Are Great teams/Dynastys/Multiply Cup Winners a thing of the past??

[Big Phil]

I agree with those that say we need to redefine what a Dynasty is. In the NBA the Spurs have long been considered a Dynasty for winning 4 Championships in their extended run. They went 1st or 2nd in their division 14 consecutive years, finishing 1st 9 of those times. They also made 7 Conference finals, winning 4 times, all 4 of which lead to the NBA title.

I disagree. You either are or you aren't a dynasty. The definition has never changed. Free agency and player turnover has killed at least one dynasty in my opinion in the NHL since the Oilers. Insanely bad luck (1993 Pens) is another reason there wasn't another one.

Even recently, the Devils were one game away (2001 final) from making it 3/4 years. The Red Wings could have won in either one of 1995 or 1996 for a true dynasty.

Recently Detroit was a goal away from back to back in an era where people think it is impossible

Pittsburgh had more bad luck in 2010 and rotten injuries in 2011.

Those were all potential dynasties and in my mind Pittsburgh could easily still be one. Anaheim, Carolina, Tampa and Chicago are the recent winners that did a terrible job deciding who stays and who goes after their Cup wins.

 

[WingsFan95]

It hasn't been just the last six years that hasn't produced a dynasty. The last dynasty ended 21 years ago. (Sorry Red Wings fans, but three Cups in six years is not a dynasty, not really even close seeing as '99-'01 were all early exits).

I wold not consider the Patriots three in four a dynasty either.

Basically any arguments espousing the likelyhood of another dynasty are predicated on the definition of "dynasty" being loosened considerably. The Lakers' three-peat early last decade is about the bare minimum to be considered a dynasty.

Alright look, I don't know you personally, but youe NFL knowledge is lacking somewhat if you do not consider the Pats 3 in 4 a dynasty.

It's a dynasty by every textbook example in NFL history.

The 60s had the Packers.
The 70s had the Steelers.
The 80s had the 49ers ( who won 4 in 9 ).
The 90s had the Cowboys ( who won 3 in 4 ).
And the 00s had the Pats.

Now onto the Wings dynasty of 97-02, 3 Championships in 6 seasons certainly is a dynasty, it's more than 2 and takes up at least half of the years within, that's a dynasty by most general standards.

And yes, the NBA is more prone to dynasties but in the NBA winning 3-4 titles in half the span of the so called dynasty is a dynasty, and the Wings fit that bill.

There is also the issue of considering dynasty in terms of contention or in terms of Championships.

The 90s Bills are considered a quasi dynasty because they won 4 AFC Championships in a row, but never a League Championship.

Consequently, the Red Wings made 2 additional Finals and 2 Conference Finals from 95-09.

Their accomplishments in that 15 years span then would be:

8 Seasons of making the Final 4 or better.
6 Seasons of making the Championship Series.
4 Seasons of being Playoff Champions.

And 6 Seasons of being 1st in the regular season.


But by your standards it would seem a dynasty in the NHL happens twice, maybe three times a lifetime ( since you only put Oilers, Isles and Canadiens as dynasties the last 40 years ) and the NFL doesn't have dynasties, except for maybe the Steelers in your mind.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Alright look, I don't know you personally, but youe NFL knowledge is lacking somewhat if you do not consider the Pats 3 in 4 a dynasty.

It's a dynasty by every textbook example in NFL history.

The 60s had the Packers.
The 70s had the Steelers.
The 80s had the 49ers ( who won 4 in 9 ).
The 90s had the Cowboys ( who won 3 in 4 ).
And the 00s had the Pats.

The Packers won 5 NFL championships in 7 years. No questioning them. Likewise the Steelers, who won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years, and played in the NCF title game 6 times in 8 years.

The 49ers didn't group their SB wins as close together, but were elite for a ridiculously long time. Basically a decade and a half as a SB threat. I guess the Patriots are approaching this level, though repeated playoff chokes in recent years are taking a bit of the shine off.

If the 90's Cowboys are considered a dynasty, then yes, NE would be as well.

Now onto the Wings dynasty of 97-02, 3 Championships in 6 seasons certainly is a dynasty, it's more than 2 and takes up at least half of the years within, that's a dynasty by most general standards.

