Jump to content

Best team since '89?


ICEWATER77

Recommended Posts

We may not reach the 115 point mark like they did, and we may not be as dominant defensively as they were, but this team is the best since 1989! I know we won the cup in '93, but that was mostly Patrick and a hard working team...with help from above, I might add. I haven't seen this much talent and potential in ages. Things are looking great in Mtl, Marc Bergevin(and staff)..Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the competency of the current bunch (they DO look good so far), I take issue with your post.

The '93 habs were better than the '89 habs from all angles.

Okay, we did have Mats Naslund, but every change to that roster between there and 1993 was great. Here I think are the most notable differences between the teams. There were other players in common and changed as well, but I'm only counting the ones who made an impact:

Notable players in common:

Guy Carbonneau

Mike Keane

Stephane Lebeau

Eric Desjardins

Patrick Roy

Notable Departed:

Mats Naslund (I loved him)

Bobby Smith (pretty good)

Stephane Richer (complete flake)

Shayne Corson (Good grinder)

Claude Lemieux (dirty rat)

Chris Chelios (big loss - best defenseman by far in 1989.)

Larry Robinson (okay, one of the greats, but he wasn't that great anymore in 1989.)

Great Additions:

Vinnie Damphousse - all-around Better in 1993 than everyone in the list above in 1989.

Kirk Muller - all-around Better in 1993 than everyone in the list above in 1989.

Brian Bellows - more goals in 1993 scored than anyone in the list above in 1989.

Denis Savard

John LeClair

Mathieu Schneider

Lyle Odelein

The additions far outweigh the losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree to disagree jeff..I think 89 was a much more dominant team than 93..and I don't think your additions far outweigh the 89 crew. denis savard, really?! he wasn't even a factor in 93..and you're taking odelein and Schneider over robinson and chelios, are you nuts man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree to disagree jeff..I think 89 was a much more dominant team than 93

I believe that was more due to their competition than their talent level. The 1993 Habs were stacked beyond what most commentators realized. They had more depth all the way to the press box, and more talent on their top three lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that was more due to their competition than their talent level. The 1993 Habs were stacked beyond what most commentators realized. They had more depth all the way to the press box, and more talent on their top three lines.

Agreed. They were a depth team before depth teams were really a thing.

They started the season off 1-3-1 before going on a 12 game tear (11-0-1, eight game winning streak). December was the month people thought the Habs team was pretenders, going 5-8-1. January and February proved far better, losing only five games in those two months. Montreal led the division at this point but then completely fumbled March and April (6-7 in March, 2-4 in April) to lose the conference lead and division lead. There wasn't any trade or anything that changed the tied for the Habs (they did trade Skrudland in January for Gary Leeman but the team was already on a winning streak). Trading for Rob Ramage didn't change their slump at the end of the year, but he played solid in the post-season.

When you look back at hockey teams in the 90s, teams always had a stacked top six and a bottom six of grinders, goons and the occasional rookie/youngster. The Habs played a three line attack with Carbonneau on the fourth line when need be. Keane's 60 points in 77 games is often forgotten. Remember Gary Leeman? I said he didn't make a significant change of fortune but he did put up 18 points in 20 games for us. Not bad.

You could also draw a fun parallel between Brian Bellows and P.A. Parenteau but I won't. It's too early ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I like about this thread is ICEWATER's giving props to that semi-forgotten 1989 squad. They were truly a machine; unfortunately, there was one other team in the same class as them that year, and it happened to be a Calgary Flames team that, in the end, was just a sliver better.

Incidentally, Jeff, you forgot to list Bob Gainey among the departed from the '89 club. That was his swan song.

The '89 team has it over the '93 team in one respect: they were unquestionably a cut above every other club except one, from pole to pole that year. The 1993 team was, and still is, heavily under-estimated, but they were merely one of about a half-dozen legitimate contenders that season. If a team's quality is to be measured by its degree of domination over its competition, then the 1989 team was better (except in the Finals, natch).

Final thought here: the Habs won the Cup in '86, got to the Finals in '89, and won the Cup in '93 - 3 Finals appearances in 8 years. Not too shabby, yet I remember an unending chorus of criticism that Serge Savard was a "mediocre" GM. It's all a question of perspective, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serge had a great first and second act as GM and a terrible third. That's hard to dispute. After 93, he was self-destructive.

93 was also supposed to just be the Penguins year. Only two teams with home ice advantage made it out of the first round (Pittsburgh, Vancouver) and none of them made it out of the second round. The Adams division was written off by many for destroying the Whalers and Senators all year. Pittsburgh had the most goals scored and least goals allowed in the Wales. Only the Red Wings scored more goals while the Blackhawks and Leafs allowed less goals. Winning "just" 56 games was chalked up to Lemieux missing 24 games and I don't blame it.The Devils beating them in game four of the first round was the end of a 14 game winning streak in the playoffs. There was only one favourite: Pittsburgh.

There are people who say Montreal only won because of Pittsburgh getting eliminated, but I think the truth is Montreal only won because they didn't play Boston. The last Canadiens team to win a round in the playoffs after beating Boston? The 1989 team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point about the Pens in 1993. I'd amend my original statement to: the Habs were one of a number of teams milling around in the tier immediately below the Penguins.

