1994 Canucks vs 2004 Flames vs 2006 Oilers

[IggyFan12]

It's been a while since I posted on here but I got into a discussion with some Vancouver and Edmonton Fans about which Stanley Cup finalist which lost in game 7 had the better team. Here is a run down of the teams:

1994 Vancouver Canucks

41W-40L-3T

Leading Scorers
Pavel Bure 76GP 60G 47A 107P
Geoff Courtnall 82GP 26G 44A 70P
Cliff Ronning 76GP 25G 43A 68P

Starting Goalie
Kirk McLean-2.99 G.A.A 23W 26L 3T 0.891SV%

2004 Calgary Flames
42W 30L 7T 3OTL

Leading Scorers
Jarome Iginla 81GP 41G 32A 73P
Craig Conroy 63GP 8G 39A 47P
Shean Donovan 82GP 18G 24A 42P

Starting Goalie

Miikka Kiprusoff -1.70G.A.A 24W 10L 4T 0.933 SV%

2006 Edmonton Oilers

41W 28L 13OT/SOL

Leading Scorers
Ales Hemsky 81GP 19G 58A 77P
Shawn Horcoff 79GP 22G 51A 73P
Jarret Stoll 82GP 22G 46A 68P

Starting Goalie
Dwayne Roloson-2.43G.A.A 8W 7L 4OTL 0.905 SV%

All 3 teams were complete under dogs coming into the playoffs but they all found a way to inspire the nation and come oh so close to finally winning a cup for Canada.

How would you guys rank these 3 teams in terms of how good they were and what they accomplished. I will not attempt to rank them because I am clearly biased

Click to read more...

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I would have to say Vancouver. They were a better team than their record whereas Calgary and Edmonton, especially Edmonton, were much worse than their record.

 

[alternity]

Here are the roster/line combos for each team:

Vancouver Canucks circa 93-94

Courtnall-Ronning-Bure
Adams-Linden-Momesso
Gelinas-Lafayette-Craven
Antoski/Odjick-McIntyre-Hunter

Babych-Lumme
Hedican-Brown
Dirk-Diduck
Glynn

McLean
Whitmore


Calgary Flames circa 03-04

Gelinas-Conroy-Iginla
Nieminen-Nilson-Donovan
Saprykin-Yelle-Clark
Simon-Lombardi-Kobasew
Oliwa-Lowry

Regehr-Leopold
Gauthier-Warrener
Ference-Lydman
Commodore-Montador

Kiprusoff
Sauve


Edmonton Oilers circa 05-06

Smyth-Horcoff-Hemsky
Samsonov-Stoll-Dvorak
Torres-Peca-Pisani
Moreau-Murray-Laraque/Harvey

Pronger-Smith
Spacek-Staios
Bergeron-Tarnstrom

Roloson
Markannen

Or something to that effect.

 

[BAuldie]

I would have to say Vancouver. They were a better team than their record whereas Calgary and Edmonton, especially Edmonton, were much worse than their record.

This.

Vancouver was coming off of b2b division titles and just had an inconsistent regular season.

Not to bash either Alberta team, but their runs to the finals were more flukes than the Canucks who had been 1 of the premier teams in the league the past 2 seasons.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

This.

Vancouver was coming off of b2b division titles and just had an inconsistent regular season.

Not to bash either Alberta team, but their runs to the finals were more flukes than the Canucks who had been 1 of the premier teams in the league the past 2 seasons.

I think the fact that the cup run is Edmonton's only playoff appearance since 2003 is enough to show they were a giant fluke. I think that because Calgary has not won a playoff series in any other season since 1991 that the 2004 run was also a fluke.

 

[WilliamRanford]

I would have to say Vancouver. They were a better team than their record whereas Calgary and Edmonton, especially Edmonton, were much worse than their record.

Much worse than their record in the regular season? I think Edmonton's 2006 team is the textbook definition of a team that was better than their record. At the 2006 trade deadline, Lowe picked up Roloson, Spacek, Tarnstrom, and Samsonov. All 4 were very good down the stretch, when they had a much improved record. Roloson was especially important, as the Oilers had previously toiled with a truly mediocre trio of Markkanen, Conklin, and Morrison(!). You could also argue that it took awhile for both Pronger and Peca to gel with their team, especially Peca.

Once they started the playoffs in April 2006, they were really nothing like the team that started the season just the previous October. Instead of an 8th seed, they entered the playoffs playing like a middle seed. It may not be much, but definitely not "much worse" than their record.

The Flames in 2004 could be argued were better than their record as well, as Kipper only joined the team part-way through the season and almost won the Vezina (2nd) and Hart (4th) in only 38 freaking games! He was on a historical hot streak, so I would be very hesitant to call them "much worse" either.