Well, the definition is ambiguous, but if you don't win three in a row, I'd say you at least need more than half within that time frame. There are some that don't even consider the Oilers a dynasty due to their failure to win three consecutive Cups.

But by your standards it would seem a dynasty in the NHL happens twice, maybe three times a lifetime ( since you only put Oilers, Isles and Canadiens as dynasties the last 40 years ) and the NFL doesn't have dynasties, except for maybe the Steelers in your mind.

Dynasties were frequent up until 20 years ago.

Late 40's Leafs, early 50's Red Wings, late 50's Habs, 60's Leafs, late 60's Habs, late 70's Habs, Islanders, Oilers. Basically as one dynasty ended, another began.

Since the Oilers of 1990, no team has matched the accomplishments of these clubs in terms of repeated championships in a short time span. However, it's certainly possible to argue that the sustained dominance of the Wings from 1995 to 2009 is more impressive than some of the above dynasties.

But that's just further proof that we're never going to see a dynasty like we have in the past. If a team as great as the Wings can only manage three in six years, it shows just how hard a three-peat, or four in five, or five in seven is to accomplish these days. The first five dynasties on that list only had to outlast one or two other contenders in most given years. Today, you must survive a two month tournament feauturing as many as six, seven, maybe eight other contenders. Just too unlikely you'll navigate that minefield enough to match the standard set by past greats.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dynasties

The classic dynasties in hockey from the late 1940's thru 1990 had one thing in common. They played to win and they knew how to win.
Given the slightest opening the dynasty teams would close-out the opposition,

Today the teams play not to lose. During the regular season the object is to not squander the loser point. As a result the teams do not have the necessary killer instinct necessary to put away the weak team.

Look at the playoffs from the last two seasons. Vancouver this year alone has played extra games(3-4 total so far) in the playoffs because they could not end a series quickly and efficiently. The unnecessary games that teams play en route to winning a Stanley Cup eventually costs them be it short or long term.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Yep, this year's playoffs is a clinic in how not to close out an opponent. The Canucks, and now Sharks have given a laughable amount of extra chances to their opponents. Jacques Martin's classic play not to lose strategy saw Montreal hand away a playoff series. Buffalo should have had the Flyers finished in six games. Pittsburgh gagged a 3-1 lead.

I remember the days when it was considered a pretty big meltdown for a team up 3-1 let a series slip away. Rarely does a playoff year go by where we don't see this happen now, and apparently a 3-0 series is still up for grabs as we're seeing.

Since the 16-team format began in 1980, only four teams (1980, 82 Isles, 87 Flyers, 2003 Devils) squandered three chances to eliminate an opponent and still reached the final. No team in that span ever blew four chances and still made it to the last round. We've now seen Vancouver and San Jose both accumulate four blown chances, yet they comprise two of the three potential western representatives.

 

[Peter9]

Redefine what a dynasty is? Might as well redefine what a winner is. Not so ridiculous, since the NHL has redefined what a loser is through giving one point to teams that lose in overtime or the shootout. But I agree with Big Phil: a dynasty is a dynasty, and if NHL dynasties never or very rarely come along these days, that's just the way it is. If you want to coin a term for a consistent contender with occasional wins, go ahead, but don't dilute what a dynasty is.

The Red Wings are not a dynasty and won't be even if they win the Stanley Cup next season. Whoever wrote that if the Wings win the Cup this season or next season, they will have won five of the last 10 Cups is way off. If the Wings win next season, they will have won three of the last 10 Cups. Given that they did not win this season, the Wings have won four of the last 14 Cups, two of the last 10. Not a dynasty, far from it.

It's correct that there were dynasty teams pretty much all the time from the 1940s through the 1980s--Leafs, Wings, Canadiens, Leafs, Canadiens, Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers.

It's difficult but not impossible to assemble a team capable of becoming a dynasty, but it is next to impossible to keep that team together long enough for it to become one. The dynasty teams of the past had a core of superb players who stayed with the team throughout.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Eras

Redefine what a dynasty is? Might as well redefine what a winner is. Not so ridiculous, since the NHL has redefined what a loser is through giving one point to teams that lose in overtime or the shootout. But I agree with Big Phil: a dynasty is a dynasty, and if NHL dynasties never or very rarely come along these days, that's just the way it is. If you want to coin a term for a consistent contender with occasional wins, go ahead, but don't dilute what a dynasty is.

