How would you compare this years team with the 01-02 Islanders? | Page 2 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

How would you compare this years team with the 01-02 Islanders?

MatthewBarnabysTears said:
Yashin was close to a PPG. He gave this team his all, and lost the bulk of a couple of good seasons due to nasty injuries. It's not fair to blame him for the ridiculous, unprecedented 10 year contract.
Click to expand...

Not gonna turn this into a Yashin debate, but hitching the franchise to this guy was a recipe for disaster. The amount of points he scored is immaterial, IMO.
 
I remember that summer in 01 and how thrilled I was with the improvments of the roster, but looking at it now it doesn't seem that good. Today's lineup clearly is younger and looks better going forward.
 
That 01-02 team came out on fire, and basically played at a mediocre pace for the next three years. I think at the time of the playoffs the 01-02 was better as a whole vs our current team, but this year's team has a much greater upside. That's what makes what they're doing now so exciting. With the 01-02 team we knew what we had, and what the ceiling was - this team, who knows?

Based on potential, I don't know who would not prefer the roster we have NOW to what we had THEN.

Here's an interesting thought - what was the payroll for that team vs this team?
 
The defense was more solid all the way around.

Jonsson and Aucoin are better than all of our D currently.



A lot of those guys were supposed to be a lot better than what they ended up being, but we just don't know what these guys will do yet.

Experience is really important, but I agree with whoever said that if this team played by the old rules they'd get beat and I believe if that team played in this system they might be pretty close to this team currently.

I'd love to see Blake and Grabner go on breakaways like crazy.
 
Bert Marshall days said:
I was 20 pounds thinner and had more hair in 2001-02.

This year's team is younger, rawer, less polished and less experienced. Big difference.
Click to expand...

LMAO Since you mentioned it I was in college and weighed 225, had spikey guido hair, chain smoked marlboros and was dating the worst mistake of my life.

Today I am 200 lbs, smoke free, better hair and happily married.

I am going with the 2012-2013 Islanders on Principal alone
 
MatthewBarnabysTears said:
I think the key difference is that the current roster relies on several of its key players (particularly the second line) playing the best hockey of their career. With the '02 roster, you knew exactly what you were getting with Jonsson, Hamrlik, Osgood, Yashin, Peca, and Parrish, and the roster was deep enough to absorb disappointing years from Kvasha and Czerkawski. (As far as I recall, Adrian Aucoin's terrific year was something of a surprise.)

The great what-if about that '02 team is the number of veterans who emerged later on. If Scatchard and Blake had broken out as consisten goal-scoring threats a year earlier than they did, that team would have been elite.
Click to expand...

Peca, Isbister, Parrish, Bates all had a career year that season. That's 4 out of the top 6 scorers that year.

I think that team was probably a little better defensively, but this team has more depth up front. Going player by player....

Nabokov = Osgood (remarkable luck by the Isles picking goalies off of waivers)

First line:
JT > Yashin
Moulson = Parrish
Boyes < Czerkawski
All in all I give the edge to this team, the difference between JT and Yashin is bigger than the difference between Boyes and Czerkawski

Second line:
Nielsen < Peca
Bailey > Kvasha
Okposo > Bates
This is where the current team pulls ahead. Peca was better than Nielsen because of the physical play, but the way Bailey and Okposo are playing is so far ahead of Kvasha and Bates it is ridiculous.

Third line:
Aucoin < Scatchard
Grabner > Blake
McDonald <= Isbister
Blake had yet to break out, and was mostly a pest at that point. He didn't provide anything near what Grabner does. Was there ever a more frustrating player than Isbister? Part of me is still waiting for this kid to break out.

Fourth line:
Cizikas > Lapointe
Martin > Webb
Joenssu < Miller
Webb was a fan favorite, but not a good hockey player. Martin can score and kills penalties in addition to leading the league in hits.

Top Pair:
Jonsson > Hamonic
Aucoin > MacDonald

Second Pair:
Hamrlik = Visnovsky
Tarnstrom = Hickey
Tarnstrom would score more, but he was a mess in his own zone.

