I'd say the LA Kings might be close to that, Kopitar and Doughty are their all-star players, I wouldn't say they are superstars. Kopitar is teetering on that, but his highest point total was 81 points way back in 2010, otherwise he's good for a solid 70 points per year and is trending downward.Island Nucklehead wrote:When was the last team to win a Stanley cup without a superstar? Carolina? Ward was certainly playing like one...Ronning's Ghost wrote: Maybe you need that Norris-calibre stud defenceman SKYO has always wanted, or maybe you're better off with 4 defencemen who are top-two on most teams, and six who are top-four on most teams. Even if you're trying to build a durable team, injuries are all but certain. As Cornuck said, you need depth. Superstars are actually an impediment to depth.
Compared to Crosby getting over 100 points a lot, Malkin over 100 points a few times, Patrick Kane got over 100 points once, couple times in the 80s and 70 point range.
McDavid in his 2nd year already scored 100 points ffs. aha
Kings were built on size and Sutter's hard farming work style, all their star players reached prime at the same time, wicked depth up front and on defense with a couple Hasek like performances by Quick who got in everyone's mind during their Cup wins.
So if the Canucks can vastly improve their scoring on defense with a solid top 4, having scoring depth in their top 9 with a superb one/two punch of Bo/Elias, a rugged but effective 4th line plus Demko stealing the #1 spot in a couple years, the possibilities are endless for this squad.
Bruins another team without a scoring superstar, but like the Kings were a solid built team with talent all throughout their lineup with their goalie going on fire.