|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 5, 2017 20:44:56 GMT -5
Using a one-year sample to determine the greatest team in NHL history is ridiculous, IMO. cbc.ca/sportsBut, if they want to go that route...I'd say a lot of fans need an education. 1984-85 Edmonton OilersRegular Season 49-20-11. 109 pts. 401 GF. 298 GA. 1976-77 Montreal CanadiensRegular Season 60-8-12. 132 pts. 387 GF. 171 GA. That Habs' team had 11 more Ws. 12 fewer losses. Scored only 14 fewer goals. And allowed 127 fewer goals. =========================================== Don't know what tipped the scale...but it might've been that the Oilers scored 98 goals in 18 playoff games (44 of them coming in 6 games vs. Chicago)...going 15-3. However, they allowed 57 goals. 3.16 GAA. The Habs scored 54 in 14 playoff games...going 12-2. But they allowed only 23 goals. 1.64 GAA. Of course, I'm biased toward the Habs...but numbers alone...what do you think? I'd say for all-round team, it's difficult to find one as dominant in all areas. Offense, defense, goaltending. This is what happens when you let fans vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 6, 2017 6:56:25 GMT -5
I would say on paper the Habs team in 1977 is better.
One thing that may have tipped the scales is that the Oilers built their dynasty very quickly. From WHL to one of the best teams in NHL history in 6 seasons.
They had the fortune to trade for Gretzky right before the WHL folded, but the Habs had similar good fortune throughout their history as well (purchasing a league to get Beliveau, trading for a first round pick to get Lafleur, etc)
The styles of play were different too. In 1977 the league was still very much a rock-em sock-em league, by 1986 it was still physical but the league had turned into a run and gun league
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 6, 2017 8:14:52 GMT -5
I would say on paper the Habs team in 1977 is better. One thing that may have tipped the scales is that the Oilers built their dynasty very quickly. From WHL to one of the best teams in NHL history in 6 seasons. They had the fortune to trade for Gretzky right before the WHL folded, but the Habs had similar good fortune throughout their history as well (purchasing a league to get Beliveau, trading for a first round pick to get Lafleur, etc) The styles of play were different too. In 1977 the league was still very much a rock-em sock-em league, by 1986 it was still physical but the league had turned into a run and gun league I don't think the voting fans thought that clearly, Skilly.  But you bring up another reason, for me, why the Habs' team should've been selected. They were the best at any type of game. Rock'em, sock'em? They swept the brutish Bruins in 4 straight to win the Cup...and they swept the Flyers the year before, to end Philly's hellish reign--helped by the absence of Parent in goal....but hey. Run-and gun? If you wanted to open it up....game over. Montreal scored almost as many goals as the 84-85 Oilers....and allowed 127 FEWER goals. Regular season and playoffs, that team won 72 games and lost only 10. Offense/defense/goaltending. All there. I think many fans simply went with Gretzky--the most prolific point-getter of all-time. And there just might've been an anti-Habs' bias at work....not that such a thing ever existed...or still exists.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jun 6, 2017 8:24:14 GMT -5
I also think that not many people remember the NHL before the 80's. Let's face it. The 77 team was 50 years ago. Assuming you were a teenager watching it, you are now pushing mid 60's. Not many people that age, use the internet to vote. Meanwhile, a lot more people saw Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Kurri, Fuhr, etc. play so if they see a team with all those players on it, chances are they are going to vote for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 6, 2017 8:30:00 GMT -5
I also think that not many people remember the NHL before the 80's. Let's face it. The 77 team was 50 years ago. Assuming you were a teenager watching it, you are now pushing mid 60's. Not many people that age, use the internet to vote. Meanwhile, a lot more people saw Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Kurri, Fuhr, etc. play so if they see a team with all those players on it, chances are they are going to vote for it. 40 years ago. But your point about the depth of the voters' thinking is probably right on. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 6, 2017 16:48:55 GMT -5
The Oilers totals were also probably inflated by playing the NHL powerhouses of the Canucks, the Kings, and the Jets in 1986 eight times a year too