Third Pair:
Streit > Cairns
Strait/Martinek > Van Impe/Mezei/Kiprusoff/whoever else
Cairns was basically a pylon at that point. The third pair was a complete mess...Aucoin AVERAGED nearly 29 minutes a night, Hamrlik and Jonsson both played over 25. The team had no confidence in anyone else.



This team has better forwards and better depth. That team had a better top-3 defensemen, but really needed more behind them. I would take this team, and hope that Bailey/Okposo don't go the way of Bates/Isbister.
 
Wedregast said:
I'd have to disagree. Besides Peca, Scatchard, Cairns, Webb, and Cummins there was no other toughness on the 01-02 team. On this years team you have Martin, Carkner, Hamonic, Cizikas, Ullstrom, or Boulton. As far as team toughness is concerned, I think it's close, I'd even give the edge to this years team over the 01-02 team.
Click to expand...

since when is david ullstrom a tough guy? am I missing something?
 
kasper11 said:
I would take this team, and hope that Bailey/Okposo don't go the way of Bates/Isbister.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post, as you can tell by my post last night. I'd say that Cizikas may equal Lapointe now, but has much more potential in the future.

I hope along with you about Bailey/Okposo. They're coming into their own now and this confidence should propel them further in the next few years. Two top 10 picks (though Bailey was plucked a bit early - maybe we're seeing the reason now) compared to 3rd and 4th rounders in Isbister/Bates. Bates had injury woes and Isbister just faded away fast. He, along with Kvasha, never used their size to their advantage.
 
I think at the end of the playoffs we're going to be saying the same thing we said after the Leafs series.
"we're not tough enough." hopefully they just won't bring in the contemporary version of Jason Wiemer & call it a day though.
 
The 2002 was a better team-no question. The defense was much better (Jonsson/Hamrlik/Aucoin at the time was a very good D-core). We were more experienced, and Peca was a great captain...what a shame that MM/co chose "Yashin's side of the lockerroom".

This team has potential-but in the end unless they get a favorable matchup-they're just not experienced enough.
 
MattMartin said:
Advantage

Coach : Laviolette VS Capuano, Advantage-Lavy

I will try to compare player to player instead of line vs line.

Forwards:

Yashin VS JT. They are similar in terms of scoring talent but JT is a [much better all around player Advantage-JT
This should be a huge edge towards Taveres, his desire alone makes him a player you much prefer going to war with over Yashin.
Peca Vs Nielsen. Very good 2 way players but scoring and intangibles go to Peca Advantage-Peca
Don't forget physical play. This is a big edge towards Peca.
Scatchard VS McDonald. Scatchard was a little tougher but these players are equals Advantage-None
Scatchard wins this one. Better goal scorer, better hitter, and excellent in the faceoff dot. A better comparison would've been Scatch to Cizikas, IMO. But though I like McDonald, Scatch was largely considered a near ideal third line center at this time.
Webb VS Martin. Both players loved to hit but Martin is a better fighter and has better hands. Advantage-MM
This is an easy one, and I agree, Martin is way better than Webb.
Czerkawski VS Boyes. Both players were a product of their centers. Neither played a good 2 way game and are eerily similar in many other ways. Advantage-None
Chow wasn't really the product of his center, his points actually dipped significantly when Yashin came on board. Chow was the kind of guy that needed to be the primary offensive weapon to be effective (the caveat being that he wasn't good enough to be a true primary offensive weapon), but when someone else took the reigns, he disappeared. I would actually give Boyes the edge here, as he is better at putting up points without needing the puck on his stick all the time. I will say, only a slight edge, as they both are junk players.
Parrish VS Moulson. Nobody was better at standing in front of the net and deflecting pucks in then Parrish. The guy was unreal and very difficult to move when he parked his caboose in front of the crease. Moulson is similar but.. Advantage-Parrish
Personally, I'd give Moulson the edge here. True, Parrish was better at the deflections, but overall, I feel Moulson has more tricks in his bag, and can score in more situations than Parrish could, which makes him more dangerous overall. Their weaknesses though, are highly comparable
Isbister VS Joensuu. Both are big fellas and neither were very mobile. Isbister had tons of potential but never reached it in my eyes. JJ (in the short time I have seen him) I think is tougher. Advantage-None
This is kind of a weird comparison. Howeer, Isbister had much better wheels that Joensuu. Isbister's problem was never the athletic aspects, he just had no head and no hands. Joensuu has a better head for the game and better hands, but overall, I'd still give Izzy the edge here.
Kvasha VS Okposo. Both have had their not so good moments but Kvasha was as soft as it gets. I hate to compare KO to him but I also think he could be a little bit tougher. Okposo has been a beast for a month or so and if he continues this 1 won't even be close Advantage-KO
IMO, Okposo would've been a more logical comparison to Izzy, as at this time, Kvasha was still a third liner. But if we're going to make this comparison, Kvasha couldn't enter the zone or forecheck like Okposo, nor work the boards, and their passing and goal scoring were comparable when Kvasha showed up (but that was rare). Kvasha was bigger and stronger, but that was the only edge he had. Okposo by a huge margin.
Bates VS Grabner. Both excellent on the PK and both chipped in with goals. These are very similar players with the brains going to Bates but the speed going to Grabs. Advantage-None
Bates was better on the cycle and faceoffs (though he rarely took themo0, but that was really the only thing Bates was better than Grabner at. Grabner's wheels and the way he forces defenses to play around him at all times, should give him the edge over Bates, IMO.
Blake VS Bailey. Both can score and both play on the PK. Blake had the speed and was very "pesky" but Bailey is bigger and tougher. Also Blake was not the scorer back then(82 games 8-10-18 minus 13) Advantage-Bailey
IMO, Blake would've been a more logical Grabner comparison, and Bailey should've been Bates' opposite. That said, Bailey's understanding of the little things, which Blake never really grasped, should be enough for Bailey to get the edge. Also keep in mind, Blake had hands of stone at this point in his career, and couldn't buy a goal. He also was complete fail at using his linemates (which would remain a sticking point on him throughout his career). Given where Blake was, and where Bailey is, this should be an easy win for Bailey.
Lapointe VS Cizikas. Not much to compare here. Lapointe has the experience and was a superb PK'er. Casey brings grit and intangibles. Tight one but..Advantage CC
Lapointe also had better wheels. But in the end, I agree and prefer Casey.
K. Miller VS Aucoin. Not much here. Advantage-None
Agreed. Both were career AHLers who had talent that was not quite big league talent, but did bring a much needed handedness to the team which were useful.
Hunter/Cummins VS Lee/Reasoner/Ullstrom/Boulton
Advantage - To early to comment.
Concur, and these are so far down the depth chart that it doesn't matter
Defense:

This I must do by pairings

Jonsson/Aucoin VS Hamonic/Mcdonald KJ and AA were excellent that season where as Hammer/AMAC have struggled at times. Kenny and Aucoin were also really good on the PP as where Hammer/AMAC are 3/4 on the PP Advantage - KJ/AA
Huge edge to Jonsson/Aucoin here. In a lot of ways, these two pairings are very comparable, but Amac and Hamonic are not at that level.

Tarnstrom/Hamrlik VS Vishnovsky/Hickey The other Hammer was not very mobile and was more of a "PP" guy who was not great on the D side. Tarnstrom was small and neither were physical. VIS and Hickey are very similar to these 2 with the only difference being Hammer was a little bigger then VIS but I think VIS is quicker and has better vision. Advantage - NONE

I think you are underselling Hamrlik here. He was very strong defensively, and basically was the kind of guy that could singlehandedly hold down a second pairing. Also, this was before Harmrlik's knees were shot, so his mobility was still very good. Tarnstrom was garbage, but I still almost want to give the '02 team the edge here based on Hamrlik alone. But given the weakness of Tarnstrom, this probably is a wash like you say.

Van Impe/Cairns VS Streit/Strait This one is not even close. Cairns/Van Impe have the physical presence but that's about it. Streit is a PP QB and not great defensively but he is way more mobile then those 2 and can join the rush and score. Strait is not much of a scorer but plays a very smart game. Advantage - SS
I don't think this is as easy as you paint it. While obviously Cairns/Van Impe have no offensive talent, they were a million times tougher than Strait/Streit, and in those days, that counted for a lot. They were way better at keeping the crease clear, if nothing else. I'd probably give the Strait/Streit paring the edge, but it is close.

