Which single-season roster would be the greatest team with players in their primes?

[JaymzB]

Tom Johnson, when coach of the 1970-71 Bruins, said that Bruin team was better than the 5 cup Canadien's teams, and that Bruin's team, even though my sentimental favorite, pales in comparison to the dynasties that came later.

Time marches on...athletes get better, not worse...legends die hard.

If that is your opinion, do you also believe Bobby Orr would be nothing special in today’s NHL?

 

[BobbyAwe]

If that is your opinion, do you also believe Bobby Orr would be nothing special in today’s NHL?

Orr was the greatest player up to and including his time, by a considerable margin. That would not equate to "nothing special" today, but it also does not mean he is the greatest ever.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

not GOAT, but an underrated roster: '87-'88 flames, pre-brett hull trade. with the exception of mike bullard, every one of these guys played in at least one stanley cup finals, and three of them went on to win conn smythe trophies. seven past, present, or future 50 goal scorers, and two more who never hit were 100 point scorers.

scorers:

loob (50 goals)
bullard (50 goals)
nieuwendyk (50 goals)
mullen (50 goals)
tonelli (100 pts)
otto (playoff warrior, selke-calibre)
hull (86 goals, hart)
roberts (50 goals)
mcdonald (65 goals)

defense

macinnis (smythe)
suter (2nd team all-star)
mccrimmon (2nd team all-star, shutdown d)
reinhart (75 pts on d)

goal

vernon (smythe)

role players

peplinski, carey wilson, tim hunter, ric nattress, dana murzyn, jiri hrdina, perry berezan, brian glynn (a marginal guy who had a couple of really solid playoff runs)


for the 1990 flames team, subtract hull, bullard, loob, mcdonald, and tonelli, and add makarov, gilmour, fleury, and macoun, among others.

 

[WingsFan95]

Off the top of my head, the 2001-2002 Detroit Red Wings:

Steve Yzerman 1988-89
Brendan Shanahan 1993-94
Sergei Fedorov 1993-94
Luc Robitaille 1992-93
Brett Hull 1990-91
Igor Larionov 1987-88 (with CSKA)
Pavel Datsyuk 2008-09
Kris Draper/Kirk Maltby 2003-04
Chris Chelios 1995-96
Nicklas Lidstrom 2005-06
Dominik Hasek 1997-98

Can any team come close to this?

LOL, first thought, you got me, HA.

Maybe because I'm a Wings fan but honestly how can that be argued? I mean in the modern era when you're not including the time the Canadiens bought the best players in a six team league right?

I don't think anyone can touch that.

To add to discussion I'd throw out the 99 Dallas Stars in there.

Hull, Belfour, Modano, Neiwendyk, Hatcher, Verbeek and Zubov too as supporters.

And then how can anyone forget the 94 Rangers, who pretty much sold their future for that Cup.

Messier, Graves, Leech, Anderson, Kovalev, Larmer, Richter and add in Zubov, Lowe and Tikannen too, in fact that team had a pile of multiple Stanley Cup winners.

 

[SkullSplitter]

I think 2002 Red Wings takes the cake.


I'd put the 91 Penguins up there though too. .


Stevens (54g, 69a)- Lemieux (85g, 115a) - Recchi (53g, 70a)

Mullen (51g, 59a) - Francis (27g, 92a) - Jagr (62g, 87a)

Errey (26g, 32a) - Trottier (47g, 87a) - Young (40g, 33a)


Coffey (48g, 90a) - Murphy (22, 63)
Bourque (22g, 17a) - Ulf Samuellson
Roberts (8g, 45a) -

Barasso


And while we're on the subject of what teams would be like had everyone been in their prime, some other Pens teams to think about- 06 Pens. Lemieux, Crosby, LeClair, Recchi, Palffy. . . The third line would be lacking, and the defense would be OK, but Crosby and Lemieux in their primes playing together. . .

 

[SkullSplitter]

The 1992-93 Penguins would be up there.

How about the 93-94 Pens?


You lose nothing I can think of
but gain Trottier, Sandstrom, Naslund, and Doug Brown.

Neither the 93 or 94 Pens had Coffey though like the 91 Pens did. Hmm Coffey and Recchi, or Tochett, Kjell, and Wregget (I know Coffey wasn't part of that trade, but he was basically traded for nothing at the same time of that trade)

 

[CpatainCanuck]

Seriously? There are still guys like this on this board?

