1994 Canucks vs 2004 Flames vs 2006 Oilers

[tony d]

1994 Canucks by far.

 

[BAuldie]

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.

Calgary didn't need to comply with the cap, they were under it to begin with.

As for Edmonton, I seem to remember most fans thought that the team after the finals (sans Pronger and Peca) was better and had extremely high expectations for it.. gutted it certainly was not. A lot of fans were calling it one of the best offenses in the past several years in the NHL period.

 

[WilliamRanford]

Calgary didn't need to comply with the cap, they were under it to begin with.

As for Edmonton, I seem to remember most fans thought that the team after the finals (sans Pronger and Peca) was better and had extremely high expectations for it.. gutted it certainly was not. A lot of fans were calling it one of the best offenses in the past several years in the NHL period.

This is absurd. Oiler fans thought their forwards were much improved, but losing Pronger and Spacek in the offseason was a massive massive loss, and we knew it. The offense fired for half a season, but faltered when having only 2.5 NHL defensemen in the lineup caught up to them.

In any case, what does ragging on fanbases accomplish here? The lineup was gutted, objectively so and regardless of fan enthusiasm (hell, they'd just gone to a cup final!). They were a shadow of themselves in actual fact, and never regained that momentum. That does not change the fact that the 2006 playoff team was extremely well rounded, with 3 scoring lines and one of the better D-cores in the league with the hottest goalie in the playoffs. That team is the one under review here, not the disappointing 4 years that followed.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

At first thought, Vancouver was my pick. I remember them being better. But is it just nostalgia?

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.

To add to this, these are the stats of Calgary's goaltenders in 2003-04:

1 Miikka Kiprusoff 24-10-4 .933 save% 1.69 GAA
2 Jamie McLennan 12-9-3 .910 save% 2.20 GAA
3 Roman Turek 6-11-0 .914 save % 2.33 GAA
4 Dany Sabourin 0-3-0 .848 save % 3.55 GAA

Kiprusoff was a 3rd stringer until halfway through the season, where he took over and ran with the starting job, basically saving their season. He ended up a Vezina finalist and 4th in Hart voting, despite playing only 38 games. The Flames would have been competing with Detroit for the President's Trophy if they won games at the same level they did with Kipper in goal the whole season.

Similar story in Edmonton, where even though Roloson's win/loss record wasn't any better than the other goaltenders, he still finished with a 0.20 higher save percentage and better than a 0.40 lower GAA than any of them. As you said, Edmonton is a team that got much better at the trade deadline and was a much better team personnel-wise (especially in goal) going into the playoffs than their record indicated.

Calgary and Edmonton both are textbook examples of teams that were better going into the playoffs than their records indicated.

I don't really remember the 93-94 regular season that well. Is there any reason Vancouver was better than their record indicated in this way?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

A Cancuks fan calling a Flames fan biased for picking Kiprusoff over MacLean. How cute. I'm not sure which was better in the playoffs (both were Smythe-worthy candidates had their teams won), but Kiprusoff was far better in the 38 games leading up to the playoffs than MacLean was at any point in his regular season career.

 

[HemskyToHall*]

The thing with the Canucks was that they were a one line team, I think Pronger-Smith, and with Smyth-Stoll-Hemsky head-to-head could have frustrated them. I'd take Pronger over any player from these two teams in a playoff series.

 

[Free Edler]

The thing with the Canucks was that they were a one line team, I think Pronger-Smith, and with Smyth-Stoll-Hemsky head-to-head could have frustrated them. I'd take Pronger over any player from these two teams in a playoff series.

Chris Pronger over Pavel Bure, who scored 76 goals in 1993-94 (60 reg. season, 16 playoffs)? That's just nuts.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

1994 canucks vs. 2004 flames vs. 1990 oilers - best gelinas?

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

I don't really remember the 93-94 regular season that well. Is there any reason Vancouver was better than their record indicated in this way?

They had the 5th best shot ratio in the league but finished 14th overall.

And as mentioned earlier, they had won the division in each of the previous two seasons and finished higher in their conference in the following season.

 

[IggyFan12]

1994 canucks vs. 2004 flames vs. 1990 oilers - best gelinas?

Great Question!!!

I would say 04 Gelinas with his 3 Series Winning goals, I dont think that will ever be broken in one playoff run.

 

[HemskyToHall*]

Chris Pronger over Pavel Bure, who scored 76 goals in 1993-94 (60 reg. season, 16 playoffs)? That's just nuts.

Pronger along with Jason Smith shut down Thornton, Cheechoo, Datsyuk, Selanne and Staal in the playoffs. I'd take Pronger. Pisani also had only 2 less goals than Bure in the playoffs.

 

[Big Phil]

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

The Iginla/Bure comparison is nice but I don't think Iggy was anywhere near as explosive as Bure at that time. If you were picking players to have on your team at that time I would lose sleep if I didn't pick Bure even with Iginla's physical edge.

The McLean/Kipper thing is interesting too. The career of McLean hasn't been remembered the way it should either. It hasn't aged well. Not to say he should be in the HHOF, but there was a 2-3 year span where he was outstanding. There was talk of him, not Bure or Linden, winning the Conn Smythe had the Nucks won. That performance in Game 1 of the final is about as good as you'll see a goalie play.

I don't have Nuck or Flames blinders on either

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Great Question!!!

I would say 04 Gelinas with his 3 Series Winning goals, I dont think that will ever be broken in one playoff run.

04 Gelinas definitely, awesome question. Heck, he almsot had 4 series winning goals if you count the Game 6 no-goal.

 

[Up the Irons]

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.

this.

 

[Up the Irons]

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.

this

 

[DaveG]

Pronger along with Jason Smith shut down Thornton, Cheechoo, Datsyuk, Selanne and Staal in the playoffs. I'd take Pronger. Pisani also had only 2 less goals than Bure in the playoffs.

Staal had 8 points in 7 games against Edmonton. Pronger was definitely a beast in the playoffs, but the only team that shut Staal down in the 06 playoffs was Buffalo (5 in 7).

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.

God do I ever hate this fallacy. There is only one game where the outcome was arguably affected by the loss of Roloson: Game 1, when the game was already 4 - 4 and the Canes had already mounted a massive comeback before Roloson was injured. You can possibly argue the psychological effects for game 2, where the Canes just flat out shelled Edmonton to the tune of 5-0. But the Canes just dominated every aspect of that game to the point where it likely wouldn't have mattered.

So who's to say the Canes wouldn't have won game 1 in OT? Who's to say they still wouldn't have shelled Edmonton in game 2?

By the way, take away game 2 and Markkanen's numbers from that series are a sub 2.0 GAA and a .928 save %. Do you honestly think Roloson would have improved on those numbers by a significant enough margin to win the series?


fwiw, between these 3 teams, it's closer then it appears. I'd probably say Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary in that order, but the difference between Vancouver and Edmonton is close. The Oilers were most likely a 4-5 seed type team (possibly better) if the post-deadline Oilers were there all season.

 

[Up the Irons]

Staal had 8 points in 7 games against Edmonton. Pronger was definitely a beast in the playoffs, but the only team that shut Staal down in the 06 playoffs was Buffalo (5 in 7).



God do I ever hate this fallacy. There is only one game where the outcome was arguably affected by the loss of Roloson: Game 1, when the game was already 4 - 4 and the Canes had already mounted a massive comeback before Roloson was injured. You can possibly argue the psychological effects for game 2, where the Canes just flat out shelled Edmonton to the tune of 5-0. But the Canes just dominated every aspect of that game to the point where it likely wouldn't have mattered.

So who's to say the Canes wouldn't have won game 1 in OT? Who's to say they still wouldn't have shelled Edmonton in game 2?

Who's to say they don't split the first two games? That would have been the likely outcome, and Oil were the better team (3 games to 2) for the remaining 5 games.

And, important this, Markanen let in the first shot of the game in game 7 (a wrister from the blueline). I don't know the exact stats, but I'm pretty sure teams that get scored on on the first shift of a game 7 do not have a very good record. Markanen played well, but nerves got to him in the Championship deciding game. He was their 3rd string goalie, FCOL!!

By the way, take away game 2 and Markkanen's numbers from that series are a sub 2.0 GAA and a .928 save %. Do you honestly think Roloson would have improved on those numbers by a significant enough margin to win the series?

 

[McRpro]

Staal had 8 points in 7 games against Edmonton. Pronger was definitely a beast in the playoffs, but the only team that shut Staal down in the 06 playoffs was Buffalo (5 in 7).



God do I ever hate this fallacy. There is only one game where the outcome was arguably affected by the loss of Roloson: Game 1, when the game was already 4 - 4 and the Canes had already mounted a massive comeback before Roloson was injured. You can possibly argue the psychological effects for game 2, where the Canes just flat out shelled Edmonton to the tune of 5-0. But the Canes just dominated every aspect of that game to the point where it likely wouldn't have mattered.

So who's to say the Canes wouldn't have won game 1 in OT? Who's to say they still wouldn't have shelled Edmonton in game 2?