Schultz/Korolev VS Martinek/Carkner. It ain't even close. Advantage - MC
AINEC

Goal:
Osgood VS Nabokov Very similar in terms of guys who have experience,smarts, and good positioning. Advantage - None
I agree that this is a wash. Both were very streaky, but though I think Ozzy at the top of his game is better than Nabby at the top of his, when Nabby is off his game, he's not nearly as bad as Ozzy was when he was off of his.
Snow VS Poulin 1 guy was at the end of his career and the other is maybe at the start. Experience wins this 1. Advantage - SnowExperience and savvy count, I agree with your analysis.
Click to expand...

Quality anaylsis, but I had several quibbles with it, which I have placed in red.:)

In the end, I'd take the '02 defense, and the current forwards, and goaltending is more or less a wash.
 
Last edited:
Seph said:
Quality anaylsis, but I had several quibbles with it, which I have placed in red.:)

In the end, I'd take the '02 defense, and the current forwards, and goaltending is more or less a wash.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was far from perfect but I tried. You remember me Seph..AKA CosmoKramer,Chris Campoli. Last time we were in the playoffs I introduced the music to the GDT (Gonna fly now Sampson VS Golaith).


Ah the good old times!
 
The 01-02 team obviously had more experience. In my opinion there was also more depth. This team is younger and exceeding expectations which is always exciting. The 02 team was in many ways was built like a mediocre team and played like it. Ultimately they’ll be judged on results. Win a round and no question it will be considered the best Islander team in 20 years.
 
Osgood vs nabby is not a wash. Two different eras of hockey. They both have similar numbers this season yes, but only one goalie that year had a GAA under 2. This year we have 4. Goalies have improved a little, so for that time Osgood was a better goalie amongst his contemporaries then nabby is amongst his.

Yashin Peca KJ AA Hamrlik Osgood. Chow Parrish and Bates.

JT>Yashin
Peca > Franz by a long shot (all around game+leadership)
KJ AA Hamrlik better than current D.
KO Bailey Boyes moulson better than chow parrish bates kvasha.
Osgood slight edge over Nabby.

I think 01-02 has an edge over this years squad. We are more built for the future, they were built for the short term. If Peca and Jonsson dont get injured that Toronto series we would have gotten by them. That is like Mark Streit and idk Moulson going down.
 
The 01-02 team, like all Milbury's Isles' teams, wasn't very good in transition and in moving the puck up ice. Comparing individual players/lines/pairings misses this important variable. The centers were not playmakers. The wingers were for the most part forecheckers/shooters. Even the offensive d-men in 01-02 were not as good as the current crop in transition (almost every one of the current d-men are good with the puck).

The Red Wings like players who can play with the puck. Milbury didn't seem to think that was important. Milbury would put together a basketball team with no point guard.
 
doublechili said:
The 01-02 team, like all Milbury's Isles' teams, wasn't very good in transition and in moving the puck up ice. Comparing individual players/lines/pairings misses this important variable. The centers were not playmakers. The wingers were for the most part forecheckers/shooters. Even the offensive d-men in 01-02 were not as good as the current crop in transition (almost every one of the current d-men are good with the puck).

The Red Wings like players who can play with the puck. Milbury didn't seem to think that was important. Milbury would put together a basketball team with no point guard.
Click to expand...

Unless he could get a point guard named Oleg Kvasha.
 
Doshell Propivo said:
Unless he could get a point guard named Oleg Kvasha.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

Oleg was the poster child for not being good with the puck. Except for his once a year power move skating down the off wing and cutting in to the net. Oleg must've pulled that move off the one night MM watched him in FLA and that led to Luongo being dealt, DP drafted, etc.. Damn that power move.
 
MattMartin said:
Yeah, it was far from perfect but I tried. You remember me Seph..AKA CosmoKramer,Chris Campoli. Last time we were in the playoffs I introduced the music to the GDT (Gonna fly now Sampson VS Golaith).


Ah the good old times!
Click to expand...

Yep, I do remember you, you've been around almost as long as I have. ****, I'm old :laugh:

Hope I didn't come off like I was badmouthing your post, I really meant it was a quality analysis. I just had some different opinions that I wanted to add to it.
 
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