 

[Reds4Life]

I'd pick Edmonton to win out of these three. Pronger was just way too good. If Roloson had not gone down, they'd have won the Cup.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Vancouver, easily in my mind. They were a pretty damn good team that lost to probably the best team in the league by the slimmest of margins. Edmonton and Calgary were solid but they had a Cinderella vibe.

 

[Sky04]

I think Calgary is getting underrated, they did take out the top 3 seeds in their run to the finals.

That team also had tons and tons of grit, they would wear down the other teams physically throughout the series.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I would probably say Vancouver, very closely followed by Edmonton, with Calgary bringing up the rear. Not to say any of them were bad, but that's the order I'd rank them.

Vancouver pushed a team full of future HOFers to a 7th Game, and as has been stated, were much better than their regular season indicated. Also had some very good players playing in the prime of their careers.

Edmonton absolutely stacked themselves in 2006. Pronger and Peca were key additions, even if Peca struggled in the regular season(but he redeemed himself with a strong playoff), and that was a deep team that played like one. Spacek, Samsonov and Roloson were huge additions at the deadline to a team that already had Smyth, a career-high flying Torres, Pisani playing the best hockey he played before or since, and so on and so forth.

Calgary had a good, hard checking, hard working team, but it really came down to Iginla, Kiprusoff, and a series of incredibly clutch goals by Martin Gelinas.

 

[colonel_korn]

2004 Calgary Flames
42W 30L 7T 3OTL

Leading Scorers
Jarome Iginla 81GP 41G 32A 73P
Craig Conroy 63GP 8G 39A 47P
Shean Donovan 82GP 18G 24A 42P

Starting Goalie

Miikka Kiprusoff -1.70G.A.A 24W 10L 4T 0.933 SV%

man I had totally forgotten what a low-scoring team the Flames were that year, 47 points for your second-leading scorer is nuts. Really highlights what a monster year Kipprusoff had.

 

[copperandblue]

I don't know how you can compare any of them but if you had to pick the best I would say Calgary.

Calgary was built very well for the style that was being played the time. No one really knows if it was a fluke or not (or how MUCH of a fluke it was) because they went from the finals to the lockout to a completely different style of game calling by the refs/league.

Similar to Edmonton, how do you know the degree of a fluke it was (and it was) when they went 2/3rds the year without goaltending, to picking up some significant pieces and making run only to have the heart ripped out of the team a week later which obviously threw the whole organization into chaos. They are an impossible team to quantify because they didn't have an opportunity to prove what they were beyond that one playoff run.

Which leaves us with Vancouver, they are the one team that didn't really have the rug pulled out from under them through extrodinary circumstances and yet their follow up track record after their cup run was a steady drop in the standings. I don't really know why that would qualify them as a better team than Calgary that atleast had good regular season success as a follow up to their run.

 

[Big Phil]

1994 Nucks for sure. Someone mentioned the word "fluke" regarding the Oilers and Flames. I hate to use that word, but the word "abberation" fits it better. In other words, Calgary and Edmonton had a spike year where no one in their right mind predicted them to march to the final.

Vancouver on the other hand did have two pretty good years before this and I think a 1994 Bure was better than any player on the other three teams. McLean at that time was at least as good as Kipper then too. Linden was better than any forward the Oilers had and by far better than any non-Iginla Flames forward.

I mean lets look at the facts here:

The years surrounding the 2004 run for the Flames:
1989 Cup win
1990-1996 painful 1st round loss
1997-2003 missed playoffs
2004 Final appearance
2006-2009 Disapointing 1st round loss

The Oilers:
1991 - last time they made it out of the 2nd round
2006 - Surprising march to the final
2007 and on - no playoffs

The Canucks:
1992 - 2nd round loss
1993 - 2nd round loss
1994 - Final
1995 - 2nd round loss

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I don't know how you can compare any of them but if you had to pick the best I would say Calgary.

Calgary was built very well for the style that was being played the time. No one really knows if it was a fluke or not (or how MUCH of a fluke it was) because they went from the finals to the lockout to a completely different style of game calling by the refs/league.

Similar to Edmonton, how do you know the degree of a fluke it was (and it was) when they went 2/3rds the year without goaltending, to picking up some significant pieces and making run only to have the heart ripped out of the team a week later which obviously threw the whole organization into chaos. They are an impossible team to quantify because they didn't have an opportunity to prove what they were beyond that one playoff run.

Which leaves us with Vancouver, they are the one team that didn't really have the rug pulled out from under them through extrodinary circumstances and yet their follow up track record after their cup run was a steady drop in the standings. I don't really know why that would qualify them as a better team than Calgary that atleast had good regular season success as a follow up to their run.