The Red Wings are not a dynasty and won't be even if they win the Stanley Cup next season. Whoever wrote that if the Wings win the Cup this season or next season, they will have won five of the last 10 Cups is way off. If the Wings win next season, they will have won three of the last 10 Cups. Given that they did not win this season, the Wings have won four of the last 14 Cups, two of the last 10. Not a dynasty, far from it.

It's correct that there were dynasty teams pretty much all the time from the 1940s through the 1980s--Leafs, Wings, Canadiens, Leafs, Canadiens, Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers.

It's difficult but not impossible to assemble a team capable of becoming a dynasty, but it is next to impossible to keep that team together long enough for it to become one. The dynasty teams of the past had a core of superb players who stayed with the team throughout.

Agree with your comments above but a historical context is necessary. The 1947-49 Leafs were the first team to win at least three consecutive Stanley Cups. Previous to the introduction of the Red in 1943 and the emergence of farm systems there were very few repeat winners.

The 1947-49 Leafs were viewed as an anomaly. No one foresaw that dynasties would be fairly commonplace thru 1990.

Since 1990 only two teams have Repeated- Pittsburgh(1991/1992) and Detroit(1997/1998). Comparable to three teams repeating between 1918 and 1946.

Since the lost season the NHL has changed enormously from the standpoint of the Salary Cap being introduced, rule changes being implemented and the ongoing safety easy issues centered around headshots. This has to be assimilated into the game while at the same time ridding the old baggage. Pre 2005-06 contracts, coaching philosophies, drafting philosophies, development philosophies. etc.

Once this transition period matures some will be much better placed than others to dominate and create dynasties. Simple Darwinism applied to hockey.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The classic dynasties in hockey from the late 1940's thru 1990 had one thing in common. They played to win and they knew how to win.
Given the slightest opening the dynasty teams would close-out the opposition,

Today the teams play not to lose. During the regular season the object is to not squander the loser point. As a result the teams do not have the necessary killer instinct necessary to put away the weak team.

Look at the playoffs from the last two seasons. Vancouver this year alone has played extra games(3-4 total so far) in the playoffs because they could not end a series quickly and efficiently. The unnecessary games that teams play en route to winning a Stanley Cup eventually costs them be it short or long term.

06 teams simply has less competion compared to todays 30 teams, its not as simple as you make it with desire to win ect..

4 rounds of 7 is much more taxing than 2 rounds of 7.

With the salary cap in place it will be very hard for teams to repeat never mind winning 3 or more times in a row.

IMO winning the Cup 3 times in 10 years is going to be more difficult as the last 2 great dynasty teams winning 4 straight (Mont and NYI) or Edmontons 5 Cups in 7 years.

Detroit's making it to the Cup final 6 times in the last 14 years from 95-09 is the new standard to shoot for under the current conditions IMO.

 

[WingsFan95]

Well, the definition is ambiguous, but if you don't win three in a row, I'd say you at least need more than half within that time frame. There are some that don't even consider the Oilers a dynasty due to their failure to win three consecutive Cups.

Dynasties were frequent up until 20 years ago.

Late 40's Leafs, early 50's Red Wings, late 50's Habs, 60's Leafs, late 60's Habs, late 70's Habs, Islanders, Oilers. Basically as one dynasty ended, another began.

Since the Oilers of 1990, no team has matched the accomplishments of these clubs in terms of repeated championships in a short time span. However, it's certainly possible to argue that the sustained dominance of the Wings from 1995 to 2009 is more impressive than some of the above dynasties.

But that's just further proof that we're never going to see a dynasty like we have in the past. If a team as great as the Wings can only manage three in six years, it shows just how hard a three-peat, or four in five, or five in seven is to accomplish these days. The first five dynasties on that list only had to outlast one or two other contenders in most given years. Today, you must survive a two month tournament feauturing as many as six, seven, maybe eight other contenders. Just too unlikely you'll navigate that minefield enough to match the standard set by past greats.

