Which dynasty had the most luck/good fortune?

[Hawksfan2828]

Just like the Patriots are supposed to beat up on an "inferior" division annually. Just like the Yankees of the late 90s did same. Pure folly. It is a reflection of the greatness, the superiority, of the team in question moreso than the inferiority of their opponents.



"Dodged"???? On what planet are you writing this from? As if the defending Stanley Cup champion Isles of 1981 would have been intimidated by Mike Liut and the Big Bad Blues..or the Kings of whom they disposed the previous spring. Oy!



Yep, "lucky" to come back vs. the Pens. Nooooo, they got it done. Check the team and personal stats of that 1981-82 team, the best Isles team ever. They streamrolled through the playoffs after Round One. And no one would or did touch them. But feel free to propagandize.



Mediocre Rangers team? Check your history. NYR/NYI playoff series, 1981-84, were epic. Rivals? Get it? Got to go beyond the stats. And your opinion about the 82-82 Flyers is nice...and disregards Philly's questionable netminding of the time. Isles owned the Flyers during that period, the two teams weren't even close. And anyone with any memory knows that the regular season meant little to NYI, as their greatness ("luck" according to you ) was their ability to turn it on once the games mattered in April. And nice how you ignore their dismantling of the vaunted Oilers in the Finals. Minor detail, pal.



Cheating death? No, Demonstrating the heart of a champion. Did you care to mention that 16 players on that squad had injuries of consequence by the time they hobbled into the Finals? No excuse, of course - champions do not need any - but when someone tries to revise history a quarter of a century later, some facts are required.

The Habs were riding a red-hot Steve Penney at the time, so your branding them below average again speaks to not appreciating where a team is at a given moment in time. And your blanket declarations that they would not have beaten the Bs (took them out the spring before), the Nordiques (swept them two springs prior) or Buffalo is rich.

Best to stick to your equally ill-informed anti-Devil agenda, as opposed to spreading pure lies about arguably the greatest team ever.

"Lucky"...says a geek with a keyboard about a team that won 19 straight playoff series. Only on HF kids, only on HF.

Dude...

Give me a break, thats the biggest homer crap I have ever heard. The Islanders were a dyanasty in such a weak point in NHL history. No knock on Bossy or Trotts.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Most people don't even consider Detroit's 3 in 6 a dynasty. When someone talks about Detroit's dynasty I think of the 50s.

4 in 4 is a dynasty not 3 in 6.

It angers me when Wings fans try to pass off their team as a dynasty....Great teams dont choke in the 1st round.

As a Hawks fan I look forward to the Hawks destroying the Wings in the near future.

 

[RonGreschner]

As a die hard Ranger fan, I find it amusing to all these people who post saying the Islanders had it the easiest. A measure of a good team is how they win. The Islanders in the 1980's could play any style, beat Edmonton in a skating game, Philly still brawled and they disposed of them. On the way to the Cup they either pummled (see Bruins) or flat out outclassed a team (see alll the other teams they beat). They totally blew away the Flyers, North Stars, Canucks and Oilers. Don't they have the record for most consecutive wins in the playoffs? And this is coming from a Ranger fan who still is greiving over the OT loss in 1984.

 

[Trottier]

Dude...

Give me a break, thats the biggest homer crap I have ever heard. The Islanders were a dyanasty in such a weak point in NHL history. No knock on Bossy or Trotts.

Thanks for the insight.

Your post added a lot to the discussion, and your ability to rebut each point was persuasive.

 

[Trottier]

To be fair, the Pittsburgh Penguins landing Crosby was more or less PURE LUCK, I mean, considering that their fate was determined by a single white ball

No doubt. But that's a draft lottery. Championships are not won on luck.

No one is going to suggest that a bounce here, a call there do not influence game situations, or even occasionally (rarely) game outcomes. But the extent to which at least one poster here attributes a team coming out of the two most intense months of playoff hockey victorious to "luck" is naive, to be kind.

You win the Cup, you earned it, Always.

And of course, 25 years later, some punk sitting around a PC is going to try to diminish that accomplishment.

Rich!