I'm not so sure Savard had such a horrible "third act" beyond the disastrous LeClair deal. He flipped a decaying Muller and Schneider for a legit #1 C in Turgeon and a frustrating but highly-skilled top-4 defenceman in Malakhov. He also had some young talent coming down the pipeline in Koivu, Tucker, Conroy, Bure, Theodore, Vokun, etc., to go along with excellent vets (Turgeon, Recchi, Damphousse, Roy, Keane). The team was in pretty good shape when he left it, despite having had the misfortune of seeing two of his top-3 forwards completely evaporate overnight in Bellows and Muller, which is what led to our missing the playoffs in 1995. His "third act" was too brief to be able to draw definitive conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the competency of the current bunch (they DO look good so far), I take issue with your post.

The '93 habs were better than the '89 habs from all angles.

Okay, we did have Mats Naslund, but every change to that roster between there and 1993 was great. Here I think are the most notable differences between the teams. There were other players in common and changed as well, but I'm only counting the ones who made an impact:

Notable players in common:

Guy Carbonneau

Mike Keane

Stephane Lebeau

Eric Desjardins

Patrick Roy

Notable Departed:

Mats Naslund (I loved him)

Bobby Smith (pretty good)

Stephane Richer (complete flake)

Shayne Corson (Good grinder)

Claude Lemieux (dirty rat)

Chris Chelios (big loss - best defenseman by far in 1989.)

Larry Robinson (okay, one of the greats, but he wasn't that great anymore in 1989.)

Great Additions:

Vinnie Damphousse - all-around Better in 1993 than everyone in the list above in 1989.

Kirk Muller - all-around Better in 1993 than everyone in the list above in 1989.

Brian Bellows - more goals in 1993 scored than anyone in the list above in 1989.

Denis Savard

John LeClair

Mathieu Schneider

Lyle Odelein

The additions far outweigh the losses.

Robinsons still got Norris consideration after being let go and allowed to sign as a UFA with LAK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point about the Pens in 1993. I'd amend my original statement to: the Habs were one of a number of teams milling around in the tier immediately below the Penguins.

I'm not so sure Savard had such a horrible "third act" beyond the disastrous LeClair deal. He flipped a decaying Muller and Schneider for a legit #1 C in Turgeon and a frustrating but highly-skilled top-4 defenceman in Malakhov. He also had some young talent coming down the pipeline in Koivu, Tucker, Conroy, Bure, Theodore, Vokun, etc., to go along with excellent vets (Turgeon, Recchi, Damphousse, Roy, Keane). The team was in pretty good shape when he left it, despite having had the misfortune of seeing two of his top-3 forwards completely evaporate overnight in Bellows and Muller, which is what led to our missing the playoffs in 1995. His "third act" was too brief to be able to draw definitive conclusions.

Savard paid little attention to his defence and in a five year period traded away Chelios, Desjardins, Schneider and Daigneault and only had Malakhov to show for it. Everyone else was traded for a forward (Savard, Recchi) or a goalie (Jablonski). He completely dismantled one of the best young defensive cores to ever lift the Cup. Houle merely continued by trading Roy, Keane and Odelein and not getting a defenceman or defensive forward in return. Merely Thibault.

He definitely got the offence ready to play with the big boys in 96 (Damphousse, Turgeon, Recchi, Rucinsky, Bure, Koivu, etc. with Houle's only contribution being Rucinsky) but he dismantled what made the team a great defensive team (Carbonneau for Montgomery) and was fired before he could trade Roy for Stephane Fiset and Owen Nolan.

Imagine Montreal having traded Subban, McDonaugh, Emelin and Markov and only got a single defenceman back who wasn't as good as the guy traded and then the GM got fired before he could trade Carey Price for Jamie Benn and Jack Campbell. That was what Savard did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savard paid little attention to his defence and in a five year period traded away Chelios, Desjardins, Schneider and Daigneault and only had Malakhov to show for it. Everyone else was traded for a forward (Savard, Recchi) or a goalie (Jablonski). He completely dismantled one of the best young defensive cores to ever lift the Cup. Houle merely continued by trading Roy, Keane and Odelein and not getting a defenceman or defensive forward in return. Merely Thibault.

He definitely got the offence ready to play with the big boys in 96 (Damphousse, Turgeon, Recchi, Rucinsky, Bure, Koivu, etc. with Houle's only contribution being Rucinsky) but he dismantled what made the team a great defensive team (Carbonneau for Montgomery) and was fired before he could trade Roy for Stephane Fiset and Owen Nolan.

Imagine Montreal having traded Subban, McDonaugh, Emelin and Markov and only got a single defenceman back who wasn't as good as the guy traded and then the GM got fired before he could trade Carey Price for Jamie Benn and Jack Campbell. That was what Savard did.

Don't forget casting away Robinson, Ludwig and Green all at the same time. Granted he reportedly had a deal worked out for Stevens, before he got the big offer sheet from St. Louis.

This is precisely why i wanted Markov resigned. from our veteran D, Markov was the critical guy. I liked dumping Gorges, but was surprised at how low the return was. i thought we could have gotten more if we had packaged him with a couple of other veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it's still a little too early to start comparing this team to the 89' team. I'm 38, so i don't remember the great teams of the late 70's (even though I was born), but that 89' team was the most dominant team I can remember...better than the 93' team.

But like everyone here, I am really optimistic about the 14'/15' team!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it's still a little too early to start comparing this team to the 89' team. I'm 38, so i don't remember the great teams of the late 70's (even though I was born), but that 89' team was the most dominant team I can remember...better than the 93' team.

But like everyone here, I am really optimistic about the 14'/15' team!

Me too.. I think we're going to have lotsafun this season..... YEAH!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy there big fella! :lol: Let's see how they handle a spot of adversity first. But yes, I agree, this bunch looks good.

Only scoring 1st once in the first 7 games isn't adversity?

I could handle a little less adversity from this team so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...