Toggle sidebar

"Dynastic" teams in the O6

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
26,939
6,690
I think four Cups in six years is the bar set for calling teams dynasties but I think this waters down the term and takes away from the accomplishments of teams who won four in four or four in five, most notably after the league expanded. From 1942 to 1971, either the Habs, Leafs and Wings won the Cup save for the Hawks in '61.

Here are teams to be considered dynasties:

Leafs: '45 to '51 - Worthy of the label, IMO, as they won three in a row (of their five wins overall

Wings: '50 to '54 - Not worthy of the label, IMO. as they did not win three in a row and it would be strange to have two dynasties overlap

Habs: '56 to '60 - Worthy of the label

Leafs: '61 to '66 - Debatable, won three in a row but the 4th came in a 6th year

Habs: '65 to '71 - Debatable, won 5 in seven years but not three in a row and also have a potential overlap with the '61 to '66 Leafs

It is interesting to note that despite the league reaching "modern" status after the first non O6 team won the Cup in '74, there was a string of 15 years of dynastic teams (Habs, Islanders, Oilers). There hasn't been a technical dynasty since after the Pens failed a three-peat in '93. In the past 23 years, only three teams have won two Cups in a row.
Click to read more...
 
There isn't a universally accepted definition of what a dynasty is. When i was young, I remember a lot of people said you had to win either three or four consecutively, but I'm not sure where that came from.

Personally, I don't mind if all of the ones mentioned are called dynasties.

One issue about the '40s Leafs and the '50s Red Wings is that a significant part of their successes is that the league in general was quite weak, so there wasn't great competition. Those two teams weren't nearly as strong as the Habs of '56 to '60. Those Habs made the Finals 10 consecutive seasons also.

It's always a bit difficult to know how to deal with the Canadiens from '65 to '79, where they won 10 Cups in 15 years. Usually they are divided into two, and the '71 and '73 left as individual wins, especially after missing the playoffs in '70. But you could configure them a bit differently if you want.

But, ultimately, I don't think it matters what you call any of them. They are what they are. It's most important that they are described in an accurate way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: solidmotion
daver said:
not three in a row ... there was a string of 15 years of dynastic teams (Habs, Islanders, Oilers). There hasn't been a technical dynasty since after the Pens failed a three-peat in '93. In the past 23 years, only three teams have won two Cups in a row.
Click to expand...
I think this is one main reason why the must have 3 cup in a row criteria do not exist anymore and will never come back, the Oilers never won 3 in a row, while being clearly a dynasty in the eye of pretty much everyone.

4 in 5 inside a 5 in 7, in some ways is more impressive than 3 in a row.
 
Last edited:
MadLuke said:
I think this is one main reason why the must have 3 cup in a row criteria do not exist anymore and will never come back, the Oilers never won 3 in a row.

4 in 5 inside a 5 in 7, in some ways is more impressive than 3 in a row.
Click to expand...

4 in 5 is fine, 4 in 6 during a time where only one of three teams had a chance of winning is my main point.
 
I think you have to be a little flexible as well, and not treat every "dynasty" or even near dynasty as equals even in cases where they basically won the same number of Cups in the same number of years.

There's a feel to it too. In the case of the Oilers, you could just feel how good they were...say if Gretzky and Messier were in an accident together in the summer of '87, and consequently the Oilers didn't win again. Those 3 Cups in 4 years would still have the feel of a dynasty because of how good they were.

If the Oilers had all stayed together, they might have been good enough to win 8 or 10 straight (of course they were good enough to win in '86).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nerowoy nora tolad
Habs 1970-71 to 1978-79

They won 4 years in a row as well if you want to narrow it down ('76 to '79). Ken Dryden only played 8 seasons in the NHL and won the cup 6 times, what a career.
 
Gorskyontario said:
www.hhof.com

HHOF | NHL Dynasties

The nine legendary franchises which lorded over the National Hockey League for extended periods of time.
www.hhof.com www.hhof.com


Yes, they are.
Click to expand...
No, there is certainly no official list or anything of the sort. Some person at the HHOF, or any other person or institution, doesn't have any authority to declare which teams are dynasties and which aren't.

The subject of hockey dynasties has been discussed and debated forever by hockey fans, the media, players, coaches, etc. Most people agree on some and disagree on others.
------------------
One part of the discussion is how to deal with some of the successful teams since 1990. We're going on 40 years with no agreement on whether we've had dynasties, or are dynasties gone forever?
 
Staniowski said:
There isn't a universally accepted definition of what a dynasty is. When i was young, I remember a lot of people said you had to win either three or four consecutively, but I'm not sure where that came from.

Personally, I don't mind if all of the ones mentioned are called dynasties.

One issue about the '40s Leafs and the '50s Red Wings is that a significant part of their successes is that the league in general was quite weak, so there wasn't great competition. Those two teams weren't nearly as strong as the Habs of '56 to '60. Those Habs made the Finals 10 consecutive seasons also.

It's always a bit difficult to know how to deal with the Canadiens from '65 to '79, where they won 10 Cups in 15 years. Usually they are divided into two, and the '71 and '73 left as individual wins, especially after missing the playoffs in '70. But you could configure them a bit differently if you want.