 

[MS]

No one is going to suggest that a bounce here, a call there do not influence game situations, or even occasionally (rarely) game outcomes. But the extent to which at least one poster here attributes a team coming out of the two most intense months of playoff hockey victorious to "luck" is naive, to be kind.

You win the Cup, you earned it, Always.

Undoubtably. But the strength of opposition faced in various Cup runs is not always equal, and the 1981 and 1982 Islander teams had probably the two easiest runs in NHL history since the 4-round playoff format was introduced. The best team they had to face in those two years was 7th in the NHL. Of the 10 best regular-season teams over those two years, the Isles didn't have to face any of them. Like it or not, that is a fair chunk of 'luck' in their favour.

Of course, they did prove how strong they were with strong runs against strong competition in 1980 and 1983, so it's a moot point in terms of deciding whether they were a great team or not.

 

[LAX attack*]

No doubt. But that's a draft lottery. Championships are not won on luck.

No one is going to suggest that a bounce here, a call there do not influence game situations, or even occasionally (rarely) game outcomes. But the extent to which at least one poster here attributes a team coming out of the two most intense months of playoff hockey victorious to "luck" is naive, to be kind.

You win the Cup, you earned it, Always.

And of course, 25 years later, some punk sitting around a PC is going to try to diminish that accomplishment.

Rich!

No championship is won PURELY on luck, they are all earned

But let's take a look at the Calgary/Tampa playoff finals series in 2003. If the right call had been made, Calgary would have won the game, series and playoffs, no?

 

[Trottier]

Undoubtably. But the strength of opposition faced in various Cup runs is not always equal, and the 1981 and 1982 Islander teams had probably the two easiest runs in NHL history since the 4-round playoff format was introduced. The best team they had to face in those two years was 7th in the NHL. Of the 10 best regular-season teams over those two years, the Isles didn't have to face any of them. Like it or not, that is a fair chunk of 'luck' in their favour.

MS, as you are an astute poster capable of defending a position and assembling multiple sentences consisting of more than monosyllabic grunts, I'm guessing that you can appreciate this proposition:

The Isles playoff opponents in 1981 and 82 were, in hindsight, not world-beaters, I will grant you that. (Though, again, one needs to toss the stats aside when considering those NYR teams, as the rivalry made for intense series. Of course, a few here are incapable of looking beyond numbers.)

That said, the disparity in competition in those two years' worth of series is at least in some part a testament to NYI's GREATNESS as much as the inferiority of their opponents. It cuts both way. But of course the detractors - those who live to diminish accomplishment - only look at it from one angle.

And frankly, the two years you cite were EASILY the two best Isles squads ever and the best of the four-year Cup run. So, one can throw all of the rhetoric they wish, there is absolutely no reason to believe that NYI would have suffered a lesser fate had they faced the hand-chosen opponents of 2008's myopic stat-obessed geek.

I mean, frankly, looking back to those two years, who was competition? The suggestions brought up in the thread opener - the Blues and Kings - were pure comedy.

But let's take a look at the Calgary/Tampa playoff finals series in 2003. If the right call had been made, Calgary would have won the game, series and playoffs, no?

This is just me, and to be certain, it is a minority POV on this board, but the way I look at is this: it is a game played and officiated by humans (thankfully). As such, there will occasionally/rarely be dubious calls.

The best teams overcome obstacles like injuries, poor calls, etc.. The lesser teams do not.

 

[captainpierce]

That said, the disparity in competition in those two years' worth of series is at least in some part a testament to NYI's GREATNESS as much as the inferiority of their opponents. It cuts both way. But of course the detractors - those who live to diminish accomplishment - only look at it from one angle.

In 1981 the Islanders faced the 14th-best team in the quarterfinals, the 13th-best team in the semifinals, and the 8th-best team in the Cup Finals. In 1982 they faced the 4th-best team in the Adams in the Conf. Finals, and faced a team with a losing record in the Cup Finals(all after needing to come back from two goals down in the third period to avoid being eliminated by a team with a losing record in the first round). So even if one accepts the idea that the Islanders were good enough to throw off the record of all other teams, they still got lucky with the teams they faced.

I mean, frankly, looking back to those two years, who was competition?

