Quinn era was much better than Burns era

[torontoblood]

Quinn era was more entertaining, offense+grit+speed+physicality+great goaltending


Burns era was kind of boring. The playoffs were fun and dramatic but defense-oriented teams are awful to watch during the season.

Quinns squads had more depth. Without Gilmour those burns teams dont even sniff the playoffs...it was gilmour trade who kickstarted this 2 year run.

Potvin revealed himself to be a fraud as his career progressed
Andreychuk had his best year in career because of Gilmour
Clark was semi-finished after 1994(the sundin trade was the greatest trade in leafs history)


With the Leafs, Quinn was a more successful coach, liked and appreciated by his players. Burns wore out his welcome by his 3rd season in T.O.


Conpared to the Burns era, in the Quinn era, we were closer to contention and our contending window was far longer than in Burns' time. 6 seasons of very good hockey(1998-2004) versus 2 ones(1992-1994)

Quinn era was better but these burns squads get all the spotlight and glory for some reason.

Your thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[deltamachine]

Both eras were entertaining. Gilmore and Clark...Burns vs Melrose. Watching Game 7 broadcast on the Dome's jumbotron. Giant toilet paper blobs tossed around throughout the game. Fun times. Was at the dome the year prior when the Jays won the first time around. Why doesn't rogers do that anymore for playoff games?

Quinn era was great with the Ottawa rivalry. Lots of strong personalities and leadership on those teams. Too bad what happened in the end with the team factions and all that.

 

[ACC1224]

Dubas/Keefe era is expected better than both.

 

[MSZ]

Dubas/Keefe era is expected better than both.

Let's win one playoff series first, babysteps.

 

[Westlander]

Quinn era was more entertaining, offense+grit+speed+physicality+great goaltending


Burns era was kind of boring. The playoffs were fun and dramatic but defense-oriented teams are awful to watch during the season.

Quinns squads had more depth. Without Gilmour those burns teams dont even sniff the playoffs...it was gilmour trade who kickstarted this 2 year run.

Potvin revealed himself to be a fraud as his career progressed
Andreychuk had his best year in career because of Gilmour
Clark was semi-finished after 1994(the sundin trade was the greatest trade in leafs history)


With the Leafs, Quinn was a more successful coach, liked and appreciated by his players. Burns wore out his welcome by his 3rd season in T.O.


Conpared to the Burns era, in the Quinn era, we were closer to contention and our contending window was far longer than in Burns' time. 6 seasons of very good hockey(1998-2004) versus 2 ones(1992-1994)

Quinn era was better but these burns squads get all the spotlight and glory for some reason.

Your thoughts?

I agree, the Quinn teams were top to bottom better and better for longer as you point out.
I do I think the Burns teams had the single best player (Gilmour 92-94) even though Sundin probably had more God-given talent.

The other thing is that Burns’ defensive system was more likely to win a cup then that of Quinn. It allowed a pretty average group overall to twice make the final 4 on the strength of career seasons from Gilmour, Clark, Andreychuk, but the age of the players meant that kind of success was not going to be sustainable in the longer term. Potvin was younger but his magic wore off pretty quick and Joseph was a major upgrade.

Quinn tended to just set them loose and let the skill speak for itself, which provided more attractive hockey by far but also resulted in playoff losses to opponents of inferior talent like Carolina in 2002.

 

[MSZ]

I agree, the Quinn teams were top to bottom better and better for longer as you point out.
I do I think the Burns teams had the single best player (Gilmour 92-94) even though Sundin probably had more God-given talent.

The other thing is that Burns’ defensive system was more likely to win a cup then that of Quinn. It allowed a pretty average group overall to twice make the final 4 on the strength of career seasons from Gilmour, Clark, Andreychuk, but the age of the players meant that kind of success was not going to be sustainable in the longer term. Potvin was younger but his magic wore off pretty quick and Joseph was a major upgrade.

Quinn tended to just set them loose and let the skill speak for itself, which provided more attractive hockey by far but also resulted in playoff losses to opponents of inferior talent like Carolina in 2002.

The loss vs the Carolina had something to do with injuries rather than talents. The first line had nothing in the tank after the long wars against the Isles and the Sens, and Sundin obviously wasn't 100% in that 3rd round series after the injury he suffered in the Isles series.

 

[Bluelines]

Quinn era was more entertaining, offense+grit+speed+physicality+great goaltending


Burns era was kind of boring. The playoffs were fun and dramatic but defense-oriented teams are awful to watch during the season.

Quinns squads had more depth. Without Gilmour those burns teams dont even sniff the playoffs...it was gilmour trade who kickstarted this 2 year run.

Potvin revealed himself to be a fraud as his career progressed
Andreychuk had his best year in career because of Gilmour
Clark was semi-finished after 1994(the sundin trade was the greatest trade in leafs history)


With the Leafs, Quinn was a more successful coach, liked and appreciated by his players. Burns wore out his welcome by his 3rd season in T.O.


Conpared to the Burns era, in the Quinn era, we were closer to contention and our contending window was far longer than in Burns' time. 6 seasons of very good hockey(1998-2004) versus 2 ones(1992-1994)

Quinn era was better but these burns squads get all the spotlight and glory for some reason.

Your thoughts?

Hush your mouth, that is like comparing steak to baby back ribs... both are amazing...

 

[Gary Nylund]

"Better" is subjective in this case. I preferred the Burns era but there's no right or wrong answer here.