Care to argue against his point?

Mathematically any player in a 6 team league has 5 times the chance of being named an allstar as in a 30 team league.

Therefore trying to argue which team is better by comparing allstar selections on the team is a little silly when one era has 6 teams and another 24-30.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

LOL, first thought, you got me, HA.

Maybe because I'm a Wings fan but honestly how can that be argued? I mean in the modern era when you're not including the time the Canadiens bought the best players in a six team league right?

I don't think anyone can touch that.

If we're not including bought Habs teams in the original six era , then how about the 1972-73 Montreal Canadiens.

Yvan Cournoyer
Ken Dryden
Guy Lafleur
Jacques Laperriere
Guy Lapointe
Jacques Lemaire
Frank Mahovlich
Henri Richard
Larry Robinson
Serge Savard
Steve Shutt

Combined First Team & Second Team All-Star Nominations

1972/73 - Montreal - 47
2001/02 - Detroit - 39

It remains to be seen whether the 2001/02 Red Wings will match the eleven Hall of Famers on the 1972-73 Canadiens roster.

And further to the original post, in what way weren't the 2001/02 Red Wings not a bought team ??? With the exception of Frank Mahovlich, the other ten Hall-of-Famers on the 1972-73 Canadiens were all homegrown and brought through the Canadiens system.

 

[SkullSplitter]

Wouldn't it be easier to get an all-star nomination in the 70s since there were less players?

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Tom Johnson, when coach of the 1970-71 Bruins, said that Bruin team was better than the 5 cup Canadien's teams, and that Bruin's team, even though my sentimental favorite, pales in comparison to the dynasties that came later.

Time marches on...athletes get better, not worse...legends die hard.

In an ironic twist, Johnson's opinion was not shared at the time by his former goaltender, Jacques Plante, who publicly responded to Johnson's assertion by claiming that only three players on the 1970-71 Bruins would have been able to crack the fifties Habs roster.

"Bobby Orr could have replaced our Bob Turner on defence. Phil Esposito could have replaced our Phil Goyette at center. John Bucyk could have replaced our Andre Pronovost at left wing."

Plante made his comments on the eve of the 1971 playoff series between the Canadiens and the Bruins, a series in which he was one of the very few to publicly predict a Montreal victory over Boston.

In the spring of 1971, a 39-year-old Jean Beliveau and a 35-year-old Henri Richard were still good enough to play major contributions in the Bruins demise (witness Game 2 of the 1971 MTL/BOS quarterfinals). And of course, Plante was good enough that year to set a still standing record with a .942 save percentage and a spot on the second all star team.

If they could accomplish all that in the spring of 1971 ... it's not hard to think that they were probably that much better in the late '50's.

 

[Lead Role in a Cage]

I'd put the 91 Penguins up there though too. .


Stevens (54g, 69a)- Lemieux (85g, 115a) - Recchi (53g, 70a)

Mullen (51g, 59a) - Francis (27g, 92a) - Jagr (62g, 87a)

Errey (26g, 32a) - Trottier (47g, 87a) - Young (40g, 33a)

You can add Barry Pederson to that group of forwards.
(and Rob Brown ).

 

[Czech Your Math]

How about the 93-94 Pens?


You lose nothing I can think of
but gain Trottier, Sandstrom, Naslund, and Doug Brown.

Neither the 93 or 94 Pens had Coffey though like the 91 Pens did. Hmm Coffey and Recchi, or Tochett, Kjell, and Wregget (I know Coffey wasn't part of that trade, but he was basically traded for nothing at the same time of that trade)

'94 Pens would be tough, even more forward depth and a better backup goalie:

Mullen-Lemieux-Stevens
Straka-Francis-Jagr
Naslund-Trottier-Sandstrom
Tocchet, McEachern, D.Brown

Murphy, Ulf & Kjell Samuelsson, McSorley, Taglianetti, Jennings

Barrasso, Wregget

Likely a better team than '91 Pens over a season, although pretty even in a series with Coffey on '91 team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Care to argue against his point?

Mathematically any player in a 6 team league has 5 times the chance of being named an allstar as in a 30 team league.

Therefore trying to argue which team is better by comparing allstar selections on the team is a little silly when one era has 6 teams and another 24-30.

here's the argument: to say that it was easier to be a first team all-star in a six team league than a first team all-star in a thirty team league, you have to assume that the guys who weren't good enough to make any of the league's six teams could somehow have challenged howe, beliveau, harvey, etc. for first team all-star spots.

conversely, take alex ovechkin. is it any harder for him to be a first team all-star if he's competing against 25 other LWs in a six team league or 119 other LWs in a thirty team league? either way, he's the best player. whether or not jeff tambellini is in the league doesn't change anything.

 

[arrbez]

here's the argument: to say that it was easier to be a first team all-star in a six team league than a first team all-star in a thirty team league, you have to assume that the guys who weren't good enough to make any of the league's six teams could somehow have challenged howe, beliveau, harvey, etc. for first team all-star spots.

conversely, take alex ovechkin. is it any harder for him to be a first team all-star if he's competing against 25 other LWs in a six team league or 119 other LWs in a thirty team league? either way, he's the best player. whether or not jeff tambellini is in the league doesn't change anything.

Yup. The only position that I think has really been affected is in net.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Yup. The only position that I think has really been affected is in net.

There's also some difference at forward over the last ~20 years, with increased competition from Euros, who make up roughly half of the leaders in goals and assists in a given season.

Expansion also plays a small role, in that it gives more players opportunities. For example, would Martin St. Louis have gotten the same chance in a six team league in 2004? A very good player can get stuck behind a better or more established player in a six team league, just like star players have a tough time being an all-star at center with Gretzky/Lemieux in the league, or at LW with Hull or Ovechkin.

 

[SkullSplitter]

'94 Pens would be tough, even more forward depth and a better backup goalie:

Mullen-Lemieux-Stevens
Straka-Francis-Jagr
Naslund-Trottier-Sandstrom
Tocchet, McEachern, D.Brown

Murphy, Ulf & Kjell Samuelsson, McSorley, Taglianetti, Jennings

Barrasso, Wregget

Likely a better team than '91 Pens over a season, although pretty even in a series with Coffey on '91 team.

didn't even remember Doug Brown was on that team. . .

but I don't think you could count McSorley along with Sandstrom and McEachern because he was part of the trade (Along with Paek) that brought them into Pittsburgh that year.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching

Tom Johnson, when coach of the 1970-71 Bruins, said that Bruin team was better than the 5 cup Canadien's teams, and that Bruin's team, even though my sentimental favorite, pales in comparison to the dynasties that came later.

Time marches on...athletes get better, not worse...legends die hard.

Admitting that Toe Blake was a vastly superior coach, a fact supported by Tom Johnson's coaching results.

 

[WingsFan95]

If we're not including bought Habs teams in the original six era , then how about the 1972-73 Montreal Canadiens.

Yvan Cournoyer
Ken Dryden
Guy Lafleur
Jacques Laperriere
Guy Lapointe
Jacques Lemaire
Frank Mahovlich
Henri Richard
Larry Robinson
Serge Savard
Steve Shutt

Combined First Team & Second Team All-Star Nominations

1972/73 - Montreal - 47
2001/02 - Detroit - 39

It remains to be seen whether the 2001/02 Red Wings will match the eleven Hall of Famers on the 1972-73 Canadiens roster.

And further to the original post, in what way weren't the 2001/02 Red Wings not a bought team ??? With the exception of Frank Mahovlich, the other ten Hall-of-Famers on the 1972-73 Canadiens were all homegrown and brought through the Canadiens system.

At the time hockey was a much bigger factor in Canada, less Canadian players were willing to play in the United States, well, less great Canadian players who had a choice.

But yes, I'll admit those 70s Canadien teams were mighty stacked, Robinson and Laflear alone are a mega tandum.

 

[raleh]

Care to argue against his point?

Mathematically any player in a 6 team league has 5 times the chance of being named an allstar as in a 30 team league.

Therefore trying to argue which team is better by comparing allstar selections on the team is a little silly when one era has 6 teams and another 24-30.

So, what you're arguing is that in 1951 (just an arbitrary O6 year) when Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard were the first and second team all-stars at RW, there was someone, somewhere, that was not in the NHL that would have taken Howe's first team all star away?

Or the C's from that year. Milt Schmidt and Ted Kennedy/Sid Abel? With Max Bentley banging on the door (the highest scoring C that year). There was a guy stuck in the minors who had a shot at those guys?

