Pick 'Em: '97, '02, or '08 Red Wings
by turnituptoeleven on Sep 6, 2009 8:18 PM EDT
35 comments
Hockey's Greatest Teams lists the '97 Red Wings as one of the fifteen greatest teams of all time. I can't say I agree, but it raises a question: Of the stellar puck-moving Wings squads, which is the best? I ask this in honor of Knuble's signing.
Via Hockey-Reference.com:
Give me the 2002 roster. The '97's version of the Green Unit was incredible, but the additions of Hull, Hasek, an emerging Datsyuk, and Robitaille to complement Lidstrom, Feds, Yzerman, Shanny, Holmstrom, Larionov, Chelios, and the Grind Line 2.0... That's a nasty, nasty Hockey club.
[Ed. Note: Formatting fail, so I re-worked it a little - JP]
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's authors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
0 recs |
35 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Thanks for that, JP. I don’t know what the hell I did to screw it up so completely.
tictactoehockey.blogspot.com
myunjustifiedego.blogspot.com
by turnituptoeleven on Sep 6, 2009 9:13 PM EDT reply actions
In 2009 the Penguins beat the Red Wings with virtually the same lineups as 2008 (except for Hossa who switched sides). Datsyuk was injured too in 2009 finals, for what it’s worth.
If Pittsburgh had the experience they needed I bet they would have taken the 2008 Detroit lineup, just needed some seasoning.
In conclusion, I’d say the 2002 Red Wings were the best. Many Hall of Famers, none of the least Steve Yzerman still in fine form at the time.
Pensburgh.com -- it's like the Max Talbot of blogs*
*not just because we only work for 12 minutes a night
haha um, don’t forget Kunitz, Guerin and a new coach.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
Lidstrom, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Murphy (Aaron Ward and Mathieu Dandenault don’t even matter in the context that list but is still a pretty nice 5/6) is enough D to shutdown any realistic amount of offense. All the teams have enough firepower to score with anyone so I’m going with the best D.
A man must have a code.
by Fehr and Balanced on Sep 7, 2009 10:13 AM EDT reply actions
2002, though the ’97 team only lost four games in the entire playoffs, which is pretty amazing.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
The ‘02 team lost more games, but that was because they were so dominant that they didn’t even try hard for the first couple of games in each series. Then they would turn it on once things got serious. I’ve never seen a another hockey team so cocky that they would try something like that, and not many so talented they could pull it off.
’97 for me – Fedorov, Yzerman, and Shanahan still in their primes, a young Slava Kozlov, Larionov at 36, that defense; wow.
The 2002 squad was amazing, but they were old with the exception of Datsyuk. Give me the ’97 bunch and 20 games played for the Stanley Cup.
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 8, 2009 9:03 AM EDT reply actions
1997 For me...
…that team was stacked from top to bottom in Hall-of-Fame players: Fedorov, Shannahan, Yzerman, Murphy, Larionov, Fetisov, Lidstrom, Murphy, etc. There maybe another Hall-of-Famer too from that team when all is said and done (Draper? Holmstrom? Osgood? – look at his numbers objectively…)
Also of note were the former Caps on their roster: Murphy of course, but also Bob Rouse (who led the Wings in playoff PIMs), and Tim Taylor. And of course, current Cap Mike Knuble…
Let's go Caps!
I dare anyone that says “championships equal skill” to tell me Chris Osgood isn’t in the HoF.
A man must have a code.
by Fehr and Balanced on Sep 8, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
But much more forcefully the former.
A man must have a code.
by Fehr and Balanced on Sep 8, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m with you on the championships, but I really don’t see Osgood as an elite goalie. He made 2 all star teams and was once an all-NHL 2nd teamer. Nothing really stands out about him except his Cups and total wins/record. We both agree that Cups are not a great way to measure players, and I don’t like rating goalies by wins either (too dependent on teammates and opponents).
You know who people rarely mention as a HOFer but who has a much better case than Osgood? Eddie Belfour.
I didn’t realize there was a case against Belfour; everyone I’ve ever spoken to about it is willing to bet a Billion dollars that he makes the HoF. As for Osgood, I’m not trying to lead the “Osgood for HoF” campaign but every stat that people like to look at for goalies he has. You want a goalie that can come up clutch? He’s done it. You want a goalie that wins games? He does it. You want a goalie that has longevity? He has it. 3 Cups and the most all time wins for an O-6 franchise is impressive for a goalie; especially considering some of the names that were in the DET net in the past. The major knock against Osgood in my mind is that at no point in his career would anyone have considered one of the best goalies in the game. When you look back at his era he won’t be the guy to stand out. I think that is an element that should be considered to get into the HoF, but there are plenty of other guys in there that don’t satisfy that requirement so I don’t see a reason to be hard-line about it with Osgood.