Exactly. No one's saying the Islanders' weren't a great team, just wondering whether they might have won one or two fewer Cups if they had faced competition of the same caliber as the Canadiens and Oilers dynasties faced.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

No championship is won PURELY on luck, they are all earned

But let's take a look at the Calgary/Tampa playoff finals series in 2003. If the right call had been made, Calgary would have won the game, series and playoffs, no?

2004 you mean.

From what I remember there was never any conclusive replay angle that showed it was a goal 100%?

Anyways, I'm with Trottier 100% on this one. Every team needs some luck to win the cup. A bounce or two going your way, you need to avoid injury etc. Every single cup winner will say they had a bit of luck on their side on their way to 16 wins. In most cup runs you'll play upwards of 20 games of course over that many games you will have a few bounces and or calls go your way. But so do the other teams have bounces going their way at times. You never ever win a cup by being lucky. And no way do you win 4 cups in a row by being lucky.

The Islanders proved they were the best. Considering other "powerhouse" teams got upset by mediocre teams that the Isles quickly clownstomped, I think it's more likely that these so called good teams even if they hadnt gotten upset still get beat with ease by the Islanders.

 

[ck26]

As much as I love reading about the epic battle between Lighting and Flames, I'm going to hijack the thread a bit and hopefully raise the level of discourse.

How did the Montreal Canadiens achieve such a dominant position in hockey history, in the Quebec market and in the hearts of French Canadiens? I've read in many places that the Maroons and Wanderers were plagued by financial problems and I've also read that the Canadiens "appealed to Montreal's French-speaking community" ... how exactly? The 'e' in the name? The composition of the roster (which never looks overwhelmingly Francophone until the 50's at least)? Was there some sort of dedicated effort by team management to sell the team as THE Francophone team?

I bring this up as lucky because so many later players (Lafleur, Savard, Cournoyer, Lapointe, etc) have made statements to the effect of, "growing up, there was only one team ... I never even wanted to play for another team ... the Canadiens were the only team for kids in Quebec" ... etc.

Was the death of the Wanderers and the Maroons directly related to something the Canadiens did? Or did they stumble back-asswards into arguably the most beneficial youth support in history?

 

[dre2112]

As much as I love reading about the epic battle between Lighting and Flames, I'm going to hijack the thread a bit and hopefully raise the level of discourse.

How did the Montreal Canadiens achieve such a dominant position in hockey history, in the Quebec market and in the hearts of French Canadiens? I've read in many places that the Maroons and Wanderers were plagued by financial problems and I've also read that the Canadiens "appealed to Montreal's French-speaking community" ... how exactly? The 'e' in the name? The composition of the roster (which never looks overwhelmingly Francophone until the 50's at least)? Was there some sort of dedicated effort by team management to sell the team as THE Francophone team?

I bring this up as lucky because so many later players (Lafleur, Savard, Cournoyer, Lapointe, etc) have made statements to the effect of, "growing up, there was only one team ... I never even wanted to play for another team ... the Canadiens were the only team for kids in Quebec" ... etc.

Was the death of the Wanderers and the Maroons directly related to something the Canadiens did? Or did they stumble back-asswards into arguably the most beneficial youth support in history?

Seriously? Let's go back to the time hockey was invented. What a fluke that was. It totally established the groundwork for the Canadiens to be the most dominant franchise in league history.

 

[MS]

MS, as you are an astute poster capable of defending a position and assembling multiple sentences consisting of more than monosyllabic grunts, I'm guessing that you can appreciate this proposition:

The Isles playoff opponents in 1981 and 82 were, in hindsight, not world-beaters, I will grant you that. (Though, again, one needs to toss the stats aside when considering those NYR teams, as the rivalry made for intense series. Of course, a few here are incapable of looking beyond numbers.)

That said, the disparity in competition in those two years' worth of series is at least in some part a testament to NYI's GREATNESS as much as the inferiority of their opponents. It cuts both way. But of course the detractors - those who live to diminish accomplishment - only look at it from one angle.

And frankly, the two years you cite were EASILY the two best Isles squads ever and the best of the four-year Cup run. So, one can throw all of the rhetoric they wish, there is absolutely no reason to believe that NYI would have suffered a lesser fate had they faced the hand-chosen opponents of 2008's myopic stat-obessed geek.

