New York Islanders vs. Edmonton Oilers

[tommygunn]

No doubt, they were two of the best dynasty teams of all-time.. and I chose the Oilers in 7 games in a hard-fought series. Gretzky at his absolute best would be the deciding factor, IMO.

But anyways, when I see comments like "no one tops the Islanders of the early 80s" and "Gretzky, Messier, Kurri and company in their prime are unbeatable by anybody", I feel I have to bring up one team.. that would beat both of them.. the 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens!

 

[lextune]

I also think people need to look up the facts regarding the 84 Islanders. that wasn't some team of has beens and washed up stars their entire core was in their prime, Trottier, Bossy, Tonnelli, Potvin they were all under 30 and again beaten by 24 year olds.

Bossy was not himself in the '84 playoffs.

For three straight years he had 17 goals in the post-season. Twice in 19 games, once more in only 18 games. Truly epic playoff stuff.

In '84 he played in 21 games with only 8 goals.

A completely different universe.

 

[Isles_Guy*]

No doubt, they were two of the best dynasty teams of all-time.. and I chose the Oilers in 7 games in a hard-fought series. Gretzky at his absolute best would be the deciding factor, IMO.

But anyways, when I see comments like "no one tops the Islanders of the early 80s" and "Gretzky, Messier, Kurri and company in their prime are unbeatable by anybody", I feel I have to bring up one team.. that would beat both of them.. the 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens!

You guys can say what you want but The Isles won 19 straight Stanley Cup series. something no other team has even come close to or in my opinion will ever approach again. They Held the great one Scoreless at his peak and no tommygunn factually youre wrong 38 points 12 games before the Islander series is 3.2 per game. Wayne never approached that level again in the playoffs. that was Gretzky at his peak

So you can say all you like that Gretzky at his peak was better because the numbers dont support you The Oilers were 11 and 1 up to that point that the Isles stopped them cold. The Oilers never again had a record that good.

Hands down you can only say the Isles Were lucky.....thats the last bastion of fools who have no evidence to back up foolish claims

 

[tommygunn]

You guys can say what you want but The Isles won 19 straight Stanley Cup series. something no other team has even come close to or in my opinion will ever approach again. They Held the great one Scoreless at his peak and no tommygunn factually youre wrong 38 points 12 games before the Islander series is 3.2 per game. Wayne never approached that level again in the playoffs. that was Gretzky at his peak

So you can say all you like that Gretzky at his peak was better because the numbers dont support you The Oilers were 11 and 1 up to that point that the Isles stopped them cold. The Oilers never again had a record that good.

Hands down you can only say the Isles Were lucky.....thats the last bastion of fools who have no evidence to back up foolish claims

Wow..

As has been already mentioned ad nauseum, and is the basis of what this thread is all about in the first place.. however you may feel, the Oilers were not at their peak in 1982-83. The OP is asking what would happen in a hypothetical match-up of the Islanders at their peak and the Oilers at their peak. Contrary to what you may think, this match-up never happened.

My opinion, is if this had ever happened, Gretzky would be the difference in a 7 game series. With the Oilers at their peak, it's highly unlikely Gretzky would be held off the scoresheet. Pure speculation, and it's just my opinion.. but I think most here would agree he wouldn't go pointless on a peak Oilers team. As I said, it'd be a hard-fought series that went the limit, but I feel that arguably the greatest player of all-time would be the difference.

I'm neither from Long Island or Edmonton.. nor am a fan of either team, so I have no bias.

By the way, where on Earth do I say the Isles were lucky??

 

[Trottier]

But anyways, when I see comments like "no one tops the Islanders of the early 80s" and "Gretzky, Messier, Kurri and company in their prime are unbeatable by anybody", I feel I have to bring up one team.. that would beat both of them.. the 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens!

I agree.

I consider the Isles a superior team to the Oilers, recognizing that we are talking about two of the greatest teams ever. And, again, it's subjective, so, as you suggest, the "unbeatable by anybody" crapola is just that.

In my lifetime, however, the best team were those Habs from 1976-79.

Sidenote: I recognize fully that the mid-70s was a time of expansion (read: numerous wretched teams to compile wins against), relative to the forced parity (mediocrity) of today. But I remain amazed that the Montreal team of 1976-77 lost eight regular season games. Eight! They had 132 regular season points (in a saner time, when there were no loser points handed out) and finished 49 points ahead of the second-place Kings in their division.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You guys can say what you want but The Isles won 19 straight Stanley Cup series. something no other team has even come close to or in my opinion will ever approach again. They Held the great one Scoreless at his peak and no tommygunn factually youre wrong 38 points 12 games before the Islander series is 3.2 per game. Wayne never approached that level again in the playoffs. that was Gretzky at his peak

So you can say all you like that Gretzky at his peak was better because the numbers dont support you The Oilers were 11 and 1 up to that point that the Isles stopped them cold. The Oilers never again had a record that good.

