team All Star!) and Rob Blake on their first pair with Adam Foote behind them. They won the President's Trophy during the regular season too.

 

[Trottier]

Honestly, that only makes sense if he were 5 years old. The 2007 Ducks might have been the best team since the lockout (though 2008 Red Wings were just as good IMO). But they don't hold a candle to any of the Cup winners from 2000-2002 just for example.

True. Nor numerous squads prior to 2000.

***

Very few things rile me up, but the utter lack of perspective (willing, in some cases) of a few people purporting to appreciate this sport is distasteful. As is the mindset that anything that happens in "my lifetime" is "bestest". The best team, the best player, the best whatever.

That applies for any fan, any age and of any generation, younger or older.

Learn, read, educate. This is a great era of hockey...as was every one that came before it. Just because "you" or I weren't around does not detract from it one ****ing bit and to suggest otherwise, or to ignore it is boorish. But that is the quality of writing and insight one gets today when a cub High School newspaper reporter is considered a "journalist" by internet standards.

And that does not even begin to address the insufferable, NAIVE relativity card that a few in the "Born Yesterday" crowd pulls out that players and the game of the past was inferior compared to today. I'd love some genius to try that line on 80-something year old Gordie Howe. And I'd like to be there to pick up his teeth afterward.

Certitude and a lack of curiousity make for painfully uninformed commentary. Such as the suggstion that the 2007 Ducks, worthy Cup champions to be sure, are in the same book, let alone the same chapter, paragraph or sentence of the greatest teams this league has seen.

Mayor Bee is correct: want to debate best of the decade, great.

But best ever? That's adorably simple.

Rant over...time for the first Happy Hour beverage of the weekend....

 

[Kyle McMahon]

There were no holes at all on that Avalanche team. Guys like Yelle, Klemm, Podein, de Vries, and Messier were all excellent support players. Top to bottom, just a fabulous roster, probably one that couldn't be assembled in the cap era. Although I'd say the current Blackhawks are similar in their depth and complexion, they just lack the winning experience and a proven championship caliber goaltender.

The '96 team was solid as well though, I'd probably rate them only a notch below 2001. Their defense had Klemm, Gusarov, and Krupp in addition to the two you named, TDMM. Not big names historically, but the latter two were about age 30, right in their prime as far as most defensemen go. Probably no worse than the '99 Dallas Stars blueline, even though the names Hatcher and Zubov would make one naturally think otherwise.

 

[jkrx]

The 1996 Avalanche had a pretty poor defense though, at least among Stanley Cup winners. Sandis Ozolinsh, Adam Foote... and?

The 2001 version had Ray Bourque (aging, but still a 1st Team All Star!) and Rob Blake on their first pair with Adam Foote behind them. They won the President's Trophy during the regular season too.

True if you look at the names on paper and compare them to other defensemen historically they are not as good. I choose to see them as how everyone of them performed during that playoff. They all played well above average and did everything right. You are forgetting Uwe Krupp, Gusarov, Leschyshyn, Klemm and Lefevbre, not the biggest names but all solid playoff permorming defensemen.

Sakic, Forsberg, Ricci > Getzlaf, McDonald, Pahlsson

 

[Mayor Bee]

True. Nor numerous squads prior to 2000.

***

Very few things rile me up, but the utter lack of perspective (willing, in some cases) of a few people purporting to appreciate this sport is distasteful. As is the mindset that anything that happens in "my lifetime" is "bestest". The best team, the best player, the best whatever.

That applies for any fan, any age and of any generation, younger or older.

Learn, read, educate. This is a great era of hockey...as was every one that came before it. Just because "you" or I weren't around does not detract from it one ****ing bit and to suggest otherwise, or to ignore it is boorish. But that is the quality of writing and insight one gets today when a cub High School newspaper reporter is considered a "journalist" by internet standards.

And that does not even begin to address the insufferable, NAIVE relativity card that a few in the "Born Yesterday" crowd pulls out that players and the game of the past was inferior compared to today. I'd love some genius ot try that line on 80-something year old Gordie Howe. And I'd like to be there to pick up his teeth afterward.

Certitude and a lack of curiousity make for painfully uninformed commentary. Such as the suggstion that the 2007 Ducks, worthy Cup champions to be sure, are in the same book, let alone the same chapter, paragraph or sentence of the greatest teams this league has seen.

Mayor Bee is correct: want to debate best of the decade, great.

But best ever? That's adorably simple.

Rant over...time for the first Happy Hour beverage of the weekend....

I've asked Gordie. Gordie doesn't care.