1. Find me two posters on this forum who think the 80s Oilers are not a dynasty.

2. I'll admit right here the Wings passed up some golden opportunities. People have brought up could haves in this thread but the Wings had more than one should have. Basically, the 95 Cup Final was a shocker, but the 04, 07 and 09 seasons were blown, 07 had the crap call that cost the Wings Game 5 and the series they deserved to win. But I digress, point being we've seen the Wings give this consistency, and there will be another team.


Furthermore, we should stop bringing up the original 6 era teams, it's laughable to do that because in those days not only did powerhouse teams only have 1-2 contenders to deal with, there were only 6 bloody teams in the whole league.

We should instead look at how the 70s Canadiens and 80s Oilers dominated. Not to mention the early 90s Penguins and their squandered opportunity, due in large part to Lemieux ill health.

Basically what we have in both the Pens and Wings case is building through the draft and great coaching, after all both teams were lead by Scotty Bowman.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Really

06 teams simply has less competion compared to todays 30 teams, its not as simple as you make it with desire to win ect..

4 rounds of 7 is much more taxing than 2 rounds of 7.

With the salary cap in place it will be very hard for teams to repeat never mind winning 3 or more times in a row.

IMO winning the Cup 3 times in 10 years is going to be more difficult as the last 2 great dynasty teams winning 4 straight (Mont and NYI) or Edmontons 5 Cups in 7 years.

Detroit's making it to the Cup final 6 times in the last 14 years from 95-09 is the new standard to shoot for under the current conditions IMO.

Problem is that the good teams let the bad teams hang around for extra games thereby wasting energy and effort.

Looking at the O6 dynasty teams that won three or more consecutive Stanley Cups. Red Wing never won three in a row.

1947 - 49 Leafs had a 24W / 5 L record during the six series they won, not even giving the other team a chance. Much better W/L % than during the regular season. Never allowed a series to go 7 games. Lost only two games when they had 3 wins in the bank,

1956-60 Canadiens had a 40W / 9L record during the ten series they won,>.800 W/L %, never allowed a series to go 7 games. Never lost a game when they had 3 wins in the bank.

1962-64 Leafs had a 24W / 12L record during the six series they won.Lost one game when they had three wins in the bank. 1964 came back twice from 3-2 series deficits.

Today teams let the opponent hang around. Compare the number of games the Canucks or the Sharks have lost this year alone when they had three wins in the bank to dynasty teams from the 06 era.

If teams do not know how to win they will not become dynasties.A team with dynasty potential should go thru the first three rounds in 14 games which would be the equivalent of two O6 rounds. This will allow the team to be relatively fresh for the final.But when teams waste games then there is a price down the road.

Salary cap.Convenient crutch for all of hockey's ills. Conversely Canada at the WJC has managed some nice strings of wins despite having to start from scratch every year.and rarely having the home ice advantage that dynasty potential teams would have. Also surviving one loss and out scenarios that are part of tournament play but not part of playoff hockey.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Problem is that the good teams let the bad teams hang around for extra games thereby wasting energy and effort.

Looking at the O6 dynasty teams that won three or more consecutive Stanley Cups. Red Wing never won three in a row.

1947 - 49 Leafs had a 24W / 5 L record during the six series they won, not even giving the other team a chance. Much better W/L % than during the regular season. Never allowed a series to go 7 games. Lost only two games when they had 3 wins in the bank,

1956-60 Canadiens had a 40W / 9L record during the ten series they won,>.800 W/L %, never allowed a series to go 7 games. Never lost a game when they had 3 wins in the bank.

1962-64 Leafs had a 24W / 12L record during the six series they won.Lost one game when they had three wins in the bank. 1964 came back twice from 3-2 series deficits.

Today teams let the opponent hang around. Compare the number of games the Canucks or the Sharks have lost this year alone when they had three wins in the bank to dynasty teams from the 06 era.

If teams do not know how to win they will not become dynasties.A team with dynasty potential should go thru the first three rounds in 14 games which would be the equivalent of two O6 rounds. This will allow the team to be relatively fresh for the final.But when teams waste games then there is a price down the road.

