Olympics: 2002 roster vs 2014 roster?

[Pominville Knows]

crosby would be way to good for those guys in any era.

He should start against his own era. 1+2 in 6 games in Sochi does not exactly scream all-time domination.

 

[Tutu to]

He should start against his own era. 1+2 in 6 games in Sochi does not exactly scream all-time domination.

his era is much more difficult.

compare shea webber and doughty to pronger and blake.

 

[Lebowski]

He should start against his own era. 1+2 in 6 games in Sochi does not exactly scream all-time domination.

Oh god. Here it goes. People pulling out stats out of context to attempt making a point.

I at least hoped it wouldn't be until 2017 or something people would start doing something so ignorant. Stats doesn't mean much when the team took pride in playing defensively as much as they did. Even then, he pretty much was the team's best forward... Not all that close either.

 

[Pominville Knows]

his era is much more difficult.

43 year old Teemu Selanne who just got voted tournament MVP had 4+2 in 6. In the 2002 games he had 3+0 in 4. Where is your logic in this, your appreciation of the game?

compare shea webber and doughty to pronger and blake.

They are close. Pronger was better defensively than Weber is while Blake might have been a little behind Doughty, although more physical. I'm having trouble seeing how Weber and Doughty is better offensively than Pronger and Blake, i mean, Blake had a surefire slapper of his own and both could playmake which Weber cannot on this stage.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Oh god. Here it goes. People pulling out stats out of context to attempt making a point.

I at least hoped it wouldn't be until 2017 or something people would start doing something so ignorant. Stats doesn't mean much when the team took pride in playing defensively as much as they did. Even then, he pretty much was the team's best forward... Not all that close either.

We are talking about a poster that claims Crosby would outscore 66 and 99 during the eighties here buddy.

 

[Lebowski]

We are talking about a poster that says Crosby would outscore 66 and 99 during the eighties here buddy.

There's no way to know such a thing, but it's a highly possible scenario that has been discussed time and time again, to no avail, so why bother. Neither side can prove the other wrong in that kind of sterile debate.

 

[Pominville Knows]

There's no way to know such a thing, but it's a highly possible scenario that has been discussed time and time again, to no avail, so why bother. Neither side can prove the other wrong in that kind of sterile debate.

So what are you doing here then? We could sure have a try at the possibilities without you coming in commenting the obvious. My comment you quoted was just a snarl remark to someone that snarly remarked: "crosby would be way to good for those guys in any era." We're talking prime Pronger, Blake and Foote here, during the DPA. It could well be said that 2002 Sakic, Lemieux, Yzerman, Iginla, Kariya would score against this years Canada defense as well.

 

[Tutu to]

43 year old Teemu Selanne who just got voted tournament MVP had 4+2 in 6. In the 2002 games he had 3+0 in 4. Where is your logic in this, your appreciation of the game?


They are close. Pronger was better defensively than Weber is while Blake might have been a little behind Doughty, although more physical. I'm having trouble seeing how Weber and Doughty is better offensively than Pronger and Blake, i mean, Blake had a surefire slapper of his own and both could playmake which Weber cannot on this stage.

thats crazy

pronger and blake would be pylons in 2014.

you didnt have skaters like crosby,duchene,seguin,grabner,stamkos in the 90s aside from bure

 

[Tutu to]

guys like lemieux,yzerman, sakic made themselves legends at a time when the average NHLer was not nearly as good as they are today.

And aisde from lemieux, crosby dominates(not points) the game more then those other guys did in there primes.

 

[Plante]

thats crazy

pronger and blake would be pylons in 2014.

you didnt have skaters like crosby,duchene,seguin,grabner,stamkos in the 90s aside from bure

Pronger played how just how long ago?

He was a dominant force just how long ago?

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[Big Phil]

I grew up watching legends like gretzky,messier,lemieux,jagr,forseberg,yzerman, lindros ect....

im just being honest about what team was better.


If crosby played in the 80`s He would put up more then guys like gretzky or lemieux.

I always get a chuckle out of this stuff. Even if the person saying it truly believes what they are saying. There aren't a lot of negative things you can say about Crosby, but a silly comparison like this sort of forces us to downgrade Crosby, which is too bad. We saw what I consider to be the two most offensively dominant players in hockey history in Gretzky and Lemieux. Great, great players in their time were unable to hold a candle to them offensively. But Crosby would outpoint them? He'd get 216 points? Hmmm.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm not sure what is wrong with people's heads here. How can you not compare 2002 to 2014? The game has barely changed at all since then. If you are a smart historian you can compare 1972 to 2014. Hockey was played the same way back then. Things have sped up and such but in order to compare different eras you have to take things into context. How did such and such team dominate against their peers? Start with that.


So for 2002 vs. 2014 it really is a tough one. In fact, 2002 was playing like a well oiled machine by the end. They really didn't look like they could be beat either. 2002 found a way to score a lot of goals, not quite like the 2010 team, but 12 goals in their final two games and 5 against the next best team in the tournament. I think on NHL ice the 2014 scores more though.

