Stanley Cup Dynasties

[Leaf Lander]

Yeah we were so terrible that we drafted Hossa 12th and Havlat 26th. Where do you place in the NHL to get the 26th choice?

Yeah it was Ottawa's fault they they got the worst expansion draft ever. Every other team since 1967 had a better chance to pick players when they joined the league than the Senators did. (and TB)

Didn't the Leafs enjoy a pretty bad run too.... From about say..... 1968-1992.

ahh typical idiot answer from a child sens fan

now go away your team has won nothing

crazed young ottawa fans go away

you do not belong in this thread

 

[1datsyuk3*]

Bob Ross is(was) so much cooler than Bob Rouse.......

I like how this thread started out w/ "Detroit buys cups" and later on in the thread no1 really replied to various valid points by wings fans....

for the record, I think Detroit is borderline dynasty....if they won the cup this year i would say yes b/c that decade (95-05) of excellence qualifies them as a dynasty....

 

[Birko19]

Dude, I was kidding. We're talking about BOB ROUSE here.

I liked Bob Rouse, he was a good signing

 

[jiggs 10]

Detroit has to be considered a "dynasty", simply because they have been one of the 2 best teams in the league since 1990. They won more games in the decade 1990-1999 than any other team. They made the Final 3 times in 5 years (1995, 1997, 1998), winning twice in the decade. They continue to win more games than any other team (see multiple Presidents' Cups), along with another Cup in 2002.

New Jersey has been a very good team for some years, but don't forget after they won the Cup in 1995, they slacked off and didn't even make the playoffs the next season. And they haven't won the Cup in 4 years now, so "dynasty"? I don't believe so.

 

[Sens Rule]

ahh typical idiot answer from a child sens fan

now go away your team has won nothing

Wow the pot calling the kettle black. Unless you are 45 years old you can't remember the Leafs winning anything.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Dude, I was kidding. We're talking about BOB ROUSE here.

Hahaha! We need a :headbangingagainstwall: smiley for times like these .

 

[Roke]

Detroit has to be considered a "dynasty", simply because they have been one of the 2 best teams in the league since 1990. They won more games in the decade 1990-1999 than any other team. They made the Final 3 times in 5 years (1995, 1997, 1998), winning twice in the decade. They continue to win more games than any other team (see multiple Presidents' Cups), along with another Cup in 2002.

New Jersey has been a very good team for some years, but don't forget after they won the Cup in 1995, they slacked off and didn't even make the playoffs the next season. And they haven't won the Cup in 4 years now, so "dynasty"? I don't believe so.

I have to disagree but that's probably because my view of a Dynasty would be at least 3 cups in a row... which would mean Edmonton wouldn't be considered a dynasty under my narrow definition so it probably isn't all that accurate.

I don't think you can't say a team is domimant unless they're winning Cups. Could Ottawa in the past 3 years be considered a Dynasty? Sure, they've been domimant, during the season, but no Cups and that is how you decide whtehr or not they are a dynasty.

 

[nik jr]

DRW may not technically be a dynasty, but their accomplishments are probably better than many dynasties. b/c it's harder today than it was 50 or 60 yrs ago. i think the cover of the sporting news in 98 once had holmstrom scoring against kolzig in the finals, w/ the headline DYNASTY!