I mean, frankly, looking back to those two years, who was competition? The suggestions brought up in the thread opener - the Blues and Kings - were pure comedy.

I am absolutely not trying to undermine the excellence of those teams, and mentioned the stiff runs they faced in 1980 and 1983 as evidence they were a legitimate dynasty team.

If NYI were trashing the 2nd, 3rd, 4th place teams in the league in 1981 and 1982, then that would be a testament to their greatness. But the fact that they were beating up on teams that finished no higher than 7th in the league doesn't do that, really.

In terms of great teams, the 1980-83 period wasn't exactly a stellar one in NHL history. Edmonton wasn't great yet, Montreal had no goaltending and were in transition, and Philly and Boston (probably the two other best teams through that period) were in transition to a large extent as well. It's a shame for hockey fans that there wasn't another legitimately elite team at the time for them to face, as the Oilers had the Flames and Flyers and the Canadiens had the Flyers and Bruins.

Anyhow, yes, I consider it good fortune that they didn't have to face a significant challenge for two of their Cups, although I recognize they were a good enough team that they were likely to win anyway, even if they had faced the best in the league at the time.

 

[EventHorizon]

But let's take a look at the Calgary/Tampa playoff finals series in 2003. If the right call had been made, Calgary would have won the game, series and playoffs, no?

The right call WAS made. No replay conclusively showed the puck across the line.

/end derail

 

[ILikeItVeryMuch*]

Luck comes with success, its the nature of sport.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Seriously? Let's go back to the time hockey was invented. What a fluke that was. It totally established the groundwork for the Canadiens to be the most dominant franchise in league history.

How? The Canadiens were not really a dominant team until the mid-40's. The Wanderers were one of hockey's first dynasties. They had a proud tradition, but unfortunately their rink burnt down early in the NHL's first season and the club folded. The Maroons won just as many Cups as the Canadiens when they were in the league together, but financial problems caused them to fold as well.

NHL teams also owned junior teams during the original six era, which served as their pool of prospects. In essence, the Canadiens had first claim on almost every Quebec-area prospect throughout the original six era. This gave them a tremendous advantage, and is basically the main reason Montreal became a perrenial powerhouse for decades. Toronto and Detroit to a lesser extent also took advantage of this. New York, Chicago, and Boston were left out in the cold by the looks of things.

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

The Canadiens were lucky...VERY lucky that Ken Dryden decided to refuse to play for Boston when they drafted him. That would have changed everything. Dryden was a Bruins-killer, and definitely kept Boston from winning at least two more Cups in the 70s.

 

[E_Godard]

"Lucky"...says a geek with a keyboard about a team that won 19 straight playoff series. Only on HF kids, only on HF.

Thank you for posting that response Trots. Im pretty shocked to see the Isles brought up. Especially off the bat.. And I truely do not believe Im being a homer here.

 

[Lost Kangaroo]

No championship is won PURELY on luck, they are all earned

But let's take a look at the Calgary/Tampa playoff finals series in 2003. If the right call had been made, Calgary would have won the game, series and playoffs, no?

The right call was made, and even if they had gotten it wrong and called it a goal, that does not in any way mean the Flames would have won the Cup. There was plenty of time for Tampa to get it back and negate the refs mistake.
If you want to pick a team that won with the most amount of luck on their side you must look at the 2006 Canes. Down two games to none against a Habs team that then lost their best player and Capt. Beat an average Devils team. Faced a superior Sabres team in the conference finals that was down so many D-men they more or less had a AHL blue line and it still took the canes 7 to win. Then to the finals and a match up with the Oilers who lose their starting goalie in game one, play a guy who hasnt seen game action in months, and push them to a game seven as well. I think the Sabres and the Oilers both would have beaten them had they stayed healthy.
That being said, they didnt stay healthy, the Canes won, and they deserved to win. Luck always plays a part.
Lucky, Fortunate, whatever you want to call it the Isles were one of the greatest teams ever.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Edited: I have never fully understood that, thanks for the link (not that I even fully get it after reading that).

4 in 4 is a dynasty not 3 in 6.

It angers me when Wings fans try to pass off their team as a dynasty....Great teams dont choke in the 1st round.

As a Hawks fan I look forward to the Hawks destroying the Wings in the near future.