By the way, take away game 2 and Markkanen's numbers from that series are a sub 2.0 GAA and a .928 save %. Do you honestly think Roloson would have improved on those numbers by a significant enough margin to win the series?

So I guess if the situation was reversed, if Ward got injured and Gerber came in, played good like Markannen but the Oilers won in 7 games you wouldn't think that maybe, just maybe having your #1 goalie, the reason (along with Pronger) for your team even being in the finals, could have made the difference? Of course you would think that. Any fan would.

 

[Free Edler]

Pronger along with Jason Smith shut down Thornton, Cheechoo, Datsyuk, Selanne and Staal in the playoffs. I'd take Pronger. Pisani also had only 2 less goals than Bure in the playoffs.

He didn't shut down Staal, the only team that came close was Buffalo. If you're actually comparing Pisani to Bure at any level, your trolling of Canuck fans clearly knows no bounds.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

God do I ever hate this fallacy. There is only one game where the outcome was arguably affected by the loss of Roloson: Game 1, when the game was already 4 - 4 and the Canes had already mounted a massive comeback before Roloson was injured. You can possibly argue the psychological effects for game 2, where the Canes just flat out shelled Edmonton to the tune of 5-0. But the Canes just dominated every aspect of that game to the point where it likely wouldn't have mattered.

So who's to say the Canes wouldn't have won game 1 in OT? Who's to say they still wouldn't have shelled Edmonton in game 2?

By the way, take away game 2 and Markkanen's numbers from that series are a sub 2.0 GAA and a .928 save %. Do you honestly think Roloson would have improved on those numbers by a significant enough margin to win the series?

Exactly. I've grown more than tired of my fellow Oiler fans claiming we lost the Cup entirely due to Roloson being injured. The fact is, the Oilers scored a whopping total of two goals in the three games they lost with Markkanen in net. Can't blame the goaltending situation when you can't muster more than two measly goals in three losses.

 

[MuzikMachine]

I don’t want to call the runs of any of the three teams as a “fluke”, considering what is involved in making it to the Stanley Cup Finals a team can’t simply “fluke” their way there. Maybe a better term would be the best team vs. biggest surprise.

I think leading up to the playoff runs the ’94 Canucks were the best of the three teams. They were division champions the previous two seasons and had an underwhelming regular season in 1993-94. The biggest surprise was the ’04 Calgary Flames, they were coming off a 7 year playoff drought and I think a lot of analysts and fans were simply happy to see them back in the playoffs. All of the Flames’ playoff opponents were division winners which included the two top conference teams (Detroit and Tampa Bay) as well as the President’s Trophy winner. Edmonton had been in and out of the playoffs leading up to 2005-06 season but had made some improvements with the addition of Peca and Pronger. If they had better goaltending for the majority of the regular season they probably would have finished higher in the conference standings (San Jose finished 5th with 99 pts, only 4 pts more than Edmonton).

In terms of following up on the momentum of the playoff runs, the Flames were the best team. They were able to win their division the following season and qualified for the playoffs the following 4 seasons, although they failed to win another playoff series. For the first couple seasons the Flames seemed to have a contender on paper however they seemed to disappoint as time progressed. The Canucks were able to qualify the following 2 seasons and won a playoff round in 1995 but were following a regular season decline that started in the 1993-94 season. The Oilers were the most disappointing team following their playoff run and to date have not qualified for the playoffs since making the SCF. The departure of Chris Pronger after the 2006 Playoffs probably fast tracked their downfall, but at best they probably would have been a 6th-10th place team if he stayed.

A little off topic, but it's interesting to see what happened to their SCF opponantes following those playoff runs - '94 Rangers, '04 Lightning, and the '06 Hurricanes. All three teams faded into obsuricity fairly quickly after their cup wins.

 

[Wedontneedroads]

as a sharks fan i find this thread incredibly funny/ironic/heartbreaking. if bounces/injuries had gone the Sharks' way then its possible all three of these teams would have not even reached the SC finals

the answer to the OP is the 94 nucks hands down, then the flames, then the oilers.

 

[OntOilFan]

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.

Anybody who believes an NHL team can "fluke" its way to Game 7 of the SCF knows absolutely nothing about NHL hockey.

 

[PaPaDee]

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.

Disagree. Had Edmonton had a good goalie from the start of the season, they would have finished much higher than 8th. There were many games where they outplayed the opposition, only to have their goalie **** the bed. I'd rank them as:

Vancouver
Edmonton
Calgary

 

[PaPaDee]

Exactly. I've grown more than tired of my fellow Oiler fans claiming we lost the Cup entirely due to Roloson being injured. The fact is, the Oilers scored a whopping total of