But, ultimately, I don't think it matters what you call any of them. They are what they are. It's most important that they are described in an accurate way.
Click to expand...
Three in a row is the common notion of what constitutes a dynasty
 
Staniowski said:
No, there is certainly no official list or anything of the sort. Some person at the HHOF, or any other person or institution, doesn't have any authority to declare which teams are dynasties and which aren't.

The subject of hockey dynasties has been discussed and debated forever by hockey fans, the media, players, coaches, etc. Most people agree on some and disagree on others.
------------------
One part of the discussion is how to deal with some of the successful teams since 1990. We're going on 40 years with no agreement on whether we've had dynasties, or are dynasties gone forever?
Click to expand...
There are teams that came close to winning 3 in 4 years (which, to me, would be basically indisputable) in that time span so I don't think it's some impossibility, although with more teams and a salary cap I think the odds are definitely against you. In modern baseball a real undisputed dynasty has been pretty rare while in basketball they're kind of the natural state of affairs.

Related to this discussion, I remember Gary Bettman very deliberately calling the Blackhawks a dynasty right after they won the 2015 Cup. The win was in front of the Chicago crowd and I think as commissioner you're probably keen to sell it that way so take it with a grain of salt but that's someone that could make it "official".
 
I know the Islanders would always consider their dynasty better because they won 4 in a row while the Oiler didn't do more than two. But come on, 4 in 5 years, that's a dynasty. Especially considering the team that didn't win in 1986 had the best record in the NHL.

Three in 4 is the minimum for me. Go look at other sports. The Cowboys in the 1990s, the Patriots in the 2000s. Does someone want to tell me the Golden State Warriors weren't a dynasty just because they didn't win three in a row? Nah. Pittsburgh Steelers win two in a row, lose two, then win two more. That's a dynasty. 4 in 6. Just like the 1950s Wings. Sure, not three in a row, but those were great teams and they still led the NHL in points those years. It's a dynasty. The 1940s Leafs won three in a row and had 5 in 7. 4 in 5 as well on both ends. That's a dynasty, those were great teams. And while they don't beat the 1950s Habs, so what? How many teams could?
 
If you use 3 in 4 or 3 in 5 it doesn't matter in terms of who is in. No team went 3 in 5 without also doing 3 in 4.

Hawks got close. 3 in 6. Same with the 90s/00 Wings. Penguins did 3 in 9.

3 in 4 is an easy in for me. Those 20s Sens are clearly a dynasty.

Challenge Cup era is obviously harder, but I do think the Silver Sevens should qualify.
 
MadLuke said:
you will not see many people that exclude the 80s oilers of their list of Dynastie or 100% of the nfl team of the superbowl eras (has none have done that, not even the Patriots)
Click to expand...
The Lakers of the 80's also did not win 3 in a row despite winning 5 titles, making the finals 8 times and getting nearly a full team's worth of players inducted in to the Hall of Fame including 2 players who are generally considered top 10 all time.
 
Staniowski said:
No, there is certainly no official list or anything of the sort. Some person at the HHOF, or any other person or institution, doesn't have any authority to declare which teams are dynasties and which aren't.

The subject of hockey dynasties has been discussed and debated forever by hockey fans, the media, players, coaches, etc. Most people agree on some and disagree on others.
------------------
One part of the discussion is how to deal with some of the successful teams since 1990. We're going on 40 years with no agreement on whether we've had dynasties, or are dynasties gone forever?
Click to expand...


Yes there is an official list, I linked it.
 
Staniowski said:
One part of the discussion is how to deal with some of the successful teams since 1990. We're going on 40 years with no agreement on whether we've had dynasties, or are dynasties gone forever?
Click to expand...

I think this has relevance as some would like to use Cup wins as a prime argument in player comparisons.
How many players have their legacies boosted by Cup wins in an era where dynasties were the norm not the exception? In an era that saw three teams win 28 of 30 Cups, and be in the SCF 87% of the time.

Since 1990, winning back to back Cups, let alone winning 3 in 4, or 4 in 6, is the exception, not the norm. Even GOAT talent doesn't change this.

Detroit had a Habs-like run from '95 to '09 with four Cup wins, two other SCF appearances, and a WCF loss to another "dynastic" team in the Avs.

Colorado had two Cup wins plus four WCF losses, three of which could be argued as the "real SCF".

New Jersey had three Cup wins in nine years.

Pittsburgh won three Cups, and added another SCF over ten seasons. (Their loss to the Caps could be argued as the "real SCF" but isn't as strong as some of the others.)

Chicago won three Cups in six seasons plus a WCF loss to LA in what could be argued as the "real SCF"

LA won two in three years which also a includes a loss to the Hawks in what could be argued as the "real SCF"

Tampa Bay had a Detroit-like run from '15 to '22 with two Cups, two other SCFs, and two ECF losses to the eventual Cup winners.

That's seven teams over a course of 45 years.

Are any of these teams any less "dynastic" then a few of the O6 era dynasties?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom