How did the FLA Panthers make the 1996 SCF?

[vezna*]

looking at that roster makes me wonder

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0002341996.html

 

[tarheelhockey]

One of the early teams to commit to the grinding, trapping style of the later 1990s. Excellent team defense, scoring spread evenly through the lineup, and a red-hot streak from John Vanbiesbrouck.

They actually weren't all that different from the 2011 Bruins, now that I think of it.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Clutching and grabbing. Robbed the hockey world of what could have been the most entertaining final ever: Colorado vs. Pittsburgh.

 

[Ishdul]

One of the early teams to commit to the grinding, trapping style of the later 1990s. Excellent team defense, scoring spread evenly through the lineup, and a red-hot streak from John Vanbiesbrouck.

They actually weren't all that different from the 2011 Bruins, now that I think of it.

If you mean play style, I agree, but the Bruins are superior at every facet of the game.

Also, while they were certainly underdogs, they were a 92 point team who was 4th in the conference and 8th in the NHL, with the East being quite a bit better than the West that year. They had a ton of career years.

 

[Big Phil]

One of the early teams to commit to the grinding, trapping style of the later 1990s. Excellent team defense, scoring spread evenly through the lineup, and a red-hot streak from John Vanbiesbrouck.

They actually weren't all that different from the 2011 Bruins, now that I think of it.

Much, much worse than the 2011 Bruins. Granted the Bruins weren't a team considered to be among the top Stanley Cup threats, but they were a team with far more talent than Florida 1996.

Thomas was better than Beezer hands down.
Chara was by far a better defenseman than anyone Florida had.
The second best defenseman was Kaberle which was equal to a rookie in Jovanovski

The forwards favour Boston. Far more depth, 4 lines spread out that did all things well. Florida didn't have that at all. This was a team that thrived on the style that was wildly popular at the time. The 1995 Devils did it. The 1998 Czech Olympic team did it. There were lots of teams back then that sat back and waited, waited, waited, waited...................scoring chance? Nope, dump it in at center ice. Wait, wait, wait, get a power play score a goal. Wait for a brain freeze from the opposing team. You get outshot by a 2-1 margin? Hope that your goalie is red hot at the moment. Come to think of it the Minnesota Wild have ONLY played that style that I have seen. 2003 was another bad time to witness this.

 

[Reds4Life]

Much, much worse than the 2011 Bruins. Granted the Bruins weren't a team considered to be among the top Stanley Cup threats, but they were a team with far more talent than Florida 1996.

Thomas was better than Beezer hands down.
Chara was by far a better defenseman than anyone Florida had.
The second best defenseman was Kaberle which was equal to a rookie in Jovanovski

The forwards favour Boston. Far more depth, 4 lines spread out that did all things well. Florida didn't have that at all. This was a team that thrived on the style that was wildly popular at the time. The 1995 Devils did it. The 1998 Czech Olympic team did it. There were lots of teams back then that sat back and waited, waited, waited, waited...................scoring chance? Nope, dump it in at center ice. Wait, wait, wait, get a power play score a goal. Wait for a brain freeze from the opposing team. You get outshot by a 2-1 margin? Hope that your goalie is red hot at the moment. Come to think of it the Minnesota Wild have ONLY played that style that I have seen. 2003 was another bad time to witness this.

I guess you have not seen the games then. Because the Czech team played a creative offensive game, definitely not dump and chase.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Much, much worse than the 2011 Bruins. Granted the Bruins weren't a team considered to be among the top Stanley Cup threats, but they were a team with far more talent than Florida 1996.

Well yeah, I wasn't at all saying they were as good as 2011 Boston. They were a similar kind of team, though.

Thomas was better than Beezer hands down.

I'd say they were about equal, in the sense that they were absolutely on fire.

Chara was by far a better defenseman than anyone Florida had.
The second best defenseman was Kaberle which was equal to a rookie in Jovanovski

Kaberle was nowhere near 1996 Jovanovski. That was back when they were calling him "Jovo cop" and predicting him as a perpetual Norris contender, the next great defensive dman, etc. Granted he was still a rookie when it came to moving the puck, but he was able to match the 1996 version of Eric Lindros in the physical game and that is no small accomplishment.

The forwards favour Boston. Far more depth, 4 lines spread out that did all things well. Florida didn't have that at all.

I agree Boston had better forwards, but not that much better. Boston didn't have much speed outside of the relatively unproductive Seguin and Paille, nor did they have even an above average level of scoring ability, but they got the job done with screens and constant movement around the net. They didn't need an elite scorer because they got results as a committee.

Florida played more or less the same game, with even less skill. Guys like Dave Lowry, Scott Mellanby and Ray Sheppard came up huge in the playoffs. Stu Barnes emerged as one of the better two-way centers in the league, not unlike Bergeron for the Bruins. And they got big contributions from guys who have been forgotten to history... Johan Garpenlov, Robert Svehla, Rob Niedermayer, Jody Hull... guys who weren't that great individually but came together well as a group. See Chris Kelly, Rich Peverley, possibly Brad Marchand.

The big difference aside from skill level, IMO, is that Florida didn't have anybody that quite touched Recchi and Chara in the veteran leadership department.

There were lots of teams back then that sat back and waited, waited, waited, waited...................scoring chance? Nope, dump it in at center ice. Wait, wait, wait, get a power play score a goal. Wait for a brain freeze from the opposing team. You get outshot by a 2-1 margin? Hope that your goalie is red hot at the moment.

That describes a Claude Julien team to a tee.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

They made it to the finals because Eddie Johnston was a horrible coach. That Pittsburgh team is a testament to how far a team can go on talent alone, without proper guidance.

 

[Big Phil]

I guess you have not seen the games then. Because the Czech team played a creative offensive game, definitely not dump and chase.

Despite the time difference in Japan I watched the Olympic games in 1998 all the time. The Czechs weren't a very flashy team by any means. Hasek and Jagr were on that team and I don't think either one of them was the major reason they won. It was team defense. Hey, good for them and all but it was a stifling version of hockey to watch

I'd say they were about equal, in the sense that they were absolutely on fire.

Hard to not put Thomas ahead of Beezer though. Considering one thing, he won the Smythe, the Cup and was still spectacular in the final. Beezer was not very good in the final.

Kaberle was nowhere near 1996 Jovanovski. That was back when they were calling him "Jovo cop" and predicting him as a perpetual Norris contender, the next great defensive dman, etc. Granted he was still a rookie when it came to moving the puck, but he was able to match the 1996 version of Eric Lindros in the physical game and that is no small accomplishment.

I do like what he did to Lindros, however I don't think Jovo played any better in his career than the 1996 playoffs. He peaked then IMO and I have always felt he was incredibly hyped up by the media. I never felt he was as good as they claimed him to be

 

[Oowatanite]

Vanbiesbrooke played great and they played well as a team. I was just a kid at the time and being a Philly fan and all after they lost to the Panthers in the second round I wouldn't talk to my best friend for a month who was a Panthers fan. After beating Philly I got mad and cheered for the Penguins to eliminate the Panthers because they had beaten my Flyers and they ended up winning in 7 games making me even more upset.

 

[Oowatanite]

Clutching and grabbing. Robbed the hockey world of what could have been the most entertaining final ever: Colorado vs. Pittsburgh.

Or Francis getting injured.

 

[HF007]

here's series overview vs the penguins all 7 games are uploaded

 

[begbeee]

I dont like the comparision to Bruins at all.
Jovanovski was on a hot streak, but their best defenseman was Svehla, who was better than most people remember. To be honest team wasnt that bad in goal and defensive zone, but lack of scoring power was terrible.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

This title caught my eye as I din't usually post on this part ever but I recall flicking by TV one day and they were talking about this team and how the fans through RATS on the ice.


There is your answer the RATS

 

[Czech Your Math]

Despite the time difference in Japan I watched the Olympic games in 1998 all the time. The Czechs weren't a very flashy team by any means. Hasek and Jagr were on that team and I don't think either one of them was the major reason they won. It was team defense. Hey, good for them and all but it was a stifling version of hockey to watch

It was definitely a team effort, although I believe without either Hasek or Jagr, the Czechs would not have won it. The Czechs did use a stifling brand of hockey, but the trap is not as easy to execute on the larger ice and with rules being more strictly enforced. It wasn't clutch and grab or throwing big hits, but crisp skating, passing and solid positional hockey (not hitting for show or to injure) that led the Czechs to Gold.

