Ten Best Teams of the Modern Era

[MadArcand]

They didn't lose to the Avs, they lost to Patrick Roy.

Sort of a myth - the difference was in goal, yet it wasn't Roy being awesome.

Roy had .905 sv% in that series.

Osgood cost the Wings the series, he was abysmal .860

The Wings outshot Colorado 169-135 but got outscored 16-20.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

They didn't lose to the Avs, they lost to Patrick Roy.

If that was all it was, the Wings wouldn't have completely overhauled their roster. 1996 was "yet another choke for the Red Wings" at the time.

They ditched Ciccarelli, Coffey, and Primeau. Brought in Shanahan and Murphy. Turned the starter's job over to Mike Vernon by the 1997 playoffs.

Yzerman became more focused on two-way play, Lidstrom and Konstantinov matured (I've seen Wings fans say that 96-97 was Lidstrom's first real season as an elite player), Fedorov basically started saving himself for the playoffs.

 

[reckoning]

Roy played outstanding, but it's not like Detroit dominated the series yet had it stole from them by him (well, maybe Game 2). For whatever reason, the Wings weren't the same team in the playoffs that they had been throughout the seaon.

Detroit also struggled in the first two rounds before the Colorado series against two below-.500 teams that they should've beaten easily. They came one goal away from losing to St. Louis.

 

[RECsGuy*]

holy **** people! the '91 and '92 Penguins? Hello?

 

[Kshahdoo]

Yeah, Edmonton had a great team in the middle of 80-s...

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

They didn't lose to the Avs, they lost to Patrick Roy.

And since Patrick Roy was on the Avs, they lost to the Avs.

 

[Trottier]

There is no way that 1981-82 Isles team is not among the top 5.

And where are the Pens teams of 1991 and 1992? Second greatest offensive machine ever.

 

[JackSlater]

And where are the Pens teams of 1991 and 1992? Second greatest offensive machine ever.

Ahead of the late 50s Canadiens and early 70s Bruins?

 

[nik jr]

I disagree, there are a million ways to lose a playoff series that don't involve being "worse" than your opponent. Injuries, a hot goalie in the other net, a bad bounce in OT can end a dynasty just like that. Hell, Steve Smith shot the puck off Grant Fuhr... that didn't make the Flames a better team than the Oilers.

IMO, if the point of the thread is simply to identify powerhouse teams then a Cup is nice but not necessary.

agreed

They didn't lose to the Avs, they lost to Patrick Roy.

roy was obviously a lot better than osgood, and played very well, other than in game 3 where he sucked, but he did not steal the series.

Would you call last year's Capitals team one of the best teams ever? The 95-96 Wings were built for the regular season (as were the previous versions of the team), but were generally too soft for playoff hockey. Trades made in the offseason, plus the further maturation of Yzerman, Fedorov, and Lidstrom made the team much more ready for the playoffs the following seasons.

i don't think they were at all too soft for the playoffs, other than possibly mentally and in net.

imo, the main differences between '96 and before and '97 and later was better D and better goaltending.

Sort of a myth - the difference was in goal, yet it wasn't Roy being awesome.

Roy had .905 sv% in that series.

Osgood cost the Wings the series, he was abysmal .860

The Wings outshot Colorado 169-135 but got outscored 16-20.

agreed

a lot of the narrative about DRW's success in '97 vs failure previously is about trading coffey and primeau for shanahan, which was a very important and a very good trade, but getting good goaltending was probably more important.

goaltending in '94, '95 and '96 was not good.

Roy played outstanding, but it's not like Detroit dominated the series yet had it stole from them by him (well, maybe Game 2). For whatever reason, the Wings weren't the same team in the playoffs that they had been throughout the seaon.

Detroit also struggled in the first two rounds before the Colorado series against two below-.500 teams that they should've beaten easily. They came one goal away from losing to St. Louis.

this is also correct.

but i think DRW probably would have won the stanley cup if osgood had played even average.

 

[Trottier]

Ahead of the late 50s Canadiens and early 70s Bruins?

Can't comment on the '50s Canadiens.

I do rank the Pens ahead of those Bs teams, dynamic as Boston was.

 

[overg]

Roy played outstanding, but it's not like Detroit dominated the series yet had it stole from them by him (well, maybe Game 2). For whatever reason, the Wings weren't the same team in the playoffs that they had been throughout the seaon.

Basically, the Wings choked. The team that had stomped the regular season with a hyper aggressive left Wing lock started playing tentatively. Their defensemen backed off the blue line and their forwards had that moment's hesitation which turns a breakaway into a missed pass. As a result, Detroit's dominant "transition game" just wasn't clicking. They were still an incredibly talented group, and thus managed to make it to game 6 of the conference finals, but they never played with close to the same precision they had in the regular season.

That's one of the big reasons Shanahan was seen as a turning point for the team. The team realized it was not always going to be pretty in the playoffs, so they brought in guys like Shanahan (and Sanderson, Kocur) to help add some gritty, work along the boards, forecheck type play. To put it in basketball terms, they brought in some guys to give them a better "half court game" when the full court game wasn't working.