No, you're wrong. Bring up stats and per game averages all you like, that was not the Oilers or Gretzky at their peak. Every playoff year is different, you can't simply use per game averages and win-loss records to compare different seasons. The Oilers peaked in the mid to late 80's, and I'll take Trottier's word that the Isles peaked in 1982, so an '82 Isles versus '87 or '88 Oilers is the hypothetical matchup in question.

To break it down, the '83 Oilers that you are suggesting were at their peak were 11-1, but only had to beat a sub-.500 Jets team and a sub-.500 Calgary team to get out of the division. Those huge per-game scoring numbers were accumulated against Calgary, where the Oilers scored a mind-boggling 35 goals in 5 games, and then a Chicago team with Murray Bannerman and an ancient Tony Esposito in net. They had the skill to light teams up night after night, but clearly lacked the veteran savvy to take on the dynastic Islanders.

The '88 team was just as impressive, going 12-2 before sweeping the Bruins to put their record at 16-2. That team beat a mediocre Winnipeg team in round one, but a Winnipeg team that was actually starting to gain playoff experience, much better than the '83 version, and then swept the President's Trophy-winning Flames for the division. The Red Wings team they beat in the Campbell Final was actually a solid 90+ point team that had just won their second straight Norris division. This would probably be my choice for the top Oilers team to be placed in the hypothetical match-up, the only issue is that Coffey was already gone. If you choose the '87 team, you do have the sevices of Coffey.

 

[Trottier]

The '88 team was just as impressive....

For me, the great "what if" is how many Cups that Oilers team could have captured had their core remained together. In many ways, they were the first NHL team truly impacted by Modern Day economics.

Given the age of their core when they started breaking apart, I'd venture to guess that they could have captured upwards of three more, through the first half of the 90s.

A matchup vs. Mario's Pens would have been dynamic, no? Offensive firepower to the max.

 

[canucks4ever]

I honestly think that the 2002 detriot red wings, 2001 colorado avalanche or the 99 dallas stars are capable of beating the 80 oilers, islanders and 1976-79 canadiens. Those 3 'mini dynasties' from the deadpuck era had better goaltending and defence than the oilers and islanders.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

For me, the great "what if" is how many Cups that Oilers team could have captured had their core remained together. In many ways, they were the first NHL team truly impacted by Modern Day economics.

Given the age of their core when they started breaking apart, I'd venture to guess that they could have captured upwards of three more, through the first half of the 90s.

A matchup vs. Mario's Pens would have been dynamic, no? Offensive firepower to the max.

The Oilers were basically split in two, half the core going to LA and the other half ending up in New York. Given that the Rangers won in '94 and the Kings nearly did in '93, there's really nothing to suggest the Oilers wouldn't have remained the NHL's dominant team up to the mid-90's had they stayed intact. Eight Cups in 11 years would have been a very real possibility.

 

[Beerfish]

Both at their total peak? Oilers squash em. 5 games if the Oilers played hard each game. 6 or 7 if Smith was overly hot or the Oilers decided to take a few games off.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

A bit Biased, but if we are talking at both at their peaks, then I'd go with the Oilers. Even with the Islanders impressive depth, the Oilers star power would probably outweigh the Islanders star power.

It would be close though.

 

[greatgazoo]

It's obvious that some people just do not understand what "peak" means.

The Oilers were at their absolute peak in '88 even without Paul Coffey. Sure he had been traded away but Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Lowe, Fuhr, etc were in their peak.

They had a 30 goal man, Geoff Courtnall, playing on their 3rd line! A 50 goal scorer on their 2nd line (Simpson). And they went 16-2!

To think that the Oilers were at their peak in '83 is as silly as thinking that the Islanders were at their peak in '78 or '79 before they had learned how to win.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I find it extremely humourous that you have to contiually hear from Stan Fischler, Isle fans and Dennis Potvin about how banged up their team was in 84 and how so and so had his dad die and on and on. You were missing basically two players so lets not play the excuse game, regarless of the health of the Isles they weren't beating the Oielrs that year or ever again for that matter

Actually, this thread is about exactly that. Who would win in their prime. And my personal opinion having seen both teams from their inception as a dynasty to their rebuild is that the Isles were the superior team when healthy. It has nothing to do with what Stan Fischler, Denis Potvin, or anybody else says. I am not a fan of the Isles or the Oilers. I am an impartial observer and my impartial opinion is simply that the isles were completely banged up going in, walking wounded, and were nowhere near 100%, nor as good as they were a year prior.