^Not entirely accurate...the Canucks' Cup run was followed by a lockout as well, and we then entered both the dead puck era(which was built for trapping teams, something the Canucks weren't) and the era of the butterfly goaltender(something our start goaltender, Kirk McLean, was not). All three of these teams had major mitigating circumstances that were in play against them repeating their success.

 

[hfboardsuser]

My only problem with terming Edmonton an aberration is that they lost essentially all of the pieces that got them to the Finals in such a way that is probably unprecedented in league history. I can't think of another team that was forced to trade its best player and Conn Smythe candidate days after Game 7, the circumstances of which destroyed any confidence and goodwill the run created with big-name free agents (oh wait, yes I can- that Wayne guy).

The fact that Pronger won it the very next year and was an MVP for the 2010 runner-ups indicates that the Oilers could have easily continued to be a playoff threat for the duration of his contract.

 

[IggyFan12]

1994 Nucks for sure. Someone mentioned the word "fluke" regarding the Oilers and Flames. I hate to use that word, but the word "abberation" fits it better. In other words, Calgary and Edmonton had a spike year where no one in their right mind predicted them to march to the final.

Vancouver on the other hand did have two pretty good years before this and I think a 1994 Bure was better than any player on the other three teams. McLean at that time was at least as good as Kipper then too. Linden was better than any forward the Oilers had and by far better than any non-Iginla Flames forward.

Sorry I have to disagree. Iginla was tied for the league lead in goals that year and was a beast in the playoffs. It wasnt only about his goal scoring as well as he fought every series and was physical in every series and a great PK player.

And Kipper > McLean every day of the week and twice on Sundays

 

[HemskyToHall*]

probably vancouver, because it was the hi light for their franchise, getting to game 7 of the cup finals.

 

[BAuldie]

Sorry I have to disagree. Iginla was tied for the league lead in goals that year and was a beast in the playoffs. It wasnt only about his goal scoring as well as he fought every series and was physical in every series and a great PK player.

And Kipper > McLean every day of the week and twice on Sundays

I think you are being a little biased.. maybe just a tad.. Kipper played in a different era of hockey. Of course he is going to put up much better numbers. At the time, Mclean was one of the best goalies in the NHL and a 2 time all-star.

You know Bure lead the league in goals that year right? And ask Shane Churla how physical Bure was in the playoffs.

 

[Mr Rogers]

The Canucks were the least "flukey" team of those three. I believe it wasn't much of a surprise to see the 94 canucks get to the final but it was for the flames and oilers.

 

[IggyFan12]

I think you are being a little biased.. maybe just a tad.. Kipper played in a different era of hockey. Of course he is going to put up much better numbers.

You know Bure lead the league in goals that year right? And ask Shane Churla how physical Bure was in the playoffs.

Probably do have my Flames blinders on not going to lie but you probably have your Canuck blinders on as well. Its probably much closer than we realise. Bure and Iginla are two different players but both were dominate in the season and playoffs and Kipper and Kirk played some amazing hockey but Kipper was absolutley brilliant and he remains to this day one of the best goalies in the league.

I think if Bure and Iginla dropped the gloves Bure wouldnt be playing again.

 

[BAuldie]

Which leaves us with Vancouver, they are the one team that didn't really have the rug pulled out from under them through extrodinary circumstances and yet their follow up track record after their cup run was a steady drop in the standings. I don't really know why that would qualify them as a better team than Calgary that atleast had good regular season success as a follow up to their run.

Really? Which team won a playoff round the next year?

 

[copperandblue]

...and we then entered both the dead puck era(which was built for trapping teams, something the Canucks weren't) and the era of the butterfly goaltender(something our start goaltender, Kirk McLean, was not).

The difference between the Canuck's situation and Calgary's is that the change in the style of play after Calgary's lockout was league mandated. Vancouver's, for a lack of a better word, was the natural evolution of the game at the time.

There was also that pesky salary cap that Calgary had to suddenly comply with.

I guess it's my opinion that of the three, the team that should have had the ability do as they wished to maintain their condender status was Vancouver and yet they dropped off quite quickly in the following years.

Hell Calgary was still put up a 100 pt season despite having the league change the way the game would be called.

 

[copperandblue]

Really? Which team won a playoff round the next year?

Really? Winning a playoff round is all it takes to prove legitimate contender status? Was Edmonton a contender in '97 and '98?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I would have to say Vancouver. They were a better team than their record whereas Calgary and Edmonton, especially Edmonton, were much worse than their record.

