Toggle sidebar

95-96 Avalanche vs 00-01 Avalanche

whcanuck

Registered User
May 11, 2017
158
62
So Colorado has had two Stanley Cup champions, 95-96 and 00-01. There are 6 or 7 guys that played on both teams ie. Joe Sakic, Patrick Roy, Peter Forsberg, Adam Foote etc. I think the general consensus will be that the 2000-01 team was better with Chris Drury, Milan Hejduk and Alex Tanguay up front and Rob Blake and Ray Bourque on defense. Plus they won the President's Trophy in a dominant regular season and a lot of guys had really big years...especially Sakic who scored 50+ goals and 110+ points and won the Hart Trophy and Ted Lindsay Award (then Lester Pearson award).

But what about the '95-96 team? Had Detroit not had its historic season, the Avs could have had a shot at the President's Trophy. Plus this team had younger versions of Sakic, Forsberg and Roy and all this with it being their first year in Denver. Salic and Forsberg both had monster regular seasons that year, both scoring career highs in points. Also this team had good role players like Adam Deadmarsh (traded at '01 deadline for Blake), Mike Ricci, Mike Keane and the ever-so-clutch superpest Claude Lemieux. They also had an elite puck moving defenseman in Sandis Ozolinsh. The '01 team didn't really have that.

I'm not saying the '95-96 team was better or even quite as good, but I think it's a lot closer than a lot of people might think.

Thoughts?
 
Rob Blake and Ray Bourque are far better defensemen than Sandis Ozolinsh ever was. Two Half of Fame defensemen eclipse the "elite puck moving" defenseman. Both Blake and Bourque had 59 points in 2001, and Ozolinsh had 54 points the season he joined the Avs.

I think that 95-96 Avs team had great depth as well, but the 2001 Avs won the Cup without the help of Peter Forsberg, who got injured in the second round against the Kings and was out with a ruptured spleen.

Although that '96 Avs did have to get through the Red Wings, I think the 2001 Avs had a tougher road to get to the Cup, especially in the Stanley Cup Final.

In terms of forward depth, I think it was pretty close. Up front, the guys in '96 who were no longer with the Avs in 2001 included the likes of Claude Lemieux, Valeri Kamensky, Adam Deadmarsh, Scott Young, Mike Keane, Mike Ricci, and Chris Simon.

They were replaced with the likes of Chris Drury, Alex Tanguay, Milan Hejduk, Ville Nieminen, Steven Reinprecht, Dave Reid, Dan Hinote, Shjon Podein, and Chris Dingman.

I'd give the '96 Avs the advantage as far as depth goes, particularly beyond their bottom six forwards, but the 2001 Avs had the far better blueline. And it's a wash in net since they had Roy for both runs, although he was even better in 2001 and won the Conn Smythe for his efforts.
 
The Marc Crawford era Avalanche team had deeper forward strength (possible exception for Hartley's first year in 1998-99), but the 2000-01 Colorado Avalanche was the strongest version of the team overall - and proved to be quite resilient.

Forsberg was maybe better utilized by Hartley in that some of his defensive responsibilities went to Sakic, which while detrimental to their penalty kill had led to an increase in Forsberg's offense at no sacrifice to Sakic's (who had become the most productive scorer after Jagr).

Tanguay and Hejduk became for Sakic what Kamensky and Lemieux had been for Forsberg, while Drury became an even more timely goal scorer than Deadmarsh. The use of Messier as a forward with Yelle and Podein gave them better shot-blocking up high, but what they needed was a Mike Ricci, as Reinprecht wouldn't bring that depth scoring until 2002 - which made for a rather uneventful 4th line for the 2001 team. But the trade off is that Ray Bourque, Adam Foote, and Rob Blake are there.

Though the core six players were only together for a total of 7-8 games, they never played like they missed anyone while enduring lengthy absences from Foote or those major injuries to Sakic and Forsberg over the final three rounds. And they didn't really have any throwaway blowout losses like the 1996 Avalanche did.
 
Ziggy Stardust said:
And it's a wash in net since they had Roy for both runs, although he was even better in 2001 and won the Conn Smythe for his efforts.
Click to expand...

