|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 21, 2003 18:50:09 GMT -5
After they won the cup...did people call this a future dinasty with the young talent(Roy, Chelios, Svoboda, Lemieux and co) on the team?
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 21, 2003 19:15:01 GMT -5
After they won the cup...did people call this a future dinasty with the young talent(Roy, Chelios, Svoboda, Lemieux and co) on the team? Not that I recall.... I think it was more seen as one last shot at glory for the core of veterans left over from the late 70s glory years - Gainey and Robinson mostly.
|
|
hopo
Rookie
Posts: 65
|
Post by hopo on Jan 21, 2003 19:36:35 GMT -5
as i recall,therevwas no talk of dynasty.it was speculated that this cup was just an interruption in the oilers dynasty
|
|
hopo
Rookie
Posts: 65
|
Post by hopo on Jan 21, 2003 19:36:48 GMT -5
as i recall,therevwas no talk of dynasty.it was speculated that this cup was just an interruption in the oilers dynasty
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Jan 21, 2003 19:49:26 GMT -5
Most people thought it was a fluke. Roy was an unknown, as was Chelios. Gainey and Robinson were on their last legs.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 21, 2003 19:49:56 GMT -5
It was a pleasant blip on the radar screen. The Oilers were still top dog in those days. In 1985-86 the Habs had 87pts, Edmonton 119.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 21, 2003 19:54:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Jan 21, 2003 20:01:26 GMT -5
the Oilers were just so darn good, no one (at least no one I knew...) thought any other teams had a shot at being a dynasty.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 21, 2003 20:05:29 GMT -5
Not at all, Marc. All the top teams that year kept getting upset, so the Habs didn't play any of them. Calgary beat Edmonton when Steve Smith banked a clearing pass off Grant Fuhr into his own net from behind. That was a great series, however (the Oilers/Flames) some of the highest tempo, most passionate hockey I've ever seen. The Habs were considered a fluke.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 21, 2003 20:08:09 GMT -5
a fluke...like 1993 right and 1989 as well probably amazing how every time HABS get to finals and usually win cup...it's a fluke....
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 21, 2003 20:10:18 GMT -5
It was remarkably convenient that all the teams with more points than Montreal kept falling. They were a good team, definitely, and Roy was remarkable, but in a 7 game series against Edmonton, they probably wouldn't have won.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 21, 2003 20:13:14 GMT -5
My buddies and I didn't take a dynasty outlook. Neither as I recall, did the media. Don't forget that those kids were just that, raw, unproven, doubtless talented, but still kids. Edmonton Oilers, man they *were* the dynasty of the day, and it didn't look like anyone was going to unseat them for a good long while. Besides, you couldn't exactly count on that Roy kid to play like that consistently. Could you? How many NHL forwards has Komisarek reduced to grease spots on the boards this season? How many was he expected to have squashed before training camp began? Predicting the future is a mug's game. Looking back affords a contemplative panoramic perspective.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 21, 2003 20:19:23 GMT -5
a fluke...like 1993 right and 1989 as well probably amazing how every time HABS get to finals and usually win cup...it's a fluke.... The Habs had good, solid, unembarrassing clubs in '86, '89 and '93, but the certainly weren't preseason favourites to take the Cup (or even make it to the finals). The Canadiens of the '60s and '70s, on the other hand... So, in short Marc, it's been over two decades since our club has been cock-of-the-walk.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 21, 2003 20:22:53 GMT -5
I think we should keep in mind that the 86 club had a huge number of rookies, and was generally seen as a strange coincidence that such a number of kids got together for such a long playoff run, but none of these were veterans you could really count on long term, so no one had expectations of a dynasty.
|
|
|
Post by rocky on Jan 21, 2003 20:42:46 GMT -5
A variation of this team did make it back to the finals in 88-89 only to lose to Calgary. We were still a very good team throughout that era, so good in fact that Hab haters were sweating constantly, man it was great. In my opion, the 85-86 club was not a fluke per say but one that was still oozing with the Canadiens mystique. We won it, we earned it.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 21, 2003 21:32:55 GMT -5
A variation of this team did make it back to the finals in 88-89 only to lose to Calgary. We were still a very good team throughout that era, so good in fact that Hab haters were sweating constantly, man it was great. In my opion, the 85-86 club was not a fluke per say but one that was still oozing with the Canadiens mystique. We won it, we earned it. Let's hope we will live those days again...........
|
|
|
Post by rocky on Jan 21, 2003 21:46:59 GMT -5
Now I'm not suggesting for a minute that we are legit cup contender but the eastern conf. is a very un-predictable package. Look at last season, we came within a whisker of making the eastern finals. I really don't see a big change in the power structure in the conf. so if we were to get hot and stay hot, one never knows how far we may go. Well actually the cup will belong to the western suvivor, no doubt. There are just too many excellent teams in the west, and someone still has to go through the Wings, no easy task.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 21, 2003 21:49:53 GMT -5
The east is wide open for sure
Especially with Ottawa and Philly's choking history...