 

[fahad203]

Quinn era was benefeciry of NHL free agency rules that Burns era didn't have
Back in early 90s you didn't get a lot of good free agents during their prime

Quinn and MLSE dropped money left and right. Something Burns time didn't. Burns time was just coming of MLSE restructuring after Ballard days

Burns got the most out of his players because man, if you didn't put in the effort you would hear about it
Burns didn't care about your feelings

Quinn was a gentleman to his players hence they loved him. That's why they lay down their bodies for him

Neither was better than others, just different. I miss those boys and that type of teams
Teams that will cut their teeth of for each other

 

[Gary Nylund]

Burns got the most out of his players because man, if you didn't put in the effort you would hear about it
Burns didn't care about your feelings

Quinn was a gentleman to his players hence they loved him. That's why they lay down their bodies for him

Neither was better than others, just different. I miss those boys and that type of teams
Teams that will cut their teeth of for each other

+1

 

[Dreakmur]

Let's win one playoff series first, babysteps.

We expected won all the series we’ve been in.

 

[Mess]

I'd flip that as the Burns era with Dougie was more Cup competitive with a better chance of final 4 or Stanley Cup. Circumstances outside of Leafs control determined some of those results that still spoken of today.

While the Quinn era had a pair of final 4 finishes as well, it was more expected because the Leafs would simply outspend $$$$ most teams to earn a playoff birth where back then in the late 1990's- early 2000's Leafs salary would be $90-$100 mil which is +$10-20 more than it is today at $81.5 mil. When you can add Ronnie Francis and Brian Leetch etc at a TD with no financial care it made a league of have's and have nots. Leafs were trying to Buy a Cup not win a Cup essentially along with a handfull of other teams.

This Era as a result brought change in terms of Salary Cap era to bring financial parity to the NHL so all teams could compete on an equal level. Once the Salary Cap was introduced in 2005 the Leafs who were among the Cup favorites prior would miss the playoffs 10 of the 11 next years including 7 straight. So confirmed that the Quinn Era prior to the Cap Era was more about money then team building and talent.

 

[ACC1224]

Let's win one playoff series first, babysteps.

Do you need to win if you never really lose?

 

[Buds17]

Very close comparison. A couple of trips to the Conference Finals either way. The Burns led teams were slightly more competitive during this stage; The Quinn led Leafs had more of a sample overall to draw from. A great deal of success was had during these years, ultimately only lacking in achieving the greatest feat of all. My personal bias goes to the Burns era Leafs...any "argument" doesn't extend too far beyond that.

 

[Stephen]

Both eras had the same level of success but the Quinn era lasted longer so that counts for something.

The Quinn team started out as a run and gun speed based team but turned into a grittier one as time went on.

The Burns team was defensive for its time but 1992 to 1996 was still much more open era overall than what was to come later and wasn’t that boring at all. For example, take a look at the 1993 playoff box scores as reference to what kind of track meet hockey the defensive minded Leafs took part in.

 

[zeke]

Not sure which one i liked better. Both were fun, though most of the entertainment came when each team was a lovable underdog - anytime they went into a series expecting to win they flopped.

In some ways the Quinn era was the most frustrating because it was the era of free spending like the league has never seen and somehow the rich Leafs were never able to land a single other legit elite prime aged player to help Sundin. Pretty crazy tbh. Not one.

 

[bigbabybuda]

I traveled to Chicago to see the last 2 games at their arena during the Burns era and got my Jersey signed (Gilmour) by basically every player on the team and Burns. I may be biased but those were the best Leaf teams of my life in my opinion. Up until now maybe

On a side note we bought the ticket to the first game before we left and were able to just walk up to the wondow to buy for the second game at the window in the playoffs

 

[The Shadow]

Quinn era was the golden era of hockey as a Leafs fan for me. Hasn’t been the same since.
If those teams were tighter defensively they would have gone further.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Both eras had the same level of success but the Quinn era lasted longer so that counts for something.

The Quinn team started out as a run and gun speed based team but turned into a grittier one as time went on.

The Burns team was defensive for its time but 1992 to 1996 was still much more open era overall than what was to come later and wasn’t that boring at all. For example, take a look at the 1993 playoff box scores as reference to what kind of track meet hockey the defensive minded Leafs took part in.

Yeah I never felt that team was boring, quite the opposite. Gilmour and Clark, that's enough right there to make boredom impossible but there was a lot more to that team than those two.

 

[LeafalCrusader]

The Quinn teams always seemed a tier below the NJ Detroit Colorado and 99/00 Dallas teams. Good teams that were tough worked hard and had great goaltending though. Easy to cheer for.

 

[Jojalu]

"Better" is subjective in this case. I preferred the Burns era but there's no right or wrong answer here.

Roster wise you would have to gice the edge to the Quinn era. They had some years they were stacked. Like now, did very little with it. How they lost to Philly still irritates me.

 

[Anthrax442]

The Quinn teams always seemed a tier below the NJ Detroit Colorado and 99/00 Dallas teams. Good teams that were tough worked hard and had great goaltending though. Easy to cheer for.

could not crack the trap. We had good enough teams, but couldnt play against trap team

 

[saltming]

I enjoyed my team in both eras. Lots of playoffs lots of fun.
1 team 1 dream

 

[saltming]

could not crack the trap. We had good enough teams, but couldnt play against trap team

They made a rule to compensate for Brodeur and the devils trap

 

[Stephen]

The Quinn teams always seemed a tier below the NJ Detroit Colorado and 99/00 Dallas teams. Good teams that were tough worked hard and had great goaltending though. Easy to cheer for.

Never really understood why they didn’t open up the vaults a little more during that time to load up on talent. I guess the Pension Fund can be blamed for that but in hindsight they really shouldn’t have been spending less money than Colorado in a pre cap era.