KOVALEV10*
Guest
mooseOAK said:Please, it was all about Patrick Roy.
Please, actually take a look at what he said
mooseOAK said:Please, it was all about Patrick Roy.
I did, which supports my position.KOVALEV10 said:Please, actually take a look at what he said
mooseOAK said:I did, which supports my position.
The players were not great in the sense that some of the best ones were past their prime.
Big Phil said:Which team that has won a Cup since '67 is the worst ever? This is how I look at it. We'll start in the beginning the first post expansion team the '68 Canadiens. To me the '68 and '69 Habs were very good they had a lot of Hall of Famers. H. Richard, Beliveau, Savard, Vachon (should be in Hall), Lemaire, Cournoyer were all on those teams. Next. The Bruins of '70 and '72, nope both were very, very good. No team with Bobby Orr is bad. The Habs of '71 and '73 were also good as well as the '74 '75 Flyers. Then theres the Habs of '76-79 best of all time IMO.
Now we have the Isles '80-83. Nope too good. Then the '84 and '85 Oilers followed by the '87 and '88 Oilers. Yeah right! The Flames of '89 had 117 points that year. The '90 Oilers were still very good. The '91 and '92 Pens may not have had the points totals but when they had all of their best players for the whole season they won. The '94 Rangers were pretty good as well, not great but good enough. Now we have the Avs of '96 or '01 both were offensive dynamos. The '97 '98 and '02 Red Wings were all very good teams. As was the '99 Stars, and the '00 Devils. The '03 Devils weren't great but put up enough regular season points. As did the '04 Lightning and they just make the long list.
That leaves the '93 Habs, the '95 Devils and the '86 Habs. These teams all won the Cup. First off the '93 Canadiens werent a bad team. Maybe not the best but they had 102 points. The Kings may not have been the best team to meet in the finals but the Habs did beat the Nordiques who had 103 points. Plus Patrick Roy in his prime, anda cast of good players, this team is better than the other two.
So compare the '95 Devils to the '86 habs. IMO the two worst teams. The Devils had 52 points which in a full season is 87. Same as the Habs. You had a young Brodeur vs. a young Roy. Roy wins. The best d-man on the Devils was Stevens and for Montreal it was Robinson. Robinson wins, since he won the Norris that year. Also up front the Habs had Gainey (although past his prime), Naslund, Richer, Skrudland, Smith. The Devils had Richer, Broten, Guerin and co. You'd have to give the Habs the edge. The Devils did beat the Red Wings in the final but that was more because of the new suffocating trap other than talent. The Habs only beat the Flames which had 89 points. But to me I still will say with everything in mind the '95 Devils were the worst team in post expansion history to win the Cup.
Any thoughts?
Leaf Lander said:Leafs may not had won a cup but i bet they made the highest profit of all those teams over last 35 yrs
Robinson was a 2nd team allstar, had over 80 pts that season and was a rock on defense. It was Robinson's last great season. Stevens was great in 1995, but Robinson had a better season in 86 than Stevens had in 1995.John Flyers Fan said:Stevens in 1995 was better than Robinson in 1986. Robinson did not win the Norris that year, his last Norris came in 1980.
And that's why you picked them as the worst? That makes absouletly no sense.Famous Flames said:reckoning,
Your analysis is impeccable. But subjectively for me, the 95 Devils team was just flat out boring to watch, whereas any team with Mario and Jagr is exciting.
PepNCheese said:No question, the weakest modern champions are the 86 and 93 Canadiens.
doc5hole said:I prefer to look at the '71, '86 and '93 Habs as overachievers rather than the "worst" champions. Winning the Cup is way too difficult (just ask the Leafs, Hawks and Bruins) to insult the winner.
In '71, the expectations weren't there leaguewide because an aging team failed to make the playoffs the year before. The only notable difference was Dryden.
In '86, the expectations weren't there because Quebec won the Adams Division, and Montreal was a team going through a lot of change and was young with much depth that wouldn't be sorted out for another year or two.
In '93, the Canadiens had a fresh voice in Demers and timely contributions from some key players, plus, a great playoff draw. They had lost to the Bruins in five of the previous six playoff seasons, but in this year the Bruins were upset in the opening round by Buffalo. The Pittsburgh, which had just enjoyed its best regular season, was upset by NYI. Montreal handled both upset winners and got very lucky in Game 2 of the finals - if not for McSorley's stick, they go to LA down 2-0.
Bottom line on these teams is: they were all better than widely thought, everything came together at the right time, and they got the breaks. It happens. If I were a Montreal guy, I wouldn't be offended that people think these teams were not on a par with most of the other Cup winners. In fact, would any Hab fan rate them alongside the great teams of their own dynasty eras? Of course not.
More importantly, the Canadiens have managed, as a franchise, the most successful in the history of the sport BTW, to add insult to everyone else's injury by winning the Cups that fell through the cracks in years they weren't especially better than any other darkhorse contender.
This is the strangest achievement by the Canadiens because they did it three times within a 22-year period.
The '86 team probably overachieved more, considering who talented the '71 team still was and how lucky the '93 team was.
It's also hard to categorize the '95 Devils this way because they were a very good regular-season team the year before and would be again in future years with the same defensive nucleus. Plus, Lemieux and Richer were Canadiens who had already won it.
Those four probably overachieved more than the other Cup winners, each in their own way -- but there's nothing "worst" about them.
Maybe the '99 Stars are the "worst" winner because Hull's goal not only violated the crease rule, it was goalie interference.
Psycho Joe said:Regarding the 1986 Habs, they weren't quite as bad as they may appear to have been by looking at their point total. That team went 0-7 in OT decisions during a time when you didn't get an extra point for an OT loss. In today's NHL they would have earned 96 points. Not amazing, but it looks alot better than 87 pts. In addition how could any team with talent like Smith, Naslund, Gainey, Carbonneau, Chelios, Robinson, Roy, Lemieux and Richer, along with the type of roll players team's covet like McPhee, Skrudland, Nilan, Ludwig and Green, be considered bad.
KOVALEV10 said:And can you elaborate why you think that rather then just stating things with no proof or reasoning?
I'm not a Habs fan but I have to totally disagree.PepNCheese said:No question, the weakest modern champions are the 86 and 93 Canadiens.
Well if you want to use that criteria, talent for talent those rosters are still superior to the 95 Devils. In addition the 1993 Habs had a superior won/loss record to a number of Stanley Cup champs.PepNCheese said:Proof? Reasoning? Just compare those rosters with all the other modern Cup champions, and it should be quite obvious.
Rather Gingerly 1 said:I think you may be overrating the '75 Flyers. They had great goaltending but used goon taticts to win many of their games