• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Konnan511

Was '97 or '02 team better?

Rate this topic

  

103 members have voted

  1. 1. Was '97 or '02 team better?

    • '97
      30
    • '02
      71


Recommended Posts

I am going to say the 2002 team was better. '97 was probably my "favorite" team but in this particular instance the better team was '02. I can't really see much debate and I think people pick '97 for the same reasons I stated and that it was the team that finally ended the long Cupless drought and just hold a lot more endearment in their hearts. The 2002 team could be one of the best in the history of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should mention that I agree with the article on the 77 Canadiens being the best team ever. I also agree with their rankings of the 56 Canadiens, 84 Oilers and 82 Islanders in order.

Can't remember the last time I read a rankings article on any topic where I agreed this much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 02 team obviously was better on paper and had a better regular season but in the playoffs i don't know. Personally i don't think the 02 was so invincible like some people make it out to be. They weren't breaking records or annihilating every team they came across in the playoffs. Some of those series were to close for comfort.

Edited by Original-Six

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'97. '02 may have had more talent, but the '97 team was a better team all the way around. It's easy to win a Cup with 10 potential HOFers; '97 didn't have that particular advantage. I just remember them sort of struggling in the beginning of the season and turning the tide sometime around March (:lol:). From then on it was destiny they would win the Cup. I knew it. The 2002 run was fairly boring. '97 had to overcome obstacles; '02 just skated around them. I'd watch the '97 run over and over and over - the '02 run, not so much. If you want to vote based on pure talent alone, then there's no question, but if you're voting for the whole package, '97 wins hands down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I like the 1997 team, they really only got hot at the right time, steamrolling through the playoffs despite a good, but not great, regular season. 2002 dominated from beginning to end.

However, I think 2008 can take the 1997, 1998, and 2002 teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how you look at it. If you like sandpaper more, than 1997 probably.

Nobody could touch the talent and names in 2002 though, and nobody will for a while probably. Thankfully they didn't let a 2 game losing streak to start the playoffs nosedive the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I like the 1997 team, they really only got hot at the right time, steamrolling through the playoffs despite a good, but not great, regular season. 2002 dominated from beginning to end.

However, I think 2008 can take the 1997, 1998, and 2002 teams.

Not a chance.

On paper, 2008 doesn't compare with either team in any area of the game. Either offense, defense, goaltending or coaching.

I mean that team had freaking Samuelsson on the powerplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, to the person who mentioned Hull and Pasha on the fourth line, the names mentioned were Igor Larionov, Luc Robataille, and Tomas Holmstrom. I don't know which one you would consider the fourth line, but even if the fourth line was Pasha, Brett and Boyd Devereaux, that's still a hell of a fourth line. I know teams who'd kill to have a first line that potent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was me Kira. I always thought Larionov-Robitaille-Holmstrom was the 2nd line.

The 2002 run was fairly boring. '97 had to overcome obstacles; '02 just skated around them.

Say what?? 0-2 down going into Vancouver? 3-2 down going in Colorado? Losing game 1 of the finals at home - I don't know if LGW was around then, but if it was, it would have been in meltdown. A nerve shredding 19 OT periods in Carolina. You call all that boring? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with some of the posters, the 2002 was probably the one of the best stacked up talented teams to win the cup. All tho the heart and the grit showed in the 1997 was great too.

I mean even tho the it was a gritty team we had some excellent talent on that team also with all the Russians and all.

Let's not also forget that Hull / Robitaille / Hasek we're near the end of there career. Datsyuk was also in his rookie year but no doubt it was a very talented team.

I still think that the heart and grit of 97 would beat the 2002 team due to the toughness and the heart of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Nev, I couldn't remember who said it. You may be right, they may have been the second line, but what I saw said they were the fourth. So even if that were true, that's still one hell of a fourth line.

To those who included the '08 team, you have a very valid argument. I mean, we did get through some adversity to get to where we wound up, so I'd say that is a very reasonable theory. Of course, I also think the '98 team had a great hurdle to get over, and thus, might also have a good argument. But that's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2002 team was as close to invincible as their will ever be.

I beg to differ. Montreal went 60-8-12 back in 1976-1977. They had a heck of a team back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976%E2%80%9377_Montreal_Canadiens_season

Maybe in Detroit or the new era NHL, the 2002 team was the best that has been put on ice. I still think that the Montreal squad in 76-77 was the best ever put on the ice in the NHL and their record showed it.

As for which Detroit team was better, its hard for me to make that distinction. Both were cup years and I distinctly remember them both. 97 was sweet because it was their first in 42 years. 2002 was also sweet because of the roster they had. I say its a tie. :)

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was me Kira. I always thought Larionov-Robitaille-Holmstrom was the 2nd line.

Say what?? 0-2 down going into Vancouver? 3-2 down going in Colorado? Losing game 1 of the finals at home - I don't know if LGW was around then, but if it was, it would have been in meltdown. A nerve shredding 19 OT periods in Carolina. You call all that boring? :o

I agree. Our run in 2002 was no more dominant than the other years. In fact, I think we had two sweeps in 1997 and were never pushed beyond 6 games.

As you said, 2002 had some really close calls in the playoffs. Going into Colorado down 3-2 was no fun.

I beg to differ. Montreal went 60-8-12 back in 1976-1977. They had a heck of a team back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976%E2%80%9377_Montreal_Canadiens_season

Maybe in Detroit or the new era NHL, the 2002 team was the best that has been put on ice. I still think that the Montreal squad in 76-77 was the best ever put on the ice in the NHL and their record showed it.

As for which Detroit team was better, its hard for me to make that distinction. Both were cup years and I distinctly remember them both. 97 was sweet because it was their first in 42 years. 2002 was also sweet because of the roster they had. I say its a tie. :)

I agree on the Montreal team. I believe that was before they even had overtimes in regular seasons, let alone shootouts. Imagine how many games that team could have won with these rules. :scared:

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Our run in 2002 was no more dominant than the other years. In fact, I think we had two sweeps in 1997 and were never pushed beyond 6 games.

As you said, 2002 had some really close calls in the playoffs. Going into Colorado down 3-2 was no fun.

I agree on the Montreal team. I believe that was before they even had overtimes in regular seasons, let alone shootouts. Imagine how many games that team could have won with these rules. :scared:

You could argue the 2008 team was the most dominant in the playoffs. Had they swept the Stars like they should have and not lost game 5 in the finals in triple OT, then there wouldn't even be an argument. They would have gone 16-3 which would have included a 14-1 run after being tied 2-2 in the first round. That would have been ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could argue the 2008 team was the most dominant in the playoffs. Had they swept the Stars like they should have and not lost game 5 in the finals in triple OT, then there wouldn't even be an argument. They would have gone 16-3 which would have included a 14-1 run after being tied 2-2 in the first round. That would have been ridiculous.

At the same time, against Nashville that team need a game 5 OT goal and a game 6 goal from center ice to dispatch the Predators.

That's what makes the playoffs so tough. Part of being dominant is putting teams away when you should. The Wings aren't as good at that as we used to be. Just look how many home games we've blown the last few years, where we had a chance to finish someone off. That hardly ever happened when Yzerman was here with the previous squads. These last few seasons, I don't see the killer instinct as often from the Wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this