Brodeur in 2002 and Price in 2014 don't have a lot of separation from each other. The 2002 defense was pretty epic as well. They didn't have the same goals against or mistake-free play as 2014 however.

Either way I think this series goes to 7 games with them. 2002 can compete with 2014 physically. 2014 was faster and quicker. 2002 was more seasoned and experienced. 2014 was younger.

In all honesty, all three Olympic champs of 2002, 2010 and 2014 have good cases. Can you really go wrong here?

 

[Human]

thats my point. The game in general has gotten better. Thats why the 2014 team is better then the 2002 team

that wasn't his question though...

I believe the comparison should be made relative to other teams of their respective eras.

you can't compare teams in a vacuum like you just did...

 

[fireworks]

I'm not sure what is wrong with people's heads here. How can you not compare 2002 to 2014? The game has barely changed at all since then. If you are a smart historian you can compare 1972 to 2014. Hockey was played the same way back then. Things have sped up and such but in order to compare different eras you have to take things into context. How did such and such team dominate against their peers? Start with that.


So for 2002 vs. 2014 it really is a tough one. In fact, 2002 was playing like a well oiled machine by the end. They really didn't look like they could be beat either. 2002 found a way to score a lot of goals, not quite like the 2010 team, but 12 goals in their final two games and 5 against the next best team in the tournament. I think on NHL ice the 2014 scores more though.

Brodeur in 2002 and Price in 2014 don't have a lot of separation from each other. The 2002 defense was pretty epic as well. They didn't have the same goals against or mistake-free play as 2014 however.

Either way I think this series goes to 7 games with them. 2002 can compete with 2014 physically. 2014 was faster and quicker. 2002 was more seasoned and experienced. 2014 was younger.

In all honesty, all three Olympic champs of 2002, 2010 and 2014 have good cases. Can you really go wrong here?

Couldn't agree more Big Phil!! Alot of comments I have read in this thread sure sound alot like "what have you don't for me lately" Alot of posts in this thread stink of short memories or maybe they were not old enough to watch the 2002 olympics ****ing imagine going back to 72,76,etc!!


Basically players NOW are better than players before!

 

[MadLuke]

How many of 2002 Lindros, Peca, Nieuwendyk, Gagne, Fleury would make the 2014 team (even Kariya ?), or 2002 Foote and Brewer. When Thorton, Giroux, Staal, Spezza, Seabrook, Phaneuf, etc... does not make it now.

Maybe 2014 have a little more depth ? Better all-around skating and defence. But 2002 can never be taken as a loosing team and could have the best player of both team in Joe Sakic, he was at Crosby level or very near of it and Ignila was very good.

2014 was more dominant imo, but Sweden missing their 3 best center was not as good as a competition like the 2002 USA team.

 

[xxxx]

This was the best defensive performance I have ever seen and also one of if not the best TEAM win in history, so.......

 

[BRUINS since 1995]

So what are you doing here then? We could sure have a try at the possibilities without you coming in commenting the obvious. My comment you quoted was just a snarl remark to someone that snarly remarked: "crosby would be way to good for those guys in any era." We're talking prime Pronger, Blake and Foote here, during the DPA. It could well be said that 2002 Sakic, Lemieux, Yzerman, Iginla, Kariya would score against this years Canada defense as well.

--------------

Probably Crosby would have had better winger to finsh if he played in 2002.........

I remember of Sakic dominating play in 2002.

Yzerman was an incredible player that impacted the game as Crosby for sure.

Lemieux is just a head over. As for Pronger, Flyers are in the trash since he did not return and that's not long ago.

As for Weber, I would also love him on the Bruins. He is sitting right there beside those gut.

Roster to roster it is very tight.

2014 though, is from my eyeball analysis, the more structured defensive team... and I beleive that is more difficult to play against. It,s the only edge I would give 2014.

 

[JackSlater]

I would favour 2014. The team in 2002 had great names, but they had far more passengers than the 2014 team did, and ultimately they did not win as convincingly. They struggled more in the opening stages than 2014, and their one great performance was mainly a product of Sakic having one of the best games of his career. You can't bank on that happening again. I would guess that 2014 wins maybe 7 out of 10 games between the two sides.

Also, anyone who thinks you cannot compare players from 2002 to today is out of their mind. Things have barely changed, and a great player from that time would still be great today.

 

[MadLuke]

Also, anyone who thinks you cannot compare players from 2002 to today is out of their mind. Things have barely changed, and a great player from that time would still be great today.

The fact that some of them still playing the nhl and olympics show how ridicule the you cannot compare to the past can go sometime....