Salary cap.Convenient crutch for all of hockey's ills. Conversely Canada at the WJC has managed some nice strings of wins despite having to start from scratch every year.and rarely having the home ice advantage that dynasty potential teams would have. Also surviving one loss and out scenarios that are part of tournament play but not part of playoff hockey.][/B]

Salary Cap is a reality not a convenient crutch as you put it.

The Black Hawks ahd to trade players for Cap reaosns not hockey reasons.

Every team starts from scratch in the WJC, how is that even relevant to the current NHL situation?

The reality is that it is different to win and harder in a 30 team league and a 4 round system with the Salary Cap thrown in to boot.

It doesn't change the past dynastys greatness but to directly compare the pre 1990 era to todays game (and the degree of difficulty in getting a dynasty) and degree of diffculty simply doesn't wash.

Also teams don't let other teams hang around.

As bad as the Canucks looked in those 2 games to the Hawks, that Hawks simply stepped it up for those 2 games. The level of Parity in todays game also makes a dynasty pretty difficult as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Point by Point

Salary Cap is a reality not a convenient crutch as you put it.

The Black Hawks ahd to trade players for Cap reaosns not hockey reasons.

Every team starts from scratch in the WJC, how is that even relevant to the current NHL situation?

The reality is that it is different to win and harder in a 30 team league and a 4 round system with the Salary Cap thrown in to boot.

It doesn't change the past dynastys greatness but to directly compare the pre 1990 era to todays game (and the degree of difficulty in getting a dynasty) and degree of diffculty simply doesn't wash.

Also teams don't let other teams hang around.

As bad as the Canucks looked in those 2 games to the Hawks, that Hawks simply stepped it up for those 2 games. The level of Parity in todays game also makes a dynasty pretty difficult as well.

Salary cap has been around in other sports - NFL long before the NHL. Initially blamed for the 49ers downfall but once the smarter GMs figured out the core positions and the interchangeable part positions the dominant teams re-surfaced. The Hawks made mistakes that will not be repeated. Your Hawks salary cap analogy followed by your Hawks /Vancouver analogy is a tad contradictory since the obvious question is how did the salary cap impact on the Hawks under performing in the first three games against Vancouver but not on the games where the Hawks stepped it up?

Basic answer is the Salary Cap had no impact. The injury to Dave Bolland was the major factor. Bikkand returned for the last four games with the Hawks down 0-3 ib games. Once Bolland returned the Hawks had a LHS center in Toews and a RHS center in Bolland and they won three straight just as they managed to beat the Canucks the previous seasons by neutralizing the advantage that the Canucks had with their LHS/RHS centers in Sedin and Kesler. That the Hawks could not complete the comeback is an indication that finally after years of trying maybe AV finally learned ...... doubtful since for three games he was just as puzzled as in years past with little progress.


Teams do not start from scratch in the WJC. There is a core from the previous year or some times even two years back. Also at the management, scouting levels there is continuation. Point is that at the junior level Canada managed to put together an integrated team with clearly defined roles for the players. This was done by coaches who were motivated to win by the prospects of NHL jobs. Comversely NHL coaches are more concerned about keeping their jobs so they coach not to lose. They hire assistants who are not threats for head coaching jobs and play safe role players.

Parity. Yes there is parity from the standpoint of coaching being rather weak. So you will see the usual Jacques Martin getting out coached when it comes to matching lines, Bruce Boudreau getting out coached by any innovative variation, Todd McLellan letting Jamie McGinn play after one stupid penalty and influencing the playing time of others while almost snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,.Claude Julien having to rely on slower options because he was not willing to play a rookie unless virtuallt forced to. So when you factor in the bad coaching teams that benefit are allowed to "hang around"

 

[Kyle McMahon]

1. Find me two posters on this forum who think the 80s Oilers are not a dynasty.

2. I'll admit right here the Wings passed up some golden opportunities. People have brought up could haves in this thread but the Wings had more than one should have. Basically, the 95 Cup Final was a shocker, but the 04, 07 and 09 seasons were blown, 07 had the crap call that cost the Wings Game 5 and the series they deserved to win. But I digress, point being we've seen the Wings give this consistency, and there will be another team.

