Detroit Red Wings - Better Decade 1990s or 2000s

[Stephen]

So Detroit won 4 Stanley Cups between 1990 and 2010, evenly distributed between the 90s and 2000s.

Simple question. Which decade was better for Detroit?

Click to read more...

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Just off the top of my head without researching, I'd assume the 2000s. Same amount of Cups and Finals appearances, but I think the team felt like a legit contender more often throughout the 2000s whereas the early 90s Wings weren't there yet.

Plus the 2000s did it with two different cores, transitioning from Yzerman/Fedorov to Datsyuk/Zetterberg.

 

[GMR]

Just off the top of my head without researching, I'd assume the 2000s. Same amount of Cups and Finals appearances, but I think the team felt like a legit contender more often throughout the 2000s whereas the early 90s Wings weren't there yet.

Plus the 2000s did it with two different cores, transitioning from Yzerman/Fedorov to Datsyuk/Zetterberg.

I agree for the same reasons. The 2000's were a more impressive decade for the team.

However, the 90's Wings seemed to be more popular among the fanbase, because Yzerman and Fedorov were in their prime and it was the time of the Russian 5. I don't think the 2000's Wings ever reached the height of popularity that the team had in the late 90's in Detroit.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Looking it up, the Red Wings had 1 more playoff victory in the 1990s than they did in the 2000s (9 playoffs each decade, the 90s missing the playoffs once and the 2000s losing one to a lockout). Based on the overall banner count, 22 to 15 in favor of the 2000s. Top seed in the West five times in the 2000s to three times in the 90s.

It seems like it should be the 2000s. But it doesn’t feel right, because it’s really just 1990 and 1991 dragging the 1990s as a whole down like an anchor. The 1995-1998 teams were basically thisclose to being a dynasty with two Cups and two President’s Trophy losses to New Jersey and Colorado, while the 2000s didn’t exactly put up a sustained threat at being a dynasty. The 1990s had San Jose, but the 2000s had losses to Los Angeles, Anaheim, Calgary, and Edmonton peppered throughout.

Maybe give them bonus points for thriving and not falling apart immediately post-lockout.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

My first reaction was 90's. But the thing is, you kind of associate that 2002 Stanley Cup with the 90's so that's probably creating a mental bias. And I'm too young to remember the pre-contender early 90's that would drag down that decade.

1999/2000 is a weird cutoff to wrap your mind around. It's like right in the middle of the Wings/Devils/Avs/Stars era.

 

[Sadekuuro]

I pick the 90s edition. Once they fully matured they could beat you playing any style, which wasn't always true as they evolved into more of a pure finesse team.

 

[tony d]

2000's for me. In the early 90's they were still finding their footing. Throughout the 2000's decade they were a contender every yr. it seemed. Good topic though.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

2000s, because they won two cups and remained a consistent challenger throughout the decade with two very different teams, which is a testament to their management. 90s Red Wings was the same core improving year-over-year, whereas the 2002 team and 2008 team were built around completely different players - that alone makes the 2000s more impressive in my opinion.

 

[Ishdul]

I think the lockout year is a big impediment to the 2000's.

I agree for the same reasons. The 2000's were a more impressive decade for the team.

However, the 90's Wings seemed to be more popular among the fanbase, because Yzerman and Fedorov were in their prime and it was the time of the Russian 5. I don't think the 2000's Wings ever reached the height of popularity that the team had in the late 90's in Detroit.

I mean, it makes sense given that the 90's is the revival of the franchise and the 2000's is really just the continuation of that. There's always going to be at least a little more enthusiasm for the first championship in a short-ish time span than the fourth.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

I'm gonna say the 90's were the better decade, just because of the exhilaration the fans received in 97 and 98....how sweet it was to finally taste success after heartbreak (e.g. "mandatory suffering" perhaps). By the time the 2000s came around we were already on the top of mountain....in the 90's there was the climb to get there.....omg....I'm a 39 year old man....and I just drew a metaphor to Miley Cyrus' "The Climb".....ohhhhh am I gonna lose my street credit!!! MODS-please don't take away my hockey card (similar to a man card)!!

 

[sr edler]

I like the 90s Red Wings better, with a young baby face Lidström and The Russian Five, they played both an aesthetically pleasing and effective game, and had also a home grown feel to the team.

Not a fan of the 02 team. Too many mercenary non-Wing star players for my liking (Hull, Robitaille, Hasek). That era around the early 00s also sucked in general in terms of how the game was played.

 

[ShelbyZ]

This is the only conclusion that I can really come up with:

As a hockey fan: 2000's
As a Red Wings fan: 90's

 

[Sentinel]

Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, and Larionov were simply better players in the 90s than in the 00s.

Lidstrom, Draper, Holmstrom, and Osgood were better players in 00s. Plus Datsyuk and Zetterberg...

Yet I'm gonna go with the 1990s. The intensity of that time was unparalleled.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Unproven (but true ) assertion: the '97 team would beat any 2000s edition in a 7 game series were it possible to match them up. Oddly, the '08 squad would probably have the best shot; inferior on paper but perhaps their most dominant ever puck control.

 

[JackSlater]

On paper 2000s I guess. But I prefer 1990s. Kind of difficult to explain, it was just more enjoyable as a fan. I would also say that the competition was stiffer and that is worth considering.

 

[Killion]

On paper 2000s I guess. But I prefer 1990s. Kind of difficult to explain, it was just more enjoyable as a fan. I would also say that the competition was stiffer and that is worth considering.

Yep. Agreed. After so long a drought. You kiddin? 90's. My God that franchise.... flat on its back.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Unproven (but true ) assertion: the '97 team would beat any 2000s edition in a 7 game series were it possible to match them up. Oddly, the '08 squad would probably have the best shot; inferior on paper but perhaps their most dominant ever puck control.

