avs1986
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2010
- 265
- 0
according to Ryan Kennedy's newest Hockey News blog...REALLY? hahaha,i just thought this was kind of hilarious.
according to Ryan Kennedy's newest Hockey News blog...REALLY? hahaha,i just thought this was kind of hilarious.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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....
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.
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.
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.
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'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 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.
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, 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.
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?
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.