I might actually take 1996 Patrick Roy. Much weaker in his losses, but stronger in his victories. Probably don't sweep too many teams playing hot-and-cold hockey like that, but it might take an act of God to lose a series.


Vancouver (70.43 EvE in Wins)
29/31, 28/28, 16/20, 20/22 (.921)
24/29, 22/26 (.836)

Chicago (47.08 EvE in Wins)
30/31, 32/34, 22/23, 31/34 (.943)
23/26, 21/25 (.862)

Detroit (33.67 EvE in Wins)
29/31, 35/35, 29/31, 23/24 (.959)
16/22, 21/26 (.771)

Florida (24.65 EvE in Wins)
25/26, 27/28, 32/34, 63/63 (.974)


Vancouver (104.16 EvE in Wins)
19/23, 18/19, 20/23, 22/23 (.898)

Los Angeles (39.48 EvE in Wins)
20/20, 22/25, 21/21, 25/26 (.957)
21/25, 25/26, 31/32 (.928)

St. Louis (57.94 EvE in Wins)
30/31, 28/30, 28/31, 28/29 (.942)
56/60 (.933)

New Jersey (18.10 EvE in Wins)
25/25, 21/22, 24/24, 25/26 (.979)
18/20, 32/35, 22/26 (.889)
 
those two teams each had holes. the '96 team was pretty nondescript on defense for a cup winner, and the '01 team was shockingly shallow up front, especially after forsberg got hurt.

at the same time the '96 team was ridiculously deep up front, while the '01 team had one of the great big threes on defense of the post '70s habs era.

deadmarsh sakic young
kamensky forsberg lemieux
yelle ricci keane
simon/hannan/corbet/rychel/murray/klemm

but an unspectacular, albeit very competent and balanced, d-corps of

lefebvre ozolinsh
gusarov foote
krupp leschyshyn/wolanin

and at the same time

bourque foote
klemm blake
de vries skoula

but, after forsberg ruptured his spleen,

tanguay sakic hejduk
nieminen drury hinote
podein yelle messier
dingman reinprecht reid

the '96 fourth line combined for 7 goals, 5 at ES. if you don't count forsberg and drury, the '01 bottom three lines combined for 12 goals, 9 at ES. so in 2001, the bottom 8.5 roster spots on forward had less than 2x of the goals scored by the bottom 3 on the '96 team. even considering the differing scoring rates in those two years, that's a huge disparity. at the same time, the '96 team didn't have a single defenseman who would have cracked the top three of the '01 team.

of course it helps when you have patrick roy in net.
 
Last edited:
One interesting facet to bring up is the Avs minus Chris Simon in following the 96 season. Adrian Dater has a book entitled "Blood Feud/Wings-Avalanche/The Story of Hockey's Nastiest Rivalry." Simon apparently was picked on quite a bit by Marc Crawford, and although he had the fierce-looking exterior he was bothered a bit by Crawford. Lacroix didn't want to give him money to stay so he went to Washington (don't know what Simon would've wanted). I wonder if my Red Wings have a tougher time in 97 if Simon is still with the Avs. The 00-01 version had maybe more talent, but I'd take the 95-96 version, in spite of Sandis Ozolinsh not getting back on D!:laugh:
 
I know I'm in the minority, but I like the 95-96 team better. The Big 3 are smack-dab in the middle of their primes here. They may have had good numbers in 00-01, but I'm sure they were better versions of themselves in the mid 90's. There was also more team depth, and more team toughness. I find Uwe Krupp underrated here as he never seems to be mentioned. I'll take that over the glamour names of an older Blake and Bourque.
 
I also have the feeling the 1996 team was a bit stronger, compared to peers, anyway. While the personnel arguably wasn't quite at the 2001 level, the team seemed, to me, more of an unstoppable squad.
 
Thenameless said:
I know I'm in the minority, but I like the 95-96 team better. The Big 3 are smack-dab in the middle of their primes here. They may have had good numbers in 00-01, but I'm sure they were better versions of themselves in the mid 90's.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Not that they weren't great players in 1996, but Sakic and Forsberg took every 1st Team at Center from 1998-2004 except 2000 (when Sakic played just 60 games but was still the highest scoring Center in the league). I would have to say 2001 is the middle of their prime.