OK, I'm an Oilers fan, so go ahead and call me biased, but this is completely inaccurate.

The Oilers had the worst goaltending in the entire league that year, even after acquiring Roloson, who did not play well until the playoffs began. If they had even average starting goaltending, they win their division without a lot of trouble.

I agree that Vancouver was better than their regular season record, but Edmonton certainly was as well. I don't understand why you'd suggest Calgary was worse than their's either, they achieved a similar level of standing in the years following 2004.

People are also quick to forget that Edmonton was leading the Northwest at Christmas in 2006-07, despite the team being gutted in the off-season. They were in the playoff hunt until collapsing after the Smyth trade, fairly similar to year before, despite icing a vastly inferior team.

 

[Starchild74]

1994 Nucks for sure. Someone mentioned the word "fluke" regarding the Oilers and Flames. I hate to use that word, but the word "abberation" fits it better. In other words, Calgary and Edmonton had a spike year where no one in their right mind predicted them to march to the final.

Vancouver on the other hand did have two pretty good years before this and I think a 1994 Bure was better than any player on the other three teams. McLean at that time was at least as good as Kipper then too. Linden was better than any forward the Oilers had and by far better than any non-Iginla Flames forward.

I mean lets look at the facts here:

The years surrounding the 2004 run for the Flames:
1989 Cup win
1990-1996 painful 1st round loss
1997-2003 missed playoffs
2004 Final appearance
2006-2009 Disapointing 1st round loss

The Oilers:
1991 - last time they made it out of the 2nd round
2006 - Surprising march to the final
2007 and on - no playoffs

The Canucks:
1992 - 2nd round loss
1993 - 2nd round loss
1994 - Final
1995 - 2nd round loss

I will agree with you that of the 3 teams Vancouver was probably the better of the 3 teams but it is close. I do have objections though to you reasoning

1990-96 Calgary lost in the finals every year they made the playoffs. However this was a different team then the team in 2004 so that doesn't mean anything

1997-2003 missed the playoffs. The flames had some bad years and were rebuilding. in 2001 the flames didn't have the same team as in 2004 so that is a mute point as well.

After 2004 1st round losses that has nothing to do with the 2004 team. We can all say that in 2006 and 2007 the Flames were expected to do better in the playoffs and didn't. Call it choking or just not able to win but that takes nothing away from the 2004 team

The Oilers never got by the 2nd round since 1991. That was the end of their dynasty. They got rid of most of their dynasty players by then or just after that. So what does that have to do with 2006

You seem to forget that Ryan Smyth was around when the Oilers upset the Stars and Avalanche. The Oilers did have a few upsets along the way. You make it sound as though after 1991 the Oilers didn't do a thing. Mind you once again that has nothing to do with 2006.

Let's look at other facts

Vancouver never got past the 2nd round from 1983-1993
After going to the final the Canucks have never gotten past the 2nd round since. 1995-2010

Does that make the 1994 team worse no. You are just pulling out facts to try make it seem like the Canucks were better then they were. The Canucks before 1994 adn after for a few years anyway were a team that had a lot of promise but always seemed to falter. 1994 was the only year in the playoffs that they seemed to put it all together

Of the three teams that year in the playoffs no one was better then Pronger. Sorry Pronger was the main guy for the Oilers. Bure was maybe the best offensive player of all those teams but no way the best. To a degree Iginla was probably the best forward of any of those teams. As for Linden not taking anything away from him but Iginla was better then him in his team's playoff run. Linden was only slightly better then Smyth. Has Smyth was to Edmonton what Linden was to the Canucks. The two under valued players are Martin Gelinas for the Flames and Fernando Pisani of the Oilers who had monster performances

I hate the flames being an Oilers fan but come on. No way was McLean as good as Kipper. Now Mclean had a great playoff run and some really good performances. However the Flames lived and died on every save by Kipper. As good as McLean was for the Canucks and Rolosson for the Oilers. Of the 3 goalies during the playoff run Kipper was way above the other two. I have a hard time saying that McLean is the 2nd best in this argument

With all do respect to the LIghtning and the Hurricanes the Canucks did face better opposition in the final. However on their way to the final that is a different story.

Vancouver 1994 beat Calgary whom you said had a history of losing in the first round. Dallas who wasn't really good and the Maple Leafs

Calgary 2004 beat Vancouver team who was considered better then them. They beat Detroit a Stanley Cup contender and San Jose who was considered a Stanley cup contender

Edmonton 2006 beat Detroit a Stanley Cup threat. San Jose a Stanley Cup threat and Anaheim who would win the cup the Following year.

On Paper Vancouver probably had the better team but Calgary and Edmonton one can argue at it tougher to get to the Finals