This is not some random theory put out by isles fans, players, or Stan Fischler. Its documented fact that all those players were injured and having those surgeries.

From your posting History, its clear you are an Oilers fan, and its also clear that you are not trying to be objective about this.

I also think people need to look up the facts regarding the 84 Islanders. that wasn't some team of has beens and washed up stars their entire core was in their prime, Trottier, Bossy, Tonnelli, Potvin they were all under 30 and again beaten by 24 year olds.

Trottier was so badly injured that it took him a year and a half to recuperate. In fact, they relegated him to second and third line duties the next year because he was visibly taking so long to get on his feet again.

The Islanders were a great dynasty no question and probably one of the 4 or 5 best ever, its unfortunate that their was no space between their greatness and the Oilers because I do feel the Islander teams of the 80's have been unfairly over shawdowed but the Oiler dynasty was broken up well before its best due date. And Gretzky, Messier, Kurri and company in their prime are unbeatable by anybody.

My opinion is that the isles at 100% beat them in 7, an that I can think of 2 individual Montreal Dynasties that could take them in less than 7. The 50's Habs and 70s Habs.

 

[Dark Shadows]

You guys can say what you want but The Isles won 19 straight Stanley Cup series. something no other team has even come close to or in my opinion will ever approach again. They Held the great one Scoreless at his peak and no tommygunn factually youre wrong 38 points 12 games before the Islander series is 3.2 per game. Wayne never approached that level again in the playoffs. that was Gretzky at his peak

So you can say all you like that Gretzky at his peak was better because the numbers dont support you The Oilers were 11 and 1 up to that point that the Isles stopped them cold. The Oilers never again had a record that good.

Hands down you can only say the Isles Were lucky.....thats the last bastion of fools who have no evidence to back up foolish claims

Sigh, now a home team fan from the other team to deal with......

I bolded this part because this seems to be a point of conjecture. You do realize that it was slightly era based for them to win "19 series in a row" right?

Its easy to surmise and speculate that the 50's Habs that won 5 straight cups without a single series going 7 games(In fact, only 2 series went to 6 games in those 5 years) would have also won over 19 straight.

Oh, and for the Record, they did not hold Gretzky assistless. Merely goalless. Gretzky recorded 4 assists in 4 games against the Isles in that sweep, so your data needs adjusting. 34 points in 12 games, turned to merely a point per game. Still a great accomplishment by the Isles defense. It was however clear that the Oilers were NOT in their prime at this point. They did not know how to win.

Quick clip I uploaded.....

 

[Dark Shadows]

I honestly think that the 2002 detriot red wings, 2001 colorado avalanche or the 99 dallas stars are capable of beating the 80 oilers, islanders and 1976-79 canadiens. Those 3 'mini dynasties' from the deadpuck era had better goaltending and defence than the oilers and islanders.

I would disagree.

Just comparing the Isles to the 02 Wings for example(I consider the 2000 wings to be the best of the 3 you mentioned)......

Goaltending. Obviously Hasek is better. No question. But Smith was one of the better playoff goalies. When the going got tough, so did Battlin Billy. The difference is not as large as the difference in the Isles combined depth at forward + Defense.

Defense. How does Detroit win out here? Potvin at his best was better than Lidstrom at his best(In my opinion. No need to open this can of worms). Chelios had a great year even at age 40, but after him? Duchesne? Dandenault? Krupp? Olausson? 3 of those 4 Had their foot in the retirement door, and the 4th was not great.

I would take a squad of Potvin, Langevin, Morrow, Persson, with Jonsson and McEwen 5th/6th over Lidstrom/Chelios and 4 faces in the crowd any day(When I say faces in the crowd, I mean those names likely do not. Langevin, Morrow and Persson were regular top 15-20 Defensemen in the league and McEwen/Jonsson snuck into that category a few times themselves.

Morrow was basically Lidstrom without the Offense. Very clean terrific positional defensive defenseman who stayed out of the box and incidentally, had several clutch moments during their cup runs.

Langevin was a much more physical hitting defensive defenseman, but still easily better than any of the names below Lidstrom/Chelios they had that year. Stefan Persson was a terrific two way defenseman.

At Forward, Trottier/Bossy are ahead of Yzerman/Fedorov. Just going with the Franchise caliber most important forwards.

After that the Isles Depth starts to take over. Gillies, Goring, Bourne, Duane and Brent Sutter, Tonelli, Nystrom

 

[Big Phil]

My opinion is that the isles at 100% beat them in 7, an that I can think of 2 individual Montreal Dynasties that could take them in less than 7. The 50's Habs and 70s Habs.