THN Rank - 1996
#3 - Patrick Roy
#5 - Peter Forsberg
#14 - Joe Sakic

THN Rank - 2001
#2 - Joe Sakic
#4 - Peter Forsberg
#11 - Patrick Roy
 
Thenameless said:
I'll take that over the glamour names of an older Blake and Bourque.
Click to expand...

Blake in the 2001 playoff was almost the same age has Krupp 1996 playoff no ?

Blake played until 2009-2010 and was still an impact player at least until 2009 and won is Norris in 1998, he was still full in is prime during that playoff run.
 
Kamensky was really good--it seems like all anyone remembers these days is that crazy 360 goal.

I too think the '96 team was better, and would beat the '01 edition in a series. Deeper and hungrier, Sakic on that goal scoring tear, blue line still solid, and I suspect that having elite defenders benefited the Avalanche less [defensively] than it would most teams since they had St. Patrick backing them up anyway.
 
Sentinel said:
62 wins.
Click to expand...
82 games.

If we're including Forsberg in the '01 lineup, I think people are overrating the difference in forwards. It's pretty much all a depth advantage, as the top 6 is still strong. Kamensky, Lemieux and Deadmarsh aren't much different from Tanguay, Hejduk and Drury, and Sakic and Forsberg are probably better in '01. Does a depth forward advantage make up for a significant top 2 defenseman advantage?
 
2001 Colorado quite comfortably. Can't get over the massive advantage of 2001 Colorado having two of the top five (top ten at worst) defencemen at the time, each of whom was a fair bit better than Ozolinsh (a favourite of mine from mid 90s NHL video games). Sakic having an obvious peak year also helps. Better forward depth in 1996 doesn't mitigate the 2001 defensive edge.
 
i am partial to the 1996 team myself. it just had so much forward depth and that d-corps, while lacking a true franchise guy, was very competent.

the '01 team was just so top heavy, especially after forsberg got hurt. there is almost nothing there up front other than the first line, stephane yelle, and chris drury. not a great bottom pair d either, though that obviously is mitigated bigtime by having blake and bourque.

maybe i'm not a big gambler (or maybe i am just permanently scarred from watching the canucks ice a fourth line of glass-one eyed malhotra-oreskovich and bottom pair of alberts-pre-rookie tanev) in game seven of the stanley cup finals, but i don't like the idea of choosing a team with only six good forwards and four good defenseman, even if that team has sakic, forsberg, blake, bourque, and roy on it.
 
Last edited:
Sentinel said:
62 wins.
Click to expand...
As you well know, that includes overtime wins, which the 1940s to 1983 teams didn't have. That's what makes Montreal's 1976-78 period all the more remarkable.

The 1977 team had 60 wins and 12 ties in 80 games. Let's say, of the 12 ties, in 7 of them nothing changes -- 1 point for the overtime tie. Then, in the other 5 games, let's say Montreal wins 3 and loses 2 (since this is probably the greatest team of all time, I'd say that's a conservative estimate). Now their record is 63-10-7. Then, add in the missing 2 extra games that the 1996 teams played. There's an 80%+ chance Montreal wins both. Now, they're at 65-10-7 in 82 games.

The '96 Wings were 3-1-7 in overtimes, which is 1 loss less and 3 wins more than they'd have had in the 1970s. They, they won the final two games of the RS, which was the extra games 81 and 82. So, to do the reverse-record and put them back in the 70s, they'd have been 59-12-11.

Further, the 1977 Canadiens were 1st in offense and 1st in defence (as was the 1978 team). 1996 Detroit was 3rd in offense.