 

[jkrx]

Basically, the Wings choked. The team that had stomped the regular season with a hyper aggressive left Wing lock started playing tentatively. Their defensemen backed off the blue line and their forwards had that moment's hesitation which turns a breakaway into a missed pass. As a result, Detroit's dominant "transition game" just wasn't clicking. They were still an incredibly talented group, and thus managed to make it to game 6 of the conference finals, but they never played with close to the same precision they had in the regular season.

That's one of the big reasons Shanahan was seen as a turning point for the team. The team realized it was not always going to be pretty in the playoffs, so they brought in guys like Shanahan (and Sanderson, Kocur) to help add some gritty, work along the boards, forecheck type play. To put it in basketball terms, they brought in some guys to give them a better "half court game" when the full court game wasn't working.

Sanderson? You mean Sandström?

They also got rid off a floater who collapsed in the playoffs, Coffey and a center who just werent good enough to be a number 1 on the team and didn't want to play wing in Primeau.

Don't forget the replacement of Coffey in Larry Murphy who was better suited for that team.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Sanderson? You mean Sandström?

They also got rid off a floater who collapsed in the playoffs, Coffey and a center who just werent good enough to be a number 1 on the team and didn't want to play wing in Primeau.

Don't forget the replacement of Coffey in Larry Murphy who was better suited for that team.

Yeah, Coffey was known for being a guy who collapsed in the playoffs alright.

 

[jkrx]

Yeah, Coffey was known for being a guy who collapsed in the playoffs alright.

Did you even watch him in Detroit? I'm not talking about the stallion during his prime years in Oilers. I'm talking about the Coffey who constantly got burned in the playoffs specially in the Avs series.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Did you even watch him in Detroit? I'm not talking about the stallion during his prime years in Oilers. I'm talking about the Coffey who constantly got burned in the playoffs specially in the Avs series.

Yes I was watching quite a bit of hockey at that time.

You know, I'll be the first to admit that Coffey was no Bourque or Potvin or Lidstrom defensively. But I'm getting tired of the constant bashing he takes on the boards here. I'll also admit that in his mid-30s on he wasn't as good as he was earlier - who is? Very few players.

Coffey was a product of his time and environment and he was definitely an attacking defenseman first and foremost, but he was not terrible and hopelessly lost defensively like everyone here seems to think.

Here are Detroit's playoff stats from Coffey's duration (93-96):

Rk|Player|From|To|Tm|Lg|Pos|GP|G|A|PTS|+/-|
1|Sergei Fedorov|1992|1996|DET|NHL|C|61|18|53|71|26|
2|Steve Yzerman|1992|1996|DET|NHL|C|54|20|31|51|-6|
3|Paul Coffey|1993|1996|DET|NHL|D|49|14|36|50|4|
4|Nicklas Lidstrom|1992|1996|DET|NHL|D|62|14|25|39|3|

Not to mention winning a Norris trophy in Detroit the year before the season in question here.

Care to revise? Cause I'm pretty sure most teams would be happy to have a defenseman producing over a point per game in the playoffs and having a better +/- than Yzerman and Lidstrom (even if he was just getting going really).

 

[jkrx]

Yes I was watching quite a bit of hockey at that time.

You know, I'll be the first to admit that Coffey was no Bourque or Potvin or Lidstrom defensively. But I'm getting tired of the constant bashing he takes on the boards here. I'll also admit that in his mid-30s on he wasn't as good as he was earlier - who is? Very few players.

Coffey was a product of his time and environment and he was definitely an attacking defenseman first and foremost, but he was not terrible and hopelessly lost defensively like everyone here seems to think.

Here are Detroit's playoff stats from Coffey's duration (93-96):

Rk|Player|From|To|Tm|Lg|Pos|GP|G|A|PTS|+/-|
1|Sergei Fedorov|1992|1996|DET|NHL|C|61|18|53|71|26|
2|Steve Yzerman|1992|1996|DET|NHL|C|54|20|31|51|-6|
3|Paul Coffey|1993|1996|DET|NHL|D|49|14|36|50|4|
4|Nicklas Lidstrom|1992|1996|DET|NHL|D|62|14|25|39|3|

Not to mention winning a Norris trophy in Detroit the year before the season in question here.

Care to revise? Cause I'm pretty sure most teams would be happy to have a defenseman producing over a point per game in the playoffs and having a better +/- than Yzerman and Lidstrom (even if he was just getting going really).

I asked if you watched him. Not if you could show me stats that I already know about and doesn't show how he actually played. I was talking about how he played in the playoffs of '96 not what stats he had from all playoffs with Detroit combined.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I asked if you watched him. Not if you could show me stats that I already know about and doesn't show how he actually played. I was talking about how he played in the playoffs of '96 not what stats he had from all playoffs with Detroit combined.

I already did tell you I watched him.

Also I don't think he was alone in not playing his best in the 96 playoffs.

 

[SealsFan]

Looks like there's some disagreement as to whether "best" is defined by regular season record or winning the Cup.

The 1981-82 Islanders led the league in points and won the Cup. Who is the "second best" team in hockey that year - the Oilers, who finished with 111 points, or the Canucks, who had a losing record with 77 points, yet lost to the Isles in the finals?

 

[jkrx]

I already did tell you I watched him.

Also I don't think he was alone in not playing his best in the 96 playoffs.

I never said he was alone but he was one of the worse when taking roll on the team in consideration.