1. I have definitely seen the "failure to win three in a row means you're not a dynasty" arguement thrown around over the years, though few agree with it.

2. Dynasties don't pass up golden opportunitues. They overcome the close calls. Canadiens too many men game against Boston, Islanders on the verge of being shocked by the Penguins in 1982, Oilers allowing Flames and Flyers to force Game 7 after being up 3-1 in 1984 and 1987 respectively. Why is the fact that Detroit blew opportunities to win more Cups being used to help their argument as a dynasty?

 

[Felix Unger]

Today teams let the opponent hang around. Compare the number of games the Canucks or the Sharks have lost this year alone when they had three wins in the bank to dynasty teams from the 06 era.

Yeah, because the talent disparity is less great. Most true dynasty teams had a team that absolutely dominated the league throughout - my frame of reference being the 1981-1982 Islanders. The Isles had a hard time getting going in the playoffs - the Penguins took 'em to 3-2. But from there on out, they steam-rolled their opponents.

If you look at their playoff opponents that year - the Penguins, the Rangers, the Nordique, and the Canucks... The talent disparity is stunning. The closest talent level was Quebec. But while they were flashy up front, their D and Goal weren't even close to matching up with the likes of Potvin, Persson, Morrow, Langevin, and Billy Smith. Similar things could be said about Montreal/Edmonton dynasties and their playoff opponents.

That kind of talent disparity is completely impossible now. During the Red Wings Era, they were always up against Colorado, New Jersey, Dallas, etc. Those teams matched up, simple as that, every single year. The Islanders only played the Oilers twice, and they lost once.

Now things are much more even than they were in the 90's because of the salary cap and early free-agency.

Cheers,

Dan-o

 

[Canadiens1958]

Far From

Yeah, because the talent disparity is less great. Most true dynasty teams had a team that absolutely dominated the league throughout - my frame of reference being the 1981-1982 Islanders. The Isles had a hard time getting going in the playoffs - the Penguins took 'em to 3-2. But from there on out, they steam-rolled their opponents.

If you look at their playoff opponents that year - the Penguins, the Rangers, the Nordique, and the Canucks... The talent disparity is stunning. The closest talent level was Quebec. But while they were flashy up front, their D and Goal weren't even close to matching up with the likes of Potvin, Persson, Morrow, Langevin, and Billy Smith. Similar things could be said about Montreal/Edmonton dynasties and their playoff opponents.

That kind of talent disparity is completely impossible now. During the Red Wings Era, they were always up against Colorado, New Jersey, Dallas, etc. Those teams matched up, simple as that, every single year. The Islanders only played the Oilers twice, and they lost once.

Now things are much more even than they were in the 90's because of the salary cap and early free-agency.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Talent parity or disparity is a double edged sword. Today what is perceived as parity is simply every team being as close to the lowest common denominator as possible.

The following link illustrates a very important point in this regard:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=347997&page=2

Perhaps one or two HHOFers on cup teams since 2005.

Conversely 1959 Red Wings had 6 future HHOFers - Sawchuk, M.Pronovost,Kelly,Howe, Delvecchio and Ullman while the Rangers had 4 - Worsley, Gadsby, Howell, Bathgate yet neither team even made the playoffs.

Today you would be hard pressed to come close to 10 future HHOFers if you pooled the 14 non-playoff teams from the 2010-11 season.

The playoff teams from the O6 era matched up as did those from the 1968 - 2004 era. Check the rosters.

The 1995-99 era Red Wings played with 6-9 future HHOFers depending on how the borderline players are viewed down the road. Really no different than dynasty teams from the past but they missed opportunities in 1995,1996 and post 1998.

As for things being even today, the league will flounder at the lowest common denominator level until the residue from the pre 2005 entry drafts and the contracts from the first three Salary Cap seasons disappear and the GMs replace the current roster structure with core group positions and interchangeable parts as happened in the NFL.Add a review of coaching and you will see dynasty possibilities return.

 

[SidGenoMario]

Malkin shows up in 08 - Pens Cup #1
Crosby shows up in 09 - Pens Cup #2 quite easily
Both show up in 10 - Pens Cup #3 IMO
Neither get injured in 11 - Pens Cup #4 probably