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Jan 21, 2003 23:18:29 GMT -5
Actually the 89 club was second overall in the league. who was first ?? the flames who beat us. it's the only time i ever recall 1st and second overall making the finals at least since expansion anyhow.
the 93 club had tons of talent but that 86 year was a fluke i if you ask me we played some crap teams on the way to the cup hell hartford was one of them and they we're a barely playoff club in 4th they upset quebec then we played the isles i think who we're third in the division 20 points behind the first place flyer's the flames we're 30 points behind the first overall oiler's it was a wierd year to say the least but i'll take it ;D
|
|
|
Post by Swane on Jan 21, 2003 23:32:35 GMT -5
The Devils-Avs series in 2001 also had the 2 top teams in the league meeting in the finals. I think that '89 team was the best Habs club in the past 2 decades, not that they had a lot of competition. Too bad Gainey couldn't lead us to one last cup to end his career.
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Jan 21, 2003 23:40:31 GMT -5
Viper, I'm with you on the 89 team. I thought that was a fabulous team, extremely well coached in Burns' first year. The 86 team was a transition team with lots of older guys near the end, and many guys just starting out. But that year, the oilers team was still favoured by everyone. The series with Calgary that year was classic, and too bad it was decided by a fluke goal.
The 89 team still holds a special place in my heart because of they way they played in the semi against Philly. Extremely togther, sound hockey. And of course Hextall losing it on Chelios. I honestly feel the 89 team was a better all around outfit than the 86 and 93 teams. They just ran up against a team with just as many, if not more horses, Gilmour included, who's cross check from behind on Richer made the Stanley Cup final loss sting even more.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 21, 2003 23:42:53 GMT -5
Thought I'd do a synopsis of the Habs over all finishes since I started following them. The first number indicates the season, the second gives their regular season points total ranking relative to the number teams in the league, and if there's an asterisk it means that they won the Cup. As the dwarf on Twin Peaks said, "Let's rock!"
60-61 1/6 61-62 1/6 62-63 3/6 63-64 1/6 64-65 2/6 * 65-66 1/6 * 66-67 2/6 67-68 1/12 * 68-69 1/12 * ---------------- 69-70 5/12 70-71 4/14 * 71-72 3/14 72-73 1/16 * 73-74 4/16 74-75 3/18 75-76 1/18 * 76-77 1/18 * 77-78 1/18 * 78-79 2/18 * ---------------- 79-80 3/21 80-81 3/21 81-82 3/21 82-83 5/21 83-84 11/21 84-85 6/21 85-86 7/21 * 86-87 5/21 87-88 2/21 88-89 2/21 ----------------- 89-90 4/21 90-91 6/21 91-92 5/22 92-93 6/24 * 93-94 9/26 94-95 17/26 95-96 9/26 96-97 17/26 97-98 12/21 98-99 19/27 -----------------
I see two dynasties: 1960-61 to 1968-69 and 1970-71 to 1981-82, with a transitional season between them (1969-70). After 1981-82 it's been potluck, with a very occasional tasty dish swamped by pot-pourri.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 22, 2003 9:13:53 GMT -5
Came late to this thread, but I was in my prime in the late 1980s, and I remember EVERY year and EVERY playoff series.
The 1985-86 Cup team was somewhat of a fluke, mainly because Edmonton was upset by Calgary, but that win was the beginning of a good 5-year stretch where the Canadiens were legit Cup contenders every year. We still had vets like Gainey, Robinson, Ludwig, and Carbo, but there was a nice nucleus of young talent with the likes of Chelios, Svoboda, Corson, Richer and of course Patrick Roy.
That cycle reached its peak in 1988-89, which IMO was the best Habs team since the 1970s, better than the 1986 and 1993 Cup teams.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 22, 2003 12:03:53 GMT -5
There was no talk of dynasty but we were competitive. Most of the fans that saw the 86 cup were there during the 70's and knew what a dynasty was...
But I agree with Boston HABS, it certainly showed that there was fresh reinforcement coming up and that the next few years would insure that we'd have a contending team. No matter how much we want to call the 93 cup a fluke, HABS were a very competitive then that had a shot at it. They were not the favorite but they were not the ultimate dark horse either. Kinda like if Ottawa had won the cup last year, nobody would have predicted it, but then again it wasn't out of the realm of possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jan 22, 2003 17:23:11 GMT -5
Definitely viewed as an interuption of the Oiler dynasty,but it was a wonderful ride much like 93.That was the year Alcatraz was born.This team really geled and roy was fantastic,the OT win in New york is another game that should be replayed. Come 89 the Habs certainly were contenders if they had won it would not have been as much as a fluke as 89 and 93,though I still contend the 93 team was solid and does not get its due because of mario and the Pens. HFTO
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 22, 2003 17:31:58 GMT -5
I've seen footage of that OT game in New York. The one when Roy was simply unreal? and then Lemieux wins it in OT on like the Habs first shot of OT? ;D
|
|