 

[jkrx]

It was definitely a team effort, although I believe without either Hasek or Jagr, the Czechs would not have won it. The Czechs did use a stifling brand of hockey, but the trap is not as easy to execute on the larger ice and with rules being more strictly enforced. It wasn't clutch and grab or throwing big hits, but crisp skating, passing and solid positional hockey (not hitting for show or to injure) that led the Czechs to Gold.

The czechs effectively adopted a more defensive version of the 1-3-1 used by the Swedes decades ago. Both teams are well suited for this system as it's more based on positioning and skating than the canadian trap system.

 

[MetroOpensDoors]

I can see the similarities, between the two, but that's like saying I see the similarities between a Timex and Movado, because they are both watches.

Boston was a more balanced offensive team, that also happened to play lights out defense both 5 on 5 and on the PK. Florida. In the 2011 regular season Boston finished 8th in goals, 3rd in goals against, and 2nd overall in GF/GA +\- with +51 behind Vancouvers +77.

The 1996 Panthers were a middling offensive team, finishing 14th on offense, and a good defensive team finishing 7th. They were the ultimate hot goalie team and timely offense, where as Boston was a more balanced team that peaked at the right time. And yeah, the Bruins won the Cup because Tim Thomas turned in one of the greatest performances in NHL playoff history, but they also scored 81 goals in 25 playoff games for a healthy 3.24 clip.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Jovanovski was on a hot streak,

More than a hot streak, he had a great season. He was one of the Calder "finalists" and there was a decent amount of buzz that he could win it (Alfredsson very narrowly eked out Eric Daze in the final count). Even got a Norris vote, though it might have come from the Panthers voter.

I agree with Big Phil that Jovanovski peaked very early and suffered later for being hyped up to no end as a rookie (Phaneuf comparison). That doesn't take away from how good he was that season, facing off against superstars like Lindros, Lemieux/Jagr and Sakic/Forsberg in the playoffs and coming out looking like a star.

The reason that Florida now seems like such an obscure finalist boils down to two reasons:

1) They were steamrolled in the Finals, so they get relegated to the dustbin of history with the '91 North Stars and '98 Caps rather than elevated to the status of a great finalist. In their defense, I can't think of a team that has won 3 series as difficult as the 1996 Flyers, Pens and Avalanche. Something had to give.

2) The faces of the team like Svehla, Jovanovski, and Mellanby were all very good that season, and declined soon thereafter. Only Vanbiesbrouck is really remembered for his incredible spring, the rest are forgotten and so the team seems faceless from a historical standpoint.

One of the most telling things about that team is if you keep reading past the scoring leaders, you see names like Stu Barnes, Brian Skrudland, Jason Wooley and Dave Lowry who played instrumental supporting roles in Finals runs elsewhere. The Panthers were a playoff-built team in every respect except that they lacked elite scoring, which was temporarily relieved by well-timed hot streaks from non-elite players.

 

[saskganesh]

The next season Florida finished 4th overall in their conference, but lost in the first round. '96 wasn't the fluke it sometimes made out to be.

I saw them play the Canucks in January 97. They were many games above .500 then, and were able to take the 'Nucks (with Bure and Mogilny on the same line!) to a 4-4 tie.

What impressed me about Florida was how disciplined they were. Their breakouts were precise and they skated in tight formations. Big difference from the more free wheeling and talented Canucks.

I'm not sure what happened to that franchise. Injuries happened, so they made some some trades. At the same time they attempted to upgrade their marginal talent, but wound up losing more than marginal chemistry.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Boston was a more balanced offensive team, that also happened to play lights out defense both 5 on 5 and on the PK. Florida. In the 2011 regular season Boston finished 8th in goals, 3rd in goals against, and 2nd overall in GF/GA +\- with +51 behind Vancouvers +77.

The 1996 Panthers were a middling offensive team, finishing 14th on offense, and a good defensive team finishing 7th. They were the ultimate hot goalie team and timely offense, where as Boston was a more balanced team that peaked at the right time. And yeah, the Bruins won the Cup because Tim Thomas turned in one of the greatest performances in NHL playoff history, but they also scored 81 goals in 25 playoff games for a healthy 3.24 clip.