It's funny, though, we don't (at least I don't) often hear about the 1930 Bruins' team, presumably because it's so damn long ago. They lost a best-of-three Final to Montreal, so their season ended in disappointment, much like the '96 Wings. They were 1st in offense and defense, coached by Art Ross, and had Eddie Shore on D. Only a 44-game season, though. I wonder if anyone alive still remembers this team. If you were 10 then, you'd be 97 or 98 now, so....
 
vadim sharifijanov said:
i am partial to the 1996 team myself. it just had so much forward depth and that d-corps, while lacking a true franchise guy, was very competent.

the '01 team was just so top heavy, especially after forsberg got hurt. there is almost nothing there up front other than the first line, stephane yelle, and chris drury. not a great bottom pair d either, though that obviously is mitigated bigtime by having blake and bourque.

maybe i'm not a big gambler (or maybe i am just permanently scarred from watching the canucks ice a fourth line of glass-one eyed malhotra-oreskovich and bottom pair of alberts-pre-rookie tanev) in game seven of the stanley cup finals, but i don't like the idea of choosing a team with only six good forwards and four good defenseman, even if that team has sakic, forsberg, blake, bourque, and roy on it.
Click to expand...

That 2001 team did win a few Game 7s, both at home, one against a tough Kings team, and the other against the defending Stanley Cup champs.

That awesome defense of the 2001 Avs was able to overcome such a huge loss down the middle with no Forsberg. Not too dissimilar with the 2007 Ducks who were anchored by Pronger and Niedermayer.
 
Bourque-Blake-Foote (prime Foote) wins for me. I mean, the 95-96 defense was a great group 1 thru 6 but when you can ice the 00-01 trio for 30 minutes a night each in crunch time, that's just tough.

FYI - crazy that Reinprecht is still playing these days at a (relatively) top level (or was until he was hurt this season), with Nurnberg in the DEL. Carved out quite a career in Germany after a solid NHL career, although watching him early in his Kings/Avs days, always though he had the talent to be more than the 45-50 point scorer he became.
 
I dunno how much of a factor it is, but what about the ages of the top guys?

Sakic's stats are better, and I think he was better overall, in the '96 playoffs than the in the '01 playoffs. Give me 18 goals in 22 games over 13 in 21. Age 26 versus 31. Not that 31 is old by any means (and he was superb in the 2000-01 season) but he was that little bit quicker in '96. Six game-winners in 1996.

Forsberg was right in his prime in 2001. However, his scoring wasn't overwhelming in the 11 games he appeared in, and he arguably had a better season in 1996 than in 2001.

Patrick Roy was still a major stud but getting a bit long in the tooth by 2001 (two years from retirement). If I have the luxury of choosing, I'd take the '96 version.

Ray Bourque is Ray Bourque (awesome) but he was 40 in 2001 (and they did lose with him the year before). Blake was in his prime, I guess.

Tanguay and Hejduk and Drury are good young guys they didn't have in 1996. But in 1996 they had Kamensky, Ozolinsh, and C. Lemieux, all in their primes. Those guys are all awesome (well, Lemieux was awesome in the playoffs). I feel like Kamensky could have been one of the top forwards in the world from the late-80s to late-90s if he'd been a little more NHL-motivated or a bit more consistent.

The 2001 team was more challenged to get by both the Kings and the Devils than the 1996 team was by any opponent. Granted, the defending Cup-champ Devils are a more formidable opponent than the '96 Panthers, but still...

I dunno, maybe the addition of Rob Blake before the playoffs pushes the 2001 team ahead a bit, but I still found the '96 team had a smoother path to victory. And it was younger and more in its prime (Forsberg aside).
 
I think Ozolinsh is being underrated a bit here. He finished 3rd in Norris voting the season after the Cup win, and got back to the finals with the Ducks in '03 as far and away their best skater (in my books, at least). 90 points in 137 playoff games as a defenseman playing right through the DPE.

I'll take the '96 team. The '01 Kings almost knocked off the Avs that year, and as much as I loved team, they weren't anywhere near the calibre of the '96 Wings.
 
Yeah, it seems like people are picking the 01 team because of the names more than anything else. If you remember watching them though, the 96 team was just plain better.

Another team like that was the 95 Devils. Looking at their roster, nobody who hadn't seem them would pick that team. But they would have been capable of beating a lot of other Stanley Cup winners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom