The best teams from the live puck and dead puck era

[Michael Varnakov]

I am sure most people would agree that the best team of the live puck era were the Edmonton Oliers of the 1980's, and the best team from the dead puck era were the New Jersey Devils from 1995 to 2003.

The question is, who would most likely prevail in more Stanley cup finals in hypothetical matchups?

Would the Oliers average 6 goals per game, thus forceing the Devils to abandon the neutral zone trap, or would the Devils simply shut down the Oilers?

My guess is even if the nuetral zone trap was effective throughout most of the games, it would still be hard to keep players like Gretzky, Kurri, or Coffey from converting game winning goals in the clutch.

Advantage Oliers.

Click to read more...

 

[Brodeur]

The turn the millennium Devils were better offensively than most would remember.

1999-00: 248 GF (2nd in the league), 20.1% PP (3rd in the league)
2000-01: 295 GF (1st in the league), 22.9% PP (1st in the league)

New Jersey was still a bit Jekyll and Hyde in the playoffs, so it's tough to make a definitive statement. Goaltending during the Oilers heyday had advanced quite a bit by the mid-late 90's, so I'm not sure the six goals would have held.

The Devils had so much roster turnover among the forwards between each of the three Cups, so it's tough to lump them all together. I'm sure some of the Colorado and Detroit squads could claim to be the best of that era.

 

[JackSlater]

I am sure most people would agree that... the best team from the dead puck era were the New Jersey Devils from 1995 to 2003.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Am I crazy or are the Red Wings the clear best team from the time period? 3 Cups and 2 additional conference final appearances. Most president's trophies.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

I don't think the Oilers of the 80s were a better team than the Islanders dynasty (1980-84).

Detroit over NJD because the Red Wings were a Cup contender every season and New Jersey wasn't that consistent.

I think it should be NYI vs DRW.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Am I crazy or are the Red Wings the clear best team from the time period? 3 Cups and 2 additional conference final appearances. Most president's trophies.

No, you're not crazy. From 1998-04:

Detroit 331-155-72-16 (.653)
Dallas 314-159-82-19 (.635)
New Jersey 318-163-73-20 (.635)
Colorado 304-167-82-21 (.619)
<then a big gap down to the next tier>

Detroit was good for 3 more points on an 82-game schedule than any other team during this timeframe, which is a rather long timeframe to be that much better than the field.

Playoff records:

Detroit 51-35 (.593) --> 2 Stanley Cups, 11 total rounds won
Colorado 61-44 (.581) --> 1 Stanley Cup, 11 total rounds won
New Jersey 55-41 (.573) --> 2 Stanley Cups, 11 total rounds won
Dallas 51-39 (.567) --> 1 Stanley cup, 11 total rounds won

If we back the timeframe up to include 1995-97 (which were not really Dead Puck seasons) then I'm pretty sure these numbers lean even more heavily toward Detroit as it would include a Finals, Conference Finals, and additional Cup run in addition to their all-time powerhouse '95 and '96 regular seasons.

Detroit was definitely the best team of the era.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

I second the notion that the Red Wings were the best team of the dead puck era. The Devils are perhaps more intrinsically associated with the DPE (somewhat unfairly, sometimes, as pointed out by @Brodeur: I think the Devils’ relative lack of offensive superstar names overshadow their actual firepower), due to their infamous deployment of the neutral zone trap, but with the Red Wings matching the success of the Devils in the tougher conference, it’s not at all clear cut that the Devils were the best team of the era.

With that being said, I think this is still a good question. It’s different from the regular “would a team of these superstars beat a team of these other ones”, where we’re likely to focus on the relative strength of individual game changers weighted against each other.

Yes, on paper I prefer Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffey, Anderson, Lowe and Fuhr over Stevens, Niedermayer, Elias, C. Lemieux, Arnott, Gomez and Brodeur — by a mile — but I think the Devils’ system would annihilate the dynasty Oilers, quite frankly, unless the latter adapted and committed very methodically and thoroughly to counter the Devils’ trap.

It’s not because the rigor systems were ineffective against great players, or that DPE superstars were relatively garbage scorers that something like (I don’t remember the exact number I read) 90 percent of NHL teams played some variant of the neutral zone trap by 2002: the freewheeling days of hockey were dead and gone.

