THN's Top 25 Greatest Teams of All-Time | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

THN's Top 25 Greatest Teams of All-Time

amnesiac

amnesiac

Space Oddity
Jul 10, 2010
13,655
8,976
Montreal
Notes: Only one team of a given dynasty are chosen. Every team on the list won the Cup that year.


1. 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens: 60-8-12, 132 pts

2. 1983-84 Edmonton Oilers: 57-18-5, 119 pts

3. 1982-83 New York Islanders: 42-26-12, 96 pts

4. 1955-56 Montreal Canadiens: 45-15-10, 100 pts

5. 1951-52 Detroit Red Wings: 44-14-12, 100 pts

6. 1971-72 Boston Bruins: 54-13-11, 119 pts

7. 1974-75 Phildelphia Flyers: 51-18-11, 113 pts

8. 2001-02 Detroit Red Wings: 51-17-10-4, 116 pts

9. 1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins: 39-32-9, 87 pts

10. 1962-63 Toronto Maple Leafs: 35-23-12, 82 pts

11. 1968-69 Montreal Canadiens: 46-19-11, 103 pts

12. 2000-01 Colorado Avalanche: 52-16-10-4, 118 pts

13. 1938-39 Boston Bruins: 36-10-2, 74 pts

14. 1988-89 Calgary Flames: 54-17-9, 117 pts

15. 2012-13 Chicago Blackhawks: 36-7-5, 77 pts

16. 1948-49 Toronto Maple Leafs: 22-25-13, 57 pts

17. 2007-08 Detroit Red Wings: 54-21-7, 115 pts

18. 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks: 48-20-14, 110 pts

19. 1943-44 Montreal Canadiens: 38-5-7, 83 pts

20. 1935-36 Detroit Red Wings: 24-16-8, 56 pts

21. 1999-00 New Jersery Devils: 45-24-8-5, 103 pts

22. 1993-94 New York Rangers: 52-24-8, 112 pts

23. 2008-09 Pittsburgh Penguins: 45-28-9, 99 pts

24. 1960-61 Chicago Blackhawks: 29-24-17, 75 pts

25. 1998-99 Dallas Stars: 51-19-12, 114 pts
 
Last edited:
Wish some of you could have seen Guy Lafleur in his prime it would have shocked you how good he was
 
I actually didn't mind that list when I first read it when the issue came out. I would have put the 1956 Habs higher than 4th, but that isn't a make or break issue. As bad as THN has been lacking when it comes to hockey history they did alright here. One team out of the dynasty is picked (or in the case of other teams picking between the 1970 or 1972 Bruins or 2010 or 2013 Hawks). So it makes sense that this many teams are on the top 25. After all, if you only take one Cup winner per dynasty and have that represent them then you can see how there is a lot of room for the other teams.

I'd have had the 1948 Leafs with Kennedy, Bentley AND Apps on there rather than 1949 after Apps had retired, but alas. There really isn't a team that is missing on there that should be there in my opinion, at least not blatantly and I usually don't compliment THN.
 
I never like these lists where they only take one lineup from a dynasty. Surely the 1957/58/59/60 Habs were better than the 1999 Stars.
 
Is 92-93 penguins missing here ? They were greater than much other teams.

Same thing for 95-96 Red Wings, that team had serious depth and high end talent.

Strange to see moderns teams not having 100 points (or even 90pts) in the ranking over those 2.

Maybe a little bias over only cup winners.
 
Odd seeing the 83 Isles team as the one chosen from that dynasty. They had a mediocre regular season. Sure they beat the Oilers in the finals, but IMO the best team of that dynasty was the 81-82 edition which had 118pts and went 15-4 in the playoffs.
 
Hawkey Town 18 said:
Does anyone really think last years Hawks were better than the 2010 Hawks?
Click to expand...

Not a chance. Since the 04 lockout I have 07-08 Detroit and 06-07 Anaheim higher than this past Chicago team, as well as the 09-10 Chicago team.

And as crazy as it may sound, I might give a slight edge to 08 Detroit over 02 Detroit. 02 has the name recognition, but 08 dominated more IMO. I've personally never seen a better puck possession team. I've looked up numbers since the end of the 1990s and no team really compared in terms of shots for/shots against. Detroit had a +11 shot differential through the 82 game season and a +13 shot differential through the playoffs. +5 is typically a pretty good differential to put into perspective.
 