 

[Pominville Knows]

I would favour 2014. The team in 2002 had great names, but they had far more passengers than the 2014 team did, and ultimately they did not win as convincingly. They struggled more in the opening stages than 2014, and their one great performance was mainly a product of Sakic having one of the best games of his career. You can't bank on that happening again. I would guess that 2014 wins maybe 7 out of 10 games between the two sides.

Also, anyone who thinks you cannot compare players from 2002 to today is out of their mind. Things have barely changed, and a great player from that time would still be great today.

Hey man, you got no forwards! And you are underestimating the effect of poor opponents in 2014. The 2002 team could well score on your so billed all-time greatest defense(2002 Sakic, Lemieux, Yzerman, Iginla, Kariya, you faced compareable bums in Sochi), but could you on them?

 

[JackSlater]

Hey man, you got no forwards! And you are underestimating the effect of poor opponents in 2014. The 2002 team could well score on your so billed all-time greatest defense(2002 Sakic, Lemieux, Yzerman, Iginla, Kariya, you faced compareable bums in Sochi), but could you on them?

2002 had great names, but only Sakic and Iginla would be considered to be in their primes out of those names. On defence I found Pronger and MacInnis to be quite disappointing given their abilities. Just from watching the games, 2014 looked better in the semi finals and finals than 2002 ever did, outside of Sakic in the gold medal game. 2014 was a more in form team.

 

[MadLuke]

2002 had great names, but only Sakic and Iginla would be considered to be in their primes out of those names. On defence I found Pronger and MacInnis to be quite disappointing given their abilities. Just from watching the games, 2014 looked better in the semi finals and finals than 2002 ever did, outside of Sakic in the gold medal game. 2014 was a more in form team.

I agree 100% with this, Yzerman, Lemieux, Kariya, Shanahan, Nolan, Fleury, Lindros, name on that list look better on paper than they were (except maybe Yzerman that was still very good with is leg injury and I loved Nieuwendyk too).

2002 did loose far and square to the Sweden team IMO.

Canada was 1W, 1L, 1T with 8 GF and 10 GA in the premilary round, won 2-1 to Finland in the first elimination game, was lucky to face Belarus that beat Sweden, and played their only good game against USA.

2014 never have trailed in scoring during all the tournament and played almost perfect games. Hard not to go with 2014, 2010 could have been seen to have had a better tourney than 2002 too.

 

[Honest M]

Only with a time machine. Had he been born in 1963 he would not have been as "superior" to Gretzky and Lemieux as you obviously believe, since he would have to do with that times training, nutrition and overall surroundings in the game. A hint for you: Time machines does not exist. Had 66 and 99 been born in 1987 they would have axess to todays training and becouse of their larger talent would have been supreme to Crosby.

Personally i dont even believe he with todays training would have been much better than 66 and 99 in 1990, but that is beside the point. If you dont remember the point, look for the bolded above, it works both ways btw.

The better understanding in traing/nutrition is one part but to less extent i think. More important is the pace of the game, the oppenents skill and strength, faster and bigger goalies that position much better. That makes todays players much better.

 

[Big Phil]

I think with 2002 you have to remember there wasn't a lot of familiarity with each other. 2014 had the core of 2010 back. 2002 was a whole different team than 1998 for instance. Lots of new players.

I think with 2002 you have to give them the benefit of the doubt of getting better with each game. The 2002 USA team was better than 2014 Sweden. And 2002 Canada beat them convincingly. It wasn't just Sakic having a great game, it was also Iginla. Then there were moments where Lemieux hit the post, Fleury split the defense and deked Richter out of his jock but lost the puck and so on. Canada took the play to the Americans and this was the core of the 1996 US World Cup champs. So they weren't rookies.

The precision of how 2014 played cannot be taken lightly. They played practically error-free hockey. That being said, they would be facing a tough team in 2002. So many players on that team knew how to win and were hungry for a win. When Sakic, Lemieux and Yzerman are coming at you it won't be a cakewalk.

 

[JackSlater]

I think with 2002 you have to remember there wasn't a lot of familiarity with each other. 2014 had the core of 2010 back. 2002 was a whole different team than 1998 for instance. Lots of new players.

I think with 2002 you have to give them the benefit of the doubt of getting better with each game. The 2002 USA team was better than 2014 Sweden. And 2002 Canada beat them convincingly. It wasn't just Sakic having a great game, it was also Iginla. Then there were moments where Lemieux hit the post, Fleury split the defense and deked Richter out of his jock but lost the puck and so on. Canada took the play to the Americans and this was the core of the 1996 US World Cup champs. So they weren't rookies.

The precision of how 2014 played cannot be taken lightly. They played practically error-free hockey. That being said, they would be facing a tough team in 2002. So many players on that team knew how to win and were hungry for a win. When Sakic, Lemieux and Yzerman are coming at you it won't be a cakewalk.

Canada vs Canada would finally make Canadian fans happy with a tournament I guess. 1976 vs 1984 vs 1987 vs 1991 vs 2002 vs 2004 vs 2010 vs 2014.