 

[Brodeur]

Perhaps the OP just wanted two teams with two (perceived) contrasting styles of play? At least for the Devils, our optimal team was our 2000 Cup winner. Some of our other squads couldn't even get out of the first round, so it seems a stretch to think they'd match up well against the peak 80's Oilers. If only for the excuse for me to post that roster:

Elias-Arnott-Sykora (favorite line, probably could have put up more points if the team didn't roll four lines)
Brylin-Gomez-Mogilny (Mogilny took a little time to click with Gomez)
Pandolfo-Holik-Lemieux (Holik was maligned for his contract, but was an effective brute)
Nemchinov-Madden-McKay (secondary shutdown line, Madden won Selke in 2001)

Stevens-Rafalski (Rafalski was such a blessing as an undrafted free agent pickup)
Daneyko-Niedermayer (Niedermayer's numbers went down as a result of Rafalski bumping him off the top PP unit, but he was still effective)
White-Malakhov (Malakhov had All-Star ability, but only seemed to show it when he cared which thankfully he did in the spring of 2000)

Brodeur-Terreri (the trap worked that much better with Brodeur being able to diffuse the dump and chase)

The 80's Oilers were before my time, so I don't know how reliant on special teams they were. One aspect about the Devils was that they typically were at the bottom for being penalized while also drawing the fewest penalties. So most of those games were played at even strength (hopefully the below info makes sense):

1997-98 Devils: 333 power play opps (26/26), 309 times shorthanded (24/26)
1998-99 Devils: 304 power play opps (25/27), 325 times shorthanded (22/27)
1999-00 Devils: 274 power play opps (28/28), 313 times shorthanded (18/28)
2000-01 Devils: 310 power play opps (30/30), 320 times shorthanded (29/30)
2001-02 Devils: 261 power play opps (30/30), 265 times shorthanded (30/30)
2002-03 Devils: 303 power play opps (30/30), 264 times shorthanded (30/30)

 

[Staniowski]

The Oilers were a very powerful team when at their best. They adapted and improved their game through the '80s. They learned from their defeats to the Islanders in '83 (who played a very strong defensive game for that era; the players gave each other very good support on the ice) and to the Flames in '86 (who played a trap-type defense).

The '95 Devils shocked everybody they played in the playoffs....it was the play of their forwards that led that team. They gave up very few scoring chances.

The '95 playoff Devils would've beaten almost any version of the '80s Oilers. Perhaps any version.

But teams can react to good defense, and can adapt their own games. The Oilers could skate like hell, and that would've been a big plus for them.

After an initial defeat, the Oilers could come back....but they would need to play defense.....very strong defense, late '90s defense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Perhaps the OP just wanted two teams with two (perceived) contrasting styles of play? At least for the Devils, our optimal team was our 2000 Cup winner. Some of our other squads couldn't even get out of the first round, so it seems a stretch to think they'd match up well against the peak 80's Oilers. If only for the excuse for me to post that roster:

Elias-Arnott-Sykora (favorite line, probably could have put up more points if the team didn't roll four lines)
Brylin-Gomez-Mogilny (Mogilny took a little time to click with Gomez)
Pandolfo-Holik-Lemieux (Holik was maligned for his contract, but was an effective brute)
Nemchinov-Madden-McKay (secondary shutdown line, Madden won Selke in 2001)

Stevens-Rafalski (Rafalski was such a blessing as an undrafted free agent pickup)
Daneyko-Niedermayer (Niedermayer's numbers went down as a result of Rafalski bumping him off the top PP unit, but he was still effective)
White-Malakhov (Malakhov had All-Star ability, but only seemed to show it when he cared which thankfully he did in the spring of 2000)

Brodeur-Terreri (the trap worked that much better with Brodeur being able to diffuse the dump and chase)

The 80's Oilers were before my time, so I don't know how reliant on special teams they were. One aspect about the Devils was that they typically were at the bottom for being penalized while also drawing the fewest penalties. So most of those games were played at even strength (hopefully the below info makes sense):

1997-98 Devils: 333 power play opps (26/26), 309 times shorthanded (24/26)
1998-99 Devils: 304 power play opps (25/27), 325 times shorthanded (22/27)
1999-00 Devils: 274 power play opps (28/28), 313 times shorthanded (18/28)
2000-01 Devils: 310 power play opps (30/30), 320 times shorthanded (29/30)
2001-02 Devils: 261 power play opps (30/30), 265 times shorthanded (30/30)
2002-03 Devils: 303 power play opps (30/30), 264 times shorthanded (30/30)

I remember the bottom 6 of the team being:

Nemchinov - Holik - McKay
Pandolfo - Madden - Lemieux

With Lemieux occasionally double shifted to LW on the Holik line.

Am I remember wrong? Weren't Holik and McKay attached at the hip in this time period?

