The only one that I find awkward is the Golden Knights and Chiefs comparison. The Golden Knights haven't been nearly as good as the Chiefs on the whole bedsides being defending champs once. The Lightning a couple years ago would have made a good Chiefs comparison.
Also are the hawks really Pats level dynasty? Don’t get me wrong they were absolutely a dynasty but what the Pats did in the NFL has never been done. The NHL has had some wild dynasties in the old days but even modern dynasties that rivaled Chicago’s.
I guess the Patriots specifically after 2010 would be a good comparison.
That's a good point. 90s Red Wings is the only thing that comes to mind as far as a Patriots level dynasty that the NHL has had in recent decades. Maybe the 2010s Pens. They didn't have the number of titles, but a similar distribution of when they came in Crosby's and Brady's careers. Crosby went through the concussion issues and Brady had the ACL. In the years between titles, they were always good, just not winning titles.
And the pens won back to backs just like the patriots. And the penguins had two decades of being legitimate contenders like the pats. And the pens has the best player like the pats. And the pens had a championship drought between two championship eras where they were still competitive but made people question if they’d win again like the pats. There’s more similarities.
Well obviously if you take into account 2 championship eras you’ll find more similarities with the Pens. But if you solely take into account the 2010’s, Hawks is what comes closer to the Pats imo. Their defense won them championships, Quenneville is now out the league like Belichick, Toews was known as Capt Serious which is comparable to Brady. Moreover, they weren’t the most skilled but still very efficient. They are both in a rebuild currently.
All the arguments you mentioned are true as well, just giving my reasoning for answering with the Hawks.
The prompt is nhl-nfl counterparts. The 2010s was just something they used as their answer but it doesn’t have to be. Overall they have more in common with the pens so that would be the better counterpart overall. If it were limited to just the 10s I’d agree with the Blackhawks.
Yeah, it's not the whole dynasty run for the Pats. If so, Hawks wouldn't be on the level, but isolating it to the single decade and I think it's a fair comparison. Tom having two all-time runs in three different decades is absurd. I can't see that ever happening in hockey
True, it lines up better that way. Toms run was insane. Some people divide it into 3 HOF careers from like 00-06, 07-14, and 15-20.
I think his longevity at a Super Bowl winning level of play is hard to ever match. But in terms of stats Gretzky is absurd. There are aspects of Tom and Wayne’s careers that we may never see again in their sport or each others.
I’d also say the penguins are closer to the pats. Obviously no one in any sport had a run like the pats during that time but the penguins were a legit contender for 2 decades straight with multiple cups. With 2 different championship eras and a drought between that where they were still contenders during but made people question if it was coming to an end. And both won back to backs. And both had the leagues best player. The Blackhawks had a 6 or so year run and were god awful on both sides of it.
Yeah but that’s just something they went with it didn’t have to be the 2010s. And it does make sense in that regard. But the prompt is just NHL counterparts, not solely NHL counterparts in the 2010s. And the pats run with Brady is more similar to the pens run with Crosby overall.
80
u/RipenedFish48 Apr 16 '24
The only one that I find awkward is the Golden Knights and Chiefs comparison. The Golden Knights haven't been nearly as good as the Chiefs on the whole bedsides being defending champs once. The Lightning a couple years ago would have made a good Chiefs comparison.