Dynasty

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

I would nominate the Stanley Cup run the Islanders had as a dynasty as well: 1980, 81, 82, 83. 4 in a row to me seems like a fine definition for that. Nearly half the decade, is a pretty long time.

I mean, there's a pretty clear consensus on the Trottier and Potvin Islanders being a dynasty.

 

[insomniac]

I would nominate the Stanley Cup run the Islanders had as a dynasty as well: 1980, 81, 82, 83. 4 in a row to me seems like a fine definition for that. Nearly half the decade, is a pretty long time.

Absolutely a dynasty.

 

[Shoalzie]

To me, a dynasty is a run of uninterrupted dominance/success. You can define what was dominance for the Wings but just having a long playoff streak isn't dynastic. Winning more than 2 cups in a row is a dynasty...a sustained run of success. The Wings have been a model of consistency but they weren't a dynasty. The Oilers were the last dynasty in the NHL.

 

[ap3x]

Get your point considering the Wings, as the playoff streak itself cleary doesn't count and as they never won the cup more than two times in a row.

But why the Oilers? they didn't win more than two times in a row either. Even though they won four times in five seasons once ('84, '85, '87, '88).

Opposite to that the Habs ('76, '77, '78, '79) and the Islanders won four times in a row ('80, 81', 82', 83').
Everything before - with more than two in a row - is way too far away as it were ages of the original six.

 

[Shoalzie]

I always assumed the Oilers won 3 in a row at one point...certainly that's the best run in the last 30 years. So by my definition that might not be a dynasty although 4 titles in 5 years is tremendous.

The Isles and the Canadiens are without question their own respective dynasties.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

I always assumed the Oilers won 3 in a row at one point...certainly that's the best run in the last 30 years. So by my definition that might not be a dynasty although 4 titles in 5 years is tremendous.

The Isles and the Canadiens are without question their own respective dynasties.

Oilers won in 84, 85, 87, 88, 90. Most certainly a dynasty.

 

[ap3x]

Matter of oppinion. Some might consider the Oilers' five cups in seven seasons as a dynasty, others might do so for the Islanders'/Habs' four cups in a row.
Either way, pretty impressive.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

Matter of oppinion. Some might consider the Oilers' five cups in seven seasons as a dynasty, others might do so for the Islanders'/Habs' four cups in a row.
Either way, pretty impressive.

NHL.com considers them a dynasty Most people do, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Edmonton_Oilers#Dynasty_years_.281983.E2.80.931990.29

Often referred to as the Oilers Dynasty, etc.

 

[ap3x]

NHL.com considers them a dynasty Most people do, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Edmonton_Oilers#Dynasty_years_.281983.E2.80.931990.29

Often referred to as the Oilers Dynasty, etc.

I know, doesn't has to mean that there aren't different views on that. Canadiens got five cups in seven seasons as well, even eight in 12 between '68 and '79.
Therefore legit to consider that being a dynasty, too. But to me, getting the cup and being the unbeaten cup holder three times in a row is more of a dynasty.

Not to say that the Oilers' most successful era isn't impressive at all. But to me it isn't comparable to what the Habs achieved at the end of the 70's.

 

[Retire91]

I am fine with Dynasty being undefined. I think its a term that people like to label based on their oppinion and then defend why they think that way.

I'd be curious to know what people think of expansion and cap eras? I think winning the cup in a 22 leauge team is different than winning it in a 30 team leauge. Same with the cap. Someone being a dynasty in the 80's is not the same as a dynasty team today. But I wouldn't care to be the one to define how

 

[irishock]

Going by some of these definitions of a dynasty, you'd think the 80s Boston Celtics (3 in 6) aren't a dynasty, and neither were the 80s Lakers (didn't 3peat), 90s Cowboys (didn't 3peat), 00s Patriots (didn't 3peat), 03-07 Spurs (3 in 5), and not to mention it's harder to win in hockey than any other sport. Truly some of the most ridiculous **** around here.

 

[14ari13]

The Wings Are a dynasty.

SCF
CF
Cup
Cup
Round 2
Round 2
Round 1
Cup
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
CF
Cup
SCF (1 game away from the cup)

 

[ap3x]

Going by some of these definitions of a dynasty, you'd think the 80s Boston Celtics (3 in 6) aren't a dynasty, and neither were the 80s Lakers (didn't 3peat), 90s Cowboys (didn't 3peat), 00s Patriots (didn't 3peat), 03-07 Spurs (3 in 5), and not to mention it's harder to win in hockey than any other sport. Truly some of the most ridiculous **** around here.

I'm truly disappointed that you weren't the first to reply. So we could have spared you our ridiculous definitions of a dynasty.

 

[icKx]

The Wings Are a dynasty.

SCF
CF
Cup
Cup
Round 2
Round 2
Round 1
Cup
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
CF
Cup
SCF (1 game away from the cup)

Nah, if they won a Cup in either 99, 00 or 01 there would be an argument for it.

Red Wings are the San Antonio Spurs of the NHL. Really good for really long with some Championships sprinkled in.

 

[14ari13]

Nah, if they won a Cup in either 99, 00 or 01 there would be an argument for it.

Red Wings are the San Antonio Spurs of the NHL. Really good for really long with some Championships sprinkled in.

How many teams were in the league when Oilers, Habs .... Were winning? Has there been a team to win back to back in last 20 years? The Wings Are the lone team to do so and again one game short of doing it. When all is said and done the Wings will be counted as the dynasty.

 

[19 for president]

I'd argue that the Oilers, Canadians, and Islanders are the only NHL dynasties. I think 3 cups in 4 maybe 5 years is required, and you'd probably need to do pretty well in the 2 off years if it was 3 in 5, like SCF or Conference Finals appearances.

The Wings were obviously the closest to accomplishing this of any recent NHL team. If they had won in 95 or 96, then I would say yes, but they did not.

With that said, I will glad take a 20 year period of excellence with my cups a little spaced out then have 5 really good year and 15 terrible ones. So in essence I'd rather be the most dominating team of an era, than be a dynasty. Being both though ala the Canadians would obviously be best ;p