MadLuke said:
Is 92-93 penguins missing here ? They were greater than much other teams.

Same thing for 95-96 Red Wings, that team had serious depth and high end talent.

Strange to see moderns teams not having 100 points (or even 90pts) in the ranking over those 2.

Maybe a little bias over only cup winners.
Click to expand...

Winning the Cup is kind of the ultimate goal, no?
 
Hawkey Town 18 said:
Does anyone really think last years Hawks were better than the 2010 Hawks?
Click to expand...

Seems way too based on regular season records. The 2009-10 Hawks seemed to slack off towards the end of the regular season after basically getting a high seed locked up.

Overall, it seems very much like a list of Cup winners with the best regular season records, with a few adjustments Probably why why so many 70s and early 80s teams are in there with the lack of parity.

Edit: Nevermind, then the 91-92 Penguins don't make sense, nor does listing the 48-49 Leafs, who barely made the playoffs without Syl Apps over the previous year's team.
 
There is just no rhyme or reason to this list. They are trying to tell us that the 77-78 Habs, who lost only 2 more regular season than the previous season, does not make the top 25? That they couldn't beat the 60-61 CBH who really don't belong here or the 91-92 Pens? There were Detroit teams in the 50's that didn't win the Cup but finished first overall that were better than any of those two teams. Or any of the other Oiler, Islander or 50's Montreal teams during their dynasty years? As great a player Mario was, without him, those Pens teams are just an average team. Yes, they rode on his back to glory, but a more balanced team that perhaps didn't even win the cup still beats those Pens teams.
 
Well 2 things are clear:

- they choose ONE of the teams of a given dynasty (Habs x2, Isles, Oilers)
- every team must have won the Cup in that year
 
silkyjohnson50 said:
Winning the Cup is kind of the ultimate goal, no?
Click to expand...

Sure, but a team that would have won in 95 parralel universes but not the actual one can be one of the best team of all time. ( A lot of team winning the cup does not win it more than 30% if you restart the playoff 100 times).

The 92-93 pens with Mario on it is a hell of a team, and 95-96 wings loosing to that Av's team is nothing to be ashamed of much.

The second best team of all time could be a team loosing to the number one team of all time and not winning the cup without any logical problems (how could it be otherwise ?)
 
MadLuke said:
Sure, but a team that would have won in 95 parralel universes but not the actual one can be one of the best team of all time. ( A lot of team winning the cup does not win it more than 30% if you restart the playoff 100 times).
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, we are in this universe (not a parallel one), and those teams did not win.
 
Logically, the team that wins in 99 out of 100 universes is better than the team that happened to win in our universe. Our universe isn't special at all. It's totally arbitrary. The 2007 Patriots are one of the all-time great teams, the 2007 Giants are not.
 
1920s Senators seem like the biggest omission to me.

Otherwise the list is ok, given that they only list one team from each dynasty. You can disagree about the exact order, but overall they got it about right.
 
shocking they left out the 95-96 Wings. Yes the Cup is obviously important but I don't think it disqualifies a team altogether. I mean **** happens in the playoffs, but a regular season in the 90's is a whole 82 games!

I mean the NJ Devils fired Ftorek due to their cold streak near the end of the season, I am a bit shocked they were on this list over the 2002-03 Devils, but what do i know :shakehead
 
SidGenoMario said:
Logically, the team that wins in 99 out of 100 universes is better than the team that happened to win in our universe. Our universe isn't special at all. It's totally arbitrary. The 2007 Patriots are one of the all-time great teams, the 2007 Giants are not.
Click to expand...

Except that there's only one universe: This one. Everything else is fantasy land where people can make up anything they want no matter how divorced from reality it is.
 
There's only a correlation between how good a team is and whether or not they win the Stanley Cup. There's a lot of luck involved in championships, especially hockey and football. If you think the 2007 Giants are a better team than the 2007 Patriots, then you have some flawed logic.
 
SidGenoMario said:
There's only a correlation between how good a team is and whether or not they win the Stanley Cup. There's a lot of luck involved in championships, especially hockey and football. If you think the 2007 Giants are a better team than the 2007 Patriots, then you have some flawed logic.
Click to expand...

Football yes, but how does hockey have a lot of luck involved? They play 7 game series and the Kings were the ONLY team lower than the 5th seed (95 Devils) to win the Cup. The majority have been top 3 seeds (or top points) since expansion!!
 
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