 

[Brodeur]

I remember the bottom 6 of the team being:

Nemchinov - Holik - McKay
Pandolfo - Madden - Lemieux

With Lemieux occasionally double shifted to LW on the Holik line.

Am I remember wrong? Weren't Holik and McKay attached at the hip in this time period?

Yeah Holik and McKay were usually paired up but for whatever reason McKay was running cold that playoff run (Hockey Reference had him at 11:39 a game which was lowest among the forwards). From what I remember, the 2nd-4th lines got jumbled up after losses in the Toronto/Philly series.



Nemchinov-Holik-Lemieux in round 2



Random Pandolfo-Brule-Lemieux combo here. Brule's one game that playoff in for John Madden. Looks like Brylin-Holik-McKay take the faceoff after the goal.



Brylin-Holik-McKay in Game 4 against Philly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM74G__upcg

Pandolfo-Holik-Lemieux in game 5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ct1wBqgdi8

Claude's biggest goal of that playoff with Pandolfo-Holik in game 6.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXyPh-FpdVw

Pandolfo-Holik-Lemieux in game 5 against Dallas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndt93pRxq5w

Nemchinov-Holik-Lemieux on the ice for Modano's overtime winner. Maybe a shortened bench in 3OT.

 

[Pominville Knows]

How would a referee from the eighties treat DPE obstruction stuff?

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Scott Gomez told a ton of great, entertaining Claude Lemieux stories on Spittin’ Chiclets, really a recommended listen. However, he made it sound as if he was playing on Pepe’s line that rookie season. Was that just briefly, and very early on?

 

[Supreme King]

The Oilers were a very powerful team when at their best. They adapted and improved their game through the '80s. They learned from their defeats to the Islanders in '83 (who played a very strong defensive game for that era; the players gave each other very good support on the ice) and to the Flames in '86 (who played a trap-type defense).

The '95 Devils shocked everybody they played in the playoffs....it was the play of their forwards that led that team. They gave up very few scoring chances.

The '95 playoff Devils would've beaten almost any version of the '80s Oilers. Perhaps any version.

But teams can react to good defense, and can adapt their own games. The Oilers could skate like hell, and that would've been a big plus for them.

After an initial defeat, the Oilers could come back....but they would need to play defense.....very strong defense, late '90s defense.

the 1988 Edmonton Oilers would have CRUSHED the '95 Devils. Not a fair fight!

 

[Brodeur]

Scott Gomez told a ton of great, entertaining Claude Lemieux stories on Spittin’ Chiclets, really a recommended listen. However, he made it sound as if he was playing on Pepe’s line that rookie season. Was that just briefly, and very early on?

Gomez's episode was great, I loved the story about the team messing with Pandolfo who was about to hook up with a model during a road trip in Nashville. Before the Mogilny trade, I think the lines were something like:

Elias-Arnott-Sykora
Gomez-Morrison-Lemieux
Nemchinov-Holik-McKay
Pandolfo-Madden-Oliwa/Brylin/Pederson

Looks like there was a stretch in the middle of the season where it was Nemchinov-Gomez-Lemieux. Elias/Morrison held out to begin the season and I think Gomez started on LW with the Arnott-Sykora line. When Mogilny first arrived, this article said they tried him at LW with Gomez-Lemieux: MOGILNY IS EYEING ULTIMATE GOAL

Interesting bit from the article, I wonder what Detroit would have been dangling:

The Devils acquired Mogilny from Vancouver at the trade deadline, barely acing out the Red Wings, who sought to reunite No. 89 with his junior center, Sergei Fedorov.

This article says it was Nemchinov-Gomez-Mogilny to start which I think got some traction early in the playoffs: ESPN.com - NHL - Mogilny jumps right into lineup

I think Mogilny was more comfortable on his off wing so they eventually moved him back for the playoffs. The 2nd PP unit was consistently Lemieux-Gomez-Mogilny-Niedermayer-Malakhov post-deadline from what I remember.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

The Islanders with Goring, Potvin, Bossy and Co would stand a better chance than the Oilers against the 2000 New Jersey which was an ultimate playoff team by design.

 

[Minar]

Didn't Gretzky and Messier knock that new jersey devils team out of the playoffs in 1997? Yes they did! And the 97 rangers weren't as good as the 80s oilers so.....

 

[Brodeur]

Didn't Gretzky and Messier knock that new jersey devils team out of the playoffs in 1997? Yes they did! And the 97 rangers weren't as good as the 80s oilers so.....

Like I said before, it depends on which version of the Devils squad you're asking about. It's a little unfair to think that the Devils forwards were interchangeable. The 1997 team was veteran heavy while the 2000 team was much younger.

Approximate 1997 Devils lines:

Andreychuk-Gilmour-Thomas
Zelepukin-Holik-MacLean
Rolston-Pederson-Guerin
Pandolfo-Carpenter-McKay
------------------------------------
Elias-Zezel-Sykora
Simpson

It's kinda crazy to see that only five of the sixteen 1997 playoff forwards were on the 2000 Cup team and Elias/Sykora spent most of the season in the AHL. Elias might not have played in the playoffs had Andreychuk not been injured late in the regular season.

Even the defense had a large amount of turnover from 1997 to 2000:

Stevens-Chambers
Daneyko-Niedermayer
Ellett-Odelein

The 1995 CBA ushered in unrestricted free agency for the first time, so there was more roster turnover than in the early 80's. Restricted free agency wasn't in place until the 1988 CBA either.

 

[gary69]

The turn the millennium Devils were better offensively than most would remember.

1999-00: 248 GF (2nd in the league), 20.1% PP (3rd in the league)
2000-01: 295 GF (1st in the league), 22.9% PP (1st in the league)

New Jersey was still a bit Jekyll and Hyde in the playoffs, so it's tough to make a definitive statement. Goaltending during the Oilers heyday had advanced quite a bit by the mid-late 90's, so I'm not sure the six goals would have held.

The Devils had so much roster turnover among the forwards between each of the three Cups, so it's tough to lump them all together. I'm sure some of the Colorado and Detroit squads could claim to be the best of that era.

Devils were certainly at their best after Larry Robinson took over, and they weren't awful to watch for neutrals either compared to mid-90's teams.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

How would a referee from the eighties treat DPE obstruction stuff?

Ive wondered this too.

There are some pretty blatant examples of obstruction pre-DPE, but theyre not as systematic as that. I vaguely remember seeing a 80s Isles game where I think Gillies or Tonelli or somebody is briefly physically holding back two attackers and the announcers comment on it like its normal.

But overall I think it comes down to officials/the league/teams all losing their minds 1995-2004 and declaring the rulebook not to mean what it directly says

The 80s ref will let it go for a while, but eventually has to call something on the 3d or 4th zone entry where the D go waterskiing

The DPE ref basically calls nothing obstruction wise

And post-2006, trying to use blatant obstruction will have you out of the game by the end of the first period

 

[VanIslander]

Dead Puck?

Not around Hasek.
Not on Palffy's stick.
Nor touched by Forsberg, Kariya, Selanne ...

But yeah, the rules did allow big, slow dmen, clutch and grabbing, and big and slow fowards to not be left behind.

After the last lockout the game changed so suddenly i was at first put off. Now i like it. Dmen got smaller but faster, the puck moved quicker... but... i'm not sure why but... passing went down and individual rushes and dekes became more common, one timers, breakaways, one on one's... today is not the golden age of the pass, so i cherish every good one now...

 

[MadLuke]

Dead Puck?

Not around Hasek.

How does that make sense, are you saying the Sabres did not take part in any of the play strategy that can be reasonably talked about the dead puck era ?

 

[VanIslander]

Yes yes yes.

Buffalo played an exciting two-man forecheck that created a lot of odd-man rushes against, and that is exactly what Hasek wanted and said he needed: a lot of shots, and earlier the better.

(I was in my late 20s in grad school in Toronto and always have loathed the Leafs so watching nearby Sabres games was my best option.)

The announcers used to say at the end of the 1st period: Dom faced 15+ shots already, he's ready to go. Or.. oh oh, only 5 shots faced, Buffalo may be in trouble.

Believe it or not, the more shots he faced, the better he played. He bacame dialed in. (My interpretation: A bored unexcited Hasek lost games.)

He was one of a kind and his #1 dman did exactly what he wanted: Zhitnik rushed, pinched and when he backchecked he didn't play positionally, he took out the shooter or the passing option.

Hasek would have killed D. Hatcher and his ilk.

Buffalo bucked the era trend. It was risky. It almost won them the cup. It was fun!

 

[MadLuke]

Hasek would have killed D. Hatcher and his ilk.

That a bit of a strange thing to say, almost talking has if Hasek did not play in that very era and against the D.Hatcher and his ilk..:

 

[VanIslander]

In the context of my post: he would have been upset to have a big lumbering giant TEAMMATE DEFENSEMAN getting between him and the shot, accidentally screening, deflecting shots.