I think one of the reasons that Gordie is as respected as he is is that he isn't the typical bitter ex-player who regards everything from his own time as being the pinnacle of evolution, with everything prior being primitive and everything after being a bastardized version of the purity of his own time. In that sense, he's a true rarity. The world of sports is polluted with old players and old writers who bemoan "the modern athlete" and young players and young writers who roll their eyes at the suggestion that the best old team could compete with the worst modern team.

There were no holes at all on that Avalanche team. Guys like Yelle, Klemm, Podein, de Vries, and Messier were all excellent support players. Top to bottom, just a fabulous roster, probably one that couldn't be assembled in the cap era. Although I'd say the current Blackhawks are similar in their depth and complexion, they just lack the winning experience and a proven championship caliber goaltender.

The '96 team was solid as well though, I'd probably rate them only a notch below 2001. Their defense had Klemm, Gusarov, and Krupp in addition to the two you named, TDMM. Not big names historically, but the latter two were about age 30, right in their prime as far as most defensemen go. Probably no worse than the '99 Dallas Stars blueline, even though the names Hatcher and Zubov would make one naturally think otherwise.

The only holes on that team at the beginning of the year were offense from the blueline and high-end goaltending. The fact that both were repaired by giving up major players (Nolan, Kovalenko, Thibault, and Rucinsky) without missing a beat is the amazing thing. Nolan's role was replaced by the emergence of Deadmarsh and Simon, and the scoring of Kovalenko and Rucinsky was replaced by numerous players who stepped up.

If not for Detroit running parallel to Colorado, it's not unreasonable to see a dynasty in the late 1990s. Colorado was the first team since Edmonton in the 1980s that had almost all of its players under 30 and not past their prime at all. The only guys over 30 were Gusarov, Troy Murray (replaceable), and Dave Hannan (replaceable). The only thing that stood between them and two or three more Cups was Detroit.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In terms of the talent on the roster, plus how they played in the regular season and playoffs, I think the 2000 Devils, 2001 Avalanche, and 2002 Red Wings were all superior to any Cup winner that came after them. All three teams had the firepower to win a high-scoring game, but also had the defensive ability and goaltending to win a lower-scoring game.

IMO the conversation is between those three teams for "best of the 2000s." The 2001 Avalanche might take it if Forsberg were healthy, but how do you rate them knowing that he missed the final two rounds? For that reason, I'd lean towards the 2002 Red Wings, with the 2000 Devils and 2001 Avs in a tossup for a close 2nd place.

i totally agree with this. and i'd love to see at some point a thread devoted to ranking these teams, as it pits the giants of the previous generation against each other. brodeur vs. roy vs. hasek, stevens vs. bourque vs. chelios, niedermayer vs. blake vs. lidstrom (okay, that last one isn't close).

Their defense had Klemm, Gusarov, and Krupp in addition to the two you named, TDMM. Not big names historically, but the latter two were about age 30, right in their prime as far as most defensemen go. Probably no worse than the '99 Dallas Stars blueline, even though the names Hatcher and Zubov would make one naturally think otherwise.

even though they lacked a true #1, i thought the '99 stars had one of the great top fours in recent history, certainly the best superstar-less top four i can think of. two great powerplay guys with at least two, and probably three, great penalty killers. great first passes, phenomenal shot blocking from matvichuk, phenomenal front of net presence by hatcher, and they all knew hitchcock's game plan cold. and an old-as-sin craig ludwig was pretty good in his third pair role too.

shawn chambers, i don't really remember at all on that team, but he did play on teams that won a lot of playoff games in his career, so he must have had something going for him.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If not for Detroit running parallel to Colorado, it's not unreasonable to see a dynasty in the late 1990s. Colorado was the first team since Edmonton in the 1980s that had almost all of its players under 30 and not past their prime at all. The only guys over 30 were Gusarov, Troy Murray (replaceable), and Dave Hannan (replaceable). The only thing that stood between them and two or three more Cups was Detroit.

I can't say I agree with this part. The Red Wings beat Colorado in 1997, but the Avalanche lost to the Oilers in 1998, and Dallas in 1999 and 2000. Both those years they lost to Dallas, they beat Detroit to get there. They lost to the Wings in 2002, but that's getting pretty far removed from the 1996 team. Even with Detroit out of the picture, I don't see how Colorado wins more than one extra Cup in the late 90's.

 

[jkrx]

I've asked Gordie. Gordie doesn't care.