I agree with you about the Habs there Jekyll, but I am of the belief that the Red Wings of the '50s beat the Isles too. No one mentions that.

Howe is better than Bossy or Trottier
Lindsay is at least as good as either of them too
Kelly is comparable to Potvin
Sawchuk beats Smith, barely but still

Also you've got Sid Abel who was better than any of Gillies or Tonelli
Delvecchio beats anyone left (Bourne, Goring, Sutter)

Throw in some depth, Pavelich, Johnny Wilson, Leswick etc.
Plus Marcel Pronovost is better than any Isles D-man not named Potvin

 

[Big Phil]

I honestly think that the 2002 detriot red wings, 2001 colorado avalanche or the 99 dallas stars are capable of beating the 80 oilers, islanders and 1976-79 canadiens. Those 3 'mini dynasties' from the deadpuck era had better goaltending and defence than the oilers and islanders.

Granted the '01 Avs and '02 Wings were stacked teams, but none have the defense of the Habs. They would barely even get to Dryden so we can ignore that.

The Isles had too much depth

The Oilers had too much offense

Maybe Detroit beats the '75 Flyers and '92 Pens, but that's even up for debate

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Granted the '01 Avs and '02 Wings were stacked teams, but none have the defense of the Habs. They would barely even get to Dryden so we can ignore that.

The Isles had too much depth

The Oilers had too much offense

Maybe Detroit beats the '75 Flyers and '92 Pens, but that's even up for debate

The 01 Avs and 02 Wings are from a different era where champions were built a different way. The 01 Avs once Forsberg went down were essentially a 1 line team, 3 deep on defense, and of course Roy. Guys like Hinote, Nieminen, Yelle etc who play big roles on the Avs would get destroyed by the depth players of the dynasty Islanders or Habs.

 

[greatgazoo]

Let's get down to the brass tax here...goaltending.

Fuhr vs Smith

In a game 7, I think that most would agree that Fuhr would win that duel.

 

[Trottier]

Let's get down to the brass tax here...goaltending.

Fuhr vs Smith

In a game 7, I think that most would agree that Fuhr would win that duel.

Based on what?

These are among the two best clutch netminders ever.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

From a talent perspective I'd have to say peak Oilers in 5 or 6. But at the end of the day, the Isles at their peak, would never have lost in 7 games against an 89pt Calgary team. The Isles, quite simply, always found a way to win those types of series.

Isles in 7

 

[saskganesh]

this peak argument is kinda silly and impossible to settle outside of limited computer modelling.

unlike other hypotheticals, in the real world we know these teams met in the final twice. most of us watched those series. the Islanders won once, the Oilers won the next year. they were two very dominant dynastic teams. I think if these two teams met at "their peaks," whenever that was, it would have been close. either way, there would have been bounces and luck and yeah, injuries, which is scientifically unfair, but that's how life is.

pick 'em.

 

[KevFu]

The Oilers made 6 cup apperances in 8 years and won two or more playoff series in 8 out of ten years. They were the team to beat for basically 10 years. Not sure how the Islanders 5 years of greatness compares to that.

I like how you count the fact that the Oilers were good in years they didn't win the Cup, but don't give the Islanders the same credit. In a nine-year stretch, here's the Islanders point totals: 101, 106, 111, 116, 91, 110, 118, 96, 104.

And in those seven 100-point seasons, they won the Cup in only TWO of them. The 91 and 96 point teams won the Cup.

They made the NHL semifinals in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979. And that was pre-conference alignment for the playoffs, so twice they met the Canadiens in the semis (Including once when it was a meeting of the top two teams in hockey).

The Islanders, Canadiens and Oilers each had a 10-year stretch from 1975 to 1990 in which they were one of the three teams to beat. We each got four Cups, the Canadiens five, and then the modern era kicked in.

 

[KevFu]

Oh and after watching the 1984 Final on NHL Network the other night, I see the point on goalkeeping.

They just seemed ridiculously upright and awkward to me.

I think that its equipment based though. In that era of hockey, if you'd probably get killed if you weren't upright.

Then again, how many more goals would have been scored with composite sticks?

 

[greatgazoo]

Based on what?

These are among the two best clutch netminders ever.

Based on a few things:

-Their ranking in the Hockey News all-time greatest players list. Fuhr at 70th, Smith 80th.

-Fuhr's play in the '87 game 7 where he out dueled the Vezina and Conn Smythe winner

-Fuhr's play at the '87 Canada Cup...when was Smith ever called upon to backstop Team Canada in a best vs best tourney? Oh yeah, never.