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 6, 2017 16:52:50 GMT -5
Was it a great team? Yep. Was it one of the best single seasons by a team? Yep. Best single season ever? Maybe. I think a team that holds the record for the fewest losses in a single season at 8, and once lead for wins at 60, deserves a heck of a lot of credit if we're going one season. If we're going TEAM though, it's more than one season for me. That means there can be only one and it's the only team to win 5 in a row: the Canadiens of the late 50s. You can no more put that team together in a cap era than you can the Oilers.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 6, 2017 18:09:41 GMT -5
Was it a great team? Yep. Was it one of the best single seasons by a team? Yep. Best single season ever? Maybe. I think a team that holds the record for the fewest losses in a single season at 8, and once lead for wins at 60, deserves a heck of a lot of credit if we're going one season. If we're going TEAM though, it's more than one season for me. That means there can be only one and it's the only team to win 5 in a row: the Canadiens of the late 50s. You can no more put that team together in a cap era than you can the Oilers. I agree, blny. That's why it's just another subjective fan-voted bogus title. Like fans voting for "Who's Canada's Team?" |
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 6, 2017 18:20:52 GMT -5
Was it a great team? Yep. Was it one of the best single seasons by a team? Yep. Best single season ever? Maybe. I think a team that holds the record for the fewest losses in a single season at 8, and once lead for wins at 60, deserves a heck of a lot of credit if we're going one season. If we're going TEAM though, it's more than one season for me. That means there can be only one and it's the only team to win 5 in a row: the Canadiens of the late 50s. You can no more put that team together in a cap era than you can the Oilers. I agree, blny. That's why it's just another subjective fan-voted bogus title. Like fans voting for "Who's Canada's Team?" Or the all star game. See John Scott |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 6, 2017 18:39:08 GMT -5
Definitely skewed by a younger audience. I never saw the 50's Habs, so I lean to the 70's teams, but there were an awful lot of Hall of FAmer's on that 50's group. Top two lines were Beliveau, Geoffrion and Bert Olmstead (I think) with Henri, Maurice and Dickie Moore on the 2nd Line. Yikes!
They were solid on defense, but that may have been their weakest area (though hardly weak). Doug Harvey, Jean-Guy Talbot, Dollard St. Laurent, Butch Bouchard and Bob Turner. Without having seen them, it's hard for me to appreciate them. That was the 55 team. The 56 team added Tom Johnson on D and Andre Pronovost up front.
If they weren't the best, the 76-77 Habs had to be. CH has the figures up above, but there was more to that team. I've mentioned before that the checking line of Gainey, Jarvis and Roberts gave up 39 goals that year. That's less than half a goal a game, playing against the best players on opposing teams. That's incredible. Two extremely good scoring lines, a wall of a checking line and a highly talented energy line of Tremblay, Risebrough and Lambert. Speed, toughness, coaching, defense, goaltending, scoring. They could play any way you chose and beat you.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 6, 2017 18:50:08 GMT -5
And don't forget...Gretzky WAS protected. Hands-off! Bill McCreary's short-lived NHL career is testament to that notion. I'm sure there's more to the story....but the point remains...if McCreary could lay him out in open ice (in only his 2nd NHL game, as the great Don Wittman points out below)...more experienced players over the years could've done the same thing many times.
From 1981.
And Semenko was there for insurance.
Lafleur fought through his own battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 6, 2017 22:55:32 GMT -5
And don't forget...Gretzky WAS protected. Hands-off! Bill McCreary's short-lived NHL career is testament to that notion. I'm sure there's more to the story....but the point remains...if McCreary could lay him out in open ice (in only his 2nd NHL game, as the great Don Wittman points out below)...more experienced players over the years could've done the same thing many times. From 1981. And Semenko was there for insurance. Lafleur fought through his own battles. Gretzky was protected by the league and it was a joke... Mario had to put up with waaaymore abuse... couldn't stand gretzky and still can't. |
|
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.jpg)