No, that's not really a point I care to argue against because in order for it to hold any water, there would have to have been another league out there with players that could challenge those guys.

I think it's safe to assume there was nobody in North America, right? The only guy who may have broken up the ASTs from that era would be Vsevelod Bobrov. IMO he wouldn't have been close, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there: Maybe, during that era, there was a year or two in which the LW ASTs would have looked a little different with more teams and all of the "best players in the world" in the NHL. But that's it.

The Soviets/Swedes were about a decade away from being at the same level as the NHLers, and the best NA players were all in the NHL. So how would the skaters ASTs have looked any different if there were 30 teams?

If the league suddenly ballooned to 100 teams right now, would Ovechkin not still be the top LW in the league?

 

[Canadiens Fan]

At the time hockey was a much bigger factor in Canada, less Canadian players were willing to play in the United States, well, less great Canadian players who had a choice.

But yes, I'll admit those 70s Canadien teams were mighty stacked, Robinson and Laflear alone are a mega tandum.

???

In 1972-73 fifteen of the top twenty scorers in the NHL played on teams in the United States, each of them Canadian born.

And of the thirty-five players that represented Team Canada in the 1972 Summit Series, twenty-five of them played on teams based in the United States.

Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Bobby Clarke, Marcel Dionne, Jean Ratelle, Brad Park, Gilbert Perreault, Rod Gilbert, Stan Mikita, Tony Esposito, Dennis Hull, Bill Goldsworthy, Wayne Cashman, Vic Hadfield, Rick Martin, J.P. Parise, Red Berenson, Mickey Redmond, Pat Stapleton, Bill White, Gary Bergman, Rod Seiling, Jocelyn Guevremont, Don Awrey, Ed Johnston.

 

[raleh]

At the time hockey was a much bigger factor in Canada, less Canadian players were willing to play in the United States, well, less great Canadian players who had a choice.

But yes, I'll admit those 70s Canadien teams were mighty stacked, Robinson and Laflear alone are a mega tandum.

Agreed. It's just too bad top 30 players of all time like Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Brad Park and Bobby Clarke were unwilling to play in the United States. If they did then teams like Boston and Philadelphia may have been able to win a cup or two in the 70's. It's a real shame.

 

[CJV123]

I'd take the Edmonton team that swept the Isles over any of the Time Machine rosters in here.

 

[overpass]

The Soviets/Swedes were about a decade away from being at the same level as the NHLers, and the best NA players were all in the NHL. So how would the skaters ASTs have looked any different if there were 30 teams?

This is the real point against quality of competition in the O6, not the number of teams. Obviously the number of teams has very little to do with the top players, except for goaltenders and the occasional Martin St. Louis. But the O6 was an almost exclusively Canadian league. The influx of American and European stars in the last few decades has certainly raised the level of competition for all-star spots.

For example, if Eric Lindros is only competing against Canadian players he would probably have an Art Ross Trophy and an additional first-team all-star spot. If Joe Sakic was only competing against Canadians in a 6-team league he would probably have two additional 2nd team AS and an Art Ross or two. Dany Heatley would have an additional 1st AS and 2nd AS. Etc...

 

[raleh]

This is the real point against quality of competition in the O6, not the number of teams. Obviously the number of teams has very little to do with the top players, except for goaltenders and the occasional Martin St. Louis. But the O6 was an almost exclusively Canadian league. The influx of American and European stars in the last few decades has certainly raised the level of competition for all-star spots.

For example, if Eric Lindros is only competing against Canadian players he would probably have an Art Ross Trophy and an additional first-team all-star spot. If Joe Sakic was only competing against Canadians in a 6-team league he would probably have two additional 2nd team AS and an Art Ross or two. Dany Heatley would have an additional 1st AS and 2nd AS. Etc...

You're right. But I don't think that argument means much until some point in the 60s. The European and American players weren't quite at NHL level yet. During the 50s dynasty that we're talking about, the European and American players wouldn't have made a difference. Yet.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

You're right. But I don't think that argument means much until some point in the 60s. The European and American players weren't quite at NHL level yet. During the 50s dynasty that we're talking about, the European and American players wouldn't have made a difference. Yet.

I think that's his point, they weren't there to make a difference.