I know people know about him, but I think people forget just how good Konstantinov was at times. There was an open debate that he was better than Lidstrom, the Wings were already touting Lidstrom as the best D-man in the game in the mid-90s it just took a bit for the awards to come. But still they were neck and neck and both top 5 d-man. They didn't play together either and were in their primes not at the end of it like Niedermayer or Pronger. It was a devastating combination to play against. They both helped rejuvenate Fetisov and Murphy. That is an amazing top 4.

Fedorov was also still at the height of his powers, I really think he should have won the Smythe that year over Vernon. Yzerman had some back and knee problems but that is right before they would significantly deteriorate even more. For me the 97 version is their best team. The 02 might have more stars, but they weren't actually quite as good as the prime versions many of whom were on the 97 team. Some are also remembered differently, like Datsyuk was on the team but he wasn't the player he would become.

I also think they had tougher competition to get through in the 90's so a part of me enjoyed it a heck of a lot more. That could cloud my judgement, but I think the 90's teams were better.

 

[The Panther]

I mean, it makes sense given that the 90's is the revival of the franchise...

I know what you mean but I've always thought of the 1986 to 1988 period as the revival of the franchise. 1985-86 was the franchise's darkest hour, after 20 years of basically non-contending. But then one competitive and one strong season back-to-back, Demers as coach of the year in both, emergence of Yzerman as superstar, and the team going to the Conference series both years. 1988 to 1991-ish was kind of another dip, but they were still competitive at least, not in the tank like prior to 1986-87.

 

[beoser]

I was a HUGE red wings fan in both time periods, and to me if you wanted entertainment and something to talk about, then pick 90's wings. If you wanted pure dominance and the greatest goalie in the history of the NHL playing for you, pick 2000's wings.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I was a HUGE red wings fan in both time periods, and to me if you wanted entertainment and something to talk about, then pick 90's wings. If you wanted pure dominance and the greatest goalie in the history of the NHL playing for you, pick 2000's wings.

I might be alone in how strongly I feel about this but one of the funny parts is at least when we talk about it if you were to rank the championship teams the superstar team that a decent amount of people loathe wouldn't finish in the top 2. Those guys weren't quite as good as the name the historical relevance they would have as players. To me the top 2 championship teams are 97 and 08.

Again I have always preferred 97 because of the top 4, they also had a better third pairing in my opinion. The one two punch down the middle (Yzerman and Fedorov were better than Datsyuk and Zetterberg) and they were actually a fairly mean bunch to go with all that skill. The 08 might be the best possession team I have seen play throughout the entire 20+ run would be the argument there. I feel both teams were actually better than the lauded 02' team by a fair amount. In my opinion Osgood also played at a higher level than Hasek in the late 00's runs, so again while I appreciate the Dominator finally getting his cup, he didn't need to be what he was in Buffalo to win. Most of the 02 guys didn't have to play at their ultimate peaks. They stumbled to start the playoffs, Yzerman laid into them and they got it back on the rails. The Colorado series was really the only point were you felt they could be challenged and ultimately the Avs spit the bit at the end of that series.

The early 00's Wings lost some of their jam, they had a few players decline and had to do a substantial shift after the lockout. It was incredible how Holland reformed them and Babcock's persona really was a needed add to the group as he was great at adding the finishing touches and grime to the group later in the decade before they all started hating him later on it did work. Still I actually think the teams in the middle of the decade weren't really playoff teams and that showed in stunning losses against the Ducks and Oilers they weren't as hard to play against as the teams in the 90's routinely were in my opinion.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I wonder which Red Wings Stanley Cup Final loss was more disappointing during those decades?

So to any Red Wings fans between losing against New Jersey in 1995 and Pittsburgh in 2009 which one was worse in your opinions?

Also it's pretty funny or a coincidence that both those Stanley Cup Final loses came after defeating the Blackhawks in the Western Conference Final in both those years.

 

[JackSlater]

I wonder which Red Wings Stanley Cup Final loss was more disappointing during those decades?

So to any Red Wings fans between losing against New Jersey in 1995 and Pittsburgh in 2009 which one was worse in your opinions?

Also it's pretty funny or a coincidence that both those Stanley Cup Final loses came after defeating the Blackhawks in the Western Conference Final in both those years.

2009 comfortably. One feels like a missed opportunity, one feels like a situation where you tip your hat and thank the other team for the hockey lesson.

 

[LeafsNation75]

2009 comfortably. One feels like a missed opportunity, one feels like a situation where you tip your hat and thank the other team for the hockey lesson.

I can't remember if it was Staal or Malkin but wasn't there some incident which could have meant a suspension for either one and one of them ended up scoring the game winning goal in Game 6 and forcing a Game 7.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

2009 comfortably. One feels like a missed opportunity, one feels like a situation where you tip your hat and thank the other team for the hockey lesson.

The 95' series played out similarly to how the 97'. We entered 95' as the favorite and were just whipped across the board. The Wings did the exact same thing to the favorite Flyers in the 97' cup finals. It really felt like a lesson. They played to their identity and didn't worry about the Legion of Doom just like the Devils didn't care about the high flying Wings they played their system and completely stifled them.

09' just felt like they blew it. Plus you had the additional controversy of how upset they were entering the series over the League scheduling change. They looked like they had overcome it but just died on the finishing line.

 

[LeafsNation75]

09' just felt like they blew it. Plus you had the additional controversy of how upset they were entering the series over the League scheduling change. They looked like they had overcome it but just died on the finishing line.

Since at one point they were up 2-0 and 3-2 in the series is that a viable excuse? Obviously if they won no Red Wings fans would have cared.