We will never see another dynasty like that again, post-expansion and especially under the cap, so you either have to adjust your definition of it in the post-cap era or invent a new word to define the teams which have met consistent and prolonged success despite "parity".

Besides, apparently by your definition and dismissal of the Islanders, Montreal is the only team to ever have a "dynasty".

Ironically, I totally agree with you -- many Hawks fans would consider the season a rousing success if Chicago beat Detroit in the regular season, but still failed to make the playoffs. Fortunately, Detroit's success is not measured by how well they do against the Hawks

 

[pitseleh]

I bring this up as lucky because so many later players (Lafleur, Savard, Cournoyer, Lapointe, etc) have made statements to the effect of, "growing up, there was only one team ... I never even wanted to play for another team ... the Canadiens were the only team for kids in Quebec" ... etc.

Was the death of the Wanderers and the Maroons directly related to something the Canadiens did? Or did they stumble back-asswards into arguably the most beneficial youth support in history?

Going from memory here, but from what I understand, while both the Maroons and the Canadiens were in the league together there was already a division in support with the anglo/Maroons and franco/Canadiens connection. I believe the Maroons were started after (as Kyle McMahon mentioned) the Wanderers folded and a team was needed to continue the traditional anglo/franco split was even present during the Wanderers/Canadiens time.

 

[DoMakc]

The '50 mile radius' rule definitely was a lucky stroke for the Habs.

Um, no.

Read this http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=488083

 

[PDO]

I'm an Oiler fan through and through... but I think I may go with them.

Why?

1979:

Kevin Lowe - 21st OV, 1st round.
Mark Messier - 48th OV, 3rd round.
Glen Anderson: 69th OV, 4th round.

1980:

Paul Coffey - 6th OV, 1st round.
Jari Kurri - 69th OV, 4th round.
Andy Moog - 132nd OV, 7th round.

1981:

Grant Fuhr - 8th OV, 1st round.
Steve Smith - 111th OV, 6th round.

With the exception of Coffey and Fuhr, who still both ended up hitting their potential and then some, it's fair to say that every single one of those players beat the absolute piss out of their draft number. I know there was a story with Kurri, I think most teams thought he wasn't eligible until the next year, but you still have Lowe, Messier, Anderson, Moog and Smith beating the **** out of their draft #'s. A lot of bets in those 3 drafts worked out better than anyone could've imagined.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Um, no.

Read this http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=488083

That link does fly in the face of so many things I have read... consider this quote:

As someone currently writing a book on the history of the draft, let me weigh in here for my $0.02 to simplify things.

Both Paul O and LITY are correct, here is a simplified version

Prior to the 1962-63 season, every NHL team had what was called a sponsorship list. This list consisted of players that
a) played in the NHL with the big club
b) played for the big club's minor league affiliate
c) played for the big club's sponsored OHL team (which Paul listed)
d) lived within a 50 mile radius of the club's home rink, and had received a letter from the club advising that they were on the list (this is the letter that Jean Beliveau had received that he rebuffed)

Any player who 15, and met the D requirement, could be sent a letter. The player could sign the letter and return it, or refuse it. If the player refused it, the team could give up on the player, or pursue it further.

In the case of someone like LITY, any team interested in his services, aould ask Montreal....are you still negotiating? Or is he free? If he was free, any team was free to send him a sponsorship letter, which he was free to sign.

If a player was not within the 50 mile limit, that player was free to field offers from any teams. Once that player agreed to a sponsorship level/contract, the NHL club could assign him to their sponsored junior squad.

As Paul O mentioned, this caused a lot of consternation because many people felt it limited a players movement, or that teams were signing players to their sponsorship list simply to prevent another team from signing them.

During the 1962-63 season, Clarence Campbell came up with an idea (very similar to today's draft) that beginning with the end of the 1963 season, any player who was 17 yrs of age, and not signed to a sponsorship agreement, was free to be drafted by any team (and then become 'sponsored')

At this point in time, Montreal was permitted to take UP TO two players of French-Canadian heritage before the draft started.

I am having trouble finding the real answer, and not just quotes from around the web...

 

[Cogliano13Gagner89]

I'd say Detroit and the Islanders