A man must have a code.
by Fehr and Balanced on Sep 9, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
“The major knock against Osgood in my mind is that at no point in his career would anyone have considered one of the best goalies in the game.”
This is pretty much the core of my objection (along with the fact that for all his playoff success, he was never even a serious candidate for the Conn Smythe). I don’t know enough about hockey history to say whether there are many other goalies (I try to only compare players to others at the same position) in the HOF who fit that description. Whether there are or not, it’s tough for me to say that a guy who was never among the best at his position is worthy of enshrinement.
If the Wings had pulled it out this year, there was a very strong case for Osgood winning the Smythe.
I know that it’s a bit of a specious argument, but Scott Stevens was a slam dunk first-ballot HoFer and never won the Norris trophy for best defenseman. They’re not comparable players, but I’m just making the point.
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 9, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions
actually, I thought Osgood had a stronger case last year for Smythe. As much as I love Hank, I was a bit surprised they gave it to him.
I’m with Knee High on this one, Osgood was much better in the playoffs this year. The Wings didn’t have nearly as dominant of an offense or defense as they did in the 2008 playoffs, and Osgood had to keep the team in several games rather than just not lose them (as was the case when they won the Cup).
Also, this year the Wings didn’t have a dominant playoff scorer the way they did in 2008, giving Osgood another advantage.
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 10, 2009 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions
So you got him in the HoF or not?
A man must have a code.
by Fehr and Balanced on Sep 10, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Stevens at least was a finalist for the Norris several times. (He also won the Smythe once.) If we grant that Osgood’s strongest argument for making the Hall is his playoff performance, then shouldn’t he at least have been considered a good candidate for the Smythe once or twice? I mean, there are guys who won more Cups than Osgood and actually won the Smythe trophy and probably won’t make the Hall (like Claude Lemieux).
I’ll grant you that if the Wings had won last year, he would have been considered a candidate for the Smythe. But that’s pretty tenuous.
I actually wouldn’t be shocked if Claude Lemieux made the HoF. I wouldn’t be shocked if he did either but clearly the HoF voters highly value playoff performances. Glenn Anderson’s regular season numbers don’t get him into the HoF but apparently his playoff numbers do. Unfortunately for Osgood he played in America on one of the more hated teams of the era so he doesn’t get the boost from bringing Cups to Canada.
A man must have a code.
by Fehr and Balanced on Sep 10, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Haha. It should.
A man must have a code.
by Fehr and Balanced on Sep 10, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
How about this?
Consider a goaltender who has played 16 seasons and has this for a record:
389-204-66, GAA 2.47, .906 Save Percentage, 49 Shutouts and in those 16 years has never had a losing season. Add in 3 Cup Rings (2 as a starter).
Those are Chris Osgood’s career numbers. Those are definitely Hall-of-Fame numbers.
Let's go Caps!
You’ve just made a compelling argument that Osgood had the good fortune to spend his entire career on good (or at least decent) teams. I guess by that standard Roberto Luongo has had a bad career since he has more losing seasons that winning seasons (and more losses than wins) so far. Also, a Cup ring as a backup? Really?
Osgood’s career numbers are much better than, say, Olie Kolzig. But was Osgood really a better goalie than Kolzig? I certainly don’t think so. Am I just being a homer?
Osgood had the benefit of playing for some great teams, but part of the reason they were great teams was because he was playing for them.
Sure he got a lot of wins because he had the Wings in front of him, but still, he did the job very well for a number of years. He has the misfortune (like Kolzig) of being a starting goalie in the NHL while Martin Brodeur, Patrick Roy and Dominik Hasek were in the league.
Let's go Caps!
Osgood and Olie shouldn’t be in the same sentence. Particularly when it has counted in the playoffs, Osgood has demonstrated that he can elevate his game. Olie had one great run and a couple near misses. Love the guy, but c’mon.
That Osgood played with Vernon and Hasek (or on significantly talented teams) should not deter reasonable voters.
from the house that Red Jesus built
Osgood reminds me a lot of Grant Fuhr: both won multiple Cups playing behind stacked teams, and both of their teams only needed their goalies to make the saves they are supposed to make, not steal the game. Fuhr does have a Vezina and more Cups, but I think their careers are pretty similar and Fuhr is in the Hall.
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 10, 2009 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
82 | 54 | 15 | 13 | 121 |
|
Atlanta
|
82 | 35 | 34 | 13 | 83 |
|
Carolina
|
82 | 35 | 37 | 10 | 80 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
82 | 34 | 36 | 12 | 80 |
|
Florida
|
82 | 32 | 37 | 13 | 77 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