I think one of the reasons that Gordie is as respected as he is is that he isn't the typical bitter ex-player who regards everything from his own time as being the pinnacle of evolution, with everything prior being primitive and everything after being a bastardized version of the purity of his own time. In that sense, he's a true rarity. The world of sports is polluted with old players and old writers who bemoan "the modern athlete" and young players and young writers who roll their eyes at the suggestion that the best old team could compete with the worst modern team.



The only holes on that team at the beginning of the year were offense from the blueline and high-end goaltending. The fact that both were repaired by giving up major players (Nolan, Kovalenko, Thibault, and Rucinsky) without missing a beat is the amazing thing. Nolan's role was replaced by the emergence of Deadmarsh and Simon, and the scoring of Kovalenko and Rucinsky was replaced by numerous players who stepped up.

If not for Detroit running parallel to Colorado, it's not unreasonable to see a dynasty in the late 1990s. Colorado was the first team since Edmonton in the 1980s that had almost all of its players under 30 and not past their prime at all. The only guys over 30 were Gusarov, Troy Murray (replaceable), and Dave Hannan (replaceable). The only thing that stood between them and two or three more Cups was Detroit.

I would say that Nolan were replaced during the pre-season by Lemieux. There just werent any spots left for that 2nd line player. Deadmarsh and Simon were just a bonus. I dont remember the lines exactly but I think it were

Kamensky - Sakic - Young
Deadmarsh - Forsberg - Lemieux

with Simon spending some time on both lines.

or did Deadmarsh play with sakic?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

i totally agree with this. and i'd love to see at some point a thread devoted to ranking these teams, as it pits the giants of the previous generation against each other. brodeur vs. roy vs. hasek, stevens vs. bourque vs. chelios, niedermayer vs. blake vs. lidstrom (okay, that last one isn't close).



even though they lacked a true #1, i thought the '99 stars had one of the great top fours in recent history, certainly the best superstar-less top four i can think of. two great powerplay guys with at least two, and probably three, great penalty killers. great first passes, phenomenal shot blocking from matvichuk, phenomenal front of net presence by hatcher, and they all knew hitchcock's game plan cold. and an old-as-sin craig ludwig was pretty good in his third pair role too.

shawn chambers, i don't really remember at all on that team, but he did play on teams that won a lot of playoff games in his career, so he must have had something going for him.

Yeah, my post wasn't meant to knock the Stars defense, I think everyone acknowledges that they were a really solid group. I think the '96 Avs group was similar in lacking a true stud, but still getting the job done as good as anyone else.

 

[Mayor Bee]

shawn chambers, i don't really remember at all on that team, but he did play on teams that won a lot of playoff games in his career, so he must have had something going for him.

Shawn Chambers was to defensemen what Calvin Coolidge was to presidents and what cabbage is to vegetables. There were no highs, there were no lows, there was just stable workmanlike hockey.

During the Devils' run in 1995, he made several big plays that were still unspectacular. He would keep the puck in the zone, and 20 seconds later there would be a goal that he wouldn't get an assist on. He would block a shot and thwart a scoring attempt. He would clear the zone and not turn the puck over. I'd describe him as "a poor man's Bruce Driver", but Chambers' prime and career were much shorter because of knee injuries. He also didn't have the occasional mean streak that Driver did.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

shawn chambers, i don't really remember at all on that team, but he did play on teams that won a lot of playoff games in his career, so he must have had something going for him.

Chambers was actually paired with Scott Stevens for most games in the 1995 Cup-winning season. (All rounds except the ECF against Lindros when Stevens was paired with Daneyko, if I remember correctly). He was a steady all-round guy with a good first pass, at least earlier in his career.

And I agree about the Dallas blueline - definitely greater than the sum of its parts. And I honestly think Derian Hatcher is really underrated. Arguably the 3rd best defensive defenseman of the era after Stevens and Lidstrom. One of the best crease clearing guys ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would say that Nolan were replaced during the pre-season by Lemieux. There just werent any spots left for that 2nd line player. Deadmarsh and Simon were just a bonus. I dont remember the lines exactly but I think it were

Kamensky - Sakic - Young
Deadmarsh - Forsberg - Lemieux

with Simon spending some time on both lines.

or did Deadmarsh play with sakic?

Deadmarsh played with Sakic.

Kamensky-Forsberg-Lemieux was a monster that year with great chemistry and puck possession.

Sakic basically carried the other line, and did it in spectacular fashion.

 

[Trottier]

Shawn Chambers was to defensemen what Calvin Coolidge was to presidents and what cabbage is to vegetables. There were no highs, there were no lows, there was just stable workmanlike hockey.

You just offered up fodder for a poll over on the main Board:

"Shawn Chambers vs. Calvin Coolige vs. Cabbage"