I think history will vindicate the comparison once we get a few years' distance from the most recent Cup run. Again, I completely agree that Boston had a better team than Florida. But if you go through the roster and look at it player-by-player, line-by-line, they were set up in much the same way. Jovanovski was Chara lite. Vanbiesbrouck was at least as good as Thomas until the Finals. Barnes was about as good as Bergeron. Mellanby was Horton lite. Svehla was a better version of Seidenberg. Barnes, Niedermayer, Skrudland and Straka were balanced and reliable down the middle not unlike the Bruins' group of Krejci-Bergeron-Kelly-Campbell. You had character guys like Lowry and Lindsay chipping in dirty goals from the wings, not unlike Lucic and Recchi. There was a modest amount of offensive skill in both sets of wings, but not enough to give opponents a clear target for shadowing. Both teams rolled 4 good lines, were able to put a hurting on high-octane offensive teams, and then beat them with hard work in the offensive zone. The biggest difference being the Bruins were simply more skilled on offense and had veteran leadership at a different level.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

looking at that roster makes me wonder

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0002341996.html

They went into the playoffs on 8-16-4 slide, so there goes any notion that they were hot at the right time.

Personally it came down to two things:

1) Clutch, timely goals
2) Clutch, timely goaltending

I know it sounds cliche, but Beezer basically told them he'd keep the game close enough for them to win, and they both lived up to their end of the bargain through the EC playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess you have not seen the games then. Because the Czech team played a creative offensive game, definitely not dump and chase.

The 1998 Czech team played a smothering defensive style. The dump and chase is an offensive strategy; it has nothing to do with how the team played defense. The 1995 NJ Devils didn't dump and chase much either.

As for the main topic, the Florida Panthers showed that with hard work and a stiffling defensive system, a team that lacked offensive talent could beat teams that had that talent - ushering in the dead puck era that really got started in 1996-97. They weren't all that bad though - Vanbiesbrouck had an all-time great playoff run, and the defensemen were very good, though not great. Svehla and Jovanovski (who looked like a budding superstar) did a number on Eric Lindros.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Clutching and grabbing. Robbed the hockey world of what could have been the most entertaining final ever: Colorado vs. Pittsburgh.

This

 

[jcbio11]

Despite the time difference in Japan I watched the Olympic games in 1998 all the time. The Czechs weren't a very flashy team by any means. Hasek and Jagr were on that team and I don't think either one of them was the major reason they won. It was team defense. Hey, good for them and all but it was a stifling version of hockey to watch



Hard to not put Thomas ahead of Beezer though. Considering one thing, he won the Smythe, the Cup and was still spectacular in the final. Beezer was not very good in the final.



I do like what he did to Lindros, however I don't think Jovo played any better in his career than the 1996 playoffs. He peaked then IMO and I have always felt he was incredibly hyped up by the media. I never felt he was as good as they claimed him to be

Maybe it's not what you're trying to do, but downplaying the Czech's Olympic Gold just kind of makes you look bitter and it will draw ire from the other czech posters. Hope I didn't offend you. Plus you know, when czechs played Canada in the semis, they actually outshot them, none of that you get outshot 2 to 1, dump it in from center ice, no, Canada was the team that got outshot.

And also, is there a rule that you have to play pretty hockey for your accomplishment to "count" or something? You win, you win.

As for how Florida made it - well this was the height of the clutch and grab era and their D was pretty great (the eternally forgotten Robert Svehla, young Jovanovski) and they were allowed to be all over Mario.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

The 1998 Czech team played a smothering defensive style. The dump and chase is an offensive strategy; it has nothing to do with how the team played defense. The 1995 NJ Devils didn't dump and chase much either.

As for the main topic, the Florida Panthers showed that with hard work and a stiffling defensive system, a team that lacked offensive talent could beat teams that had that talent - ushering in the dead puck era that really got started in 1996-97. They weren't all that bad though - Vanbiesbrouck had an all-time great playoff run, and the defensemen were very good, though not great. Svehla and Jovanovski (who looked like a budding superstar) did a number on Eric Lindros.

In the past few years there has been some tendency by teams to emulate the latest cup winner (or at least there has been a big deal made about it in the media). After the Anaheim victory with lots of toughness, or the Wings with their puck possession, or the Pens with their 1-2-3 punch down the middle.

Which makes me believe that the Devils were more influential to the more defensive style of hockey seen for the next decade. Sure the Panthers showed a less talented team could win some upset victories but the Avs that year showed the more talented teams win in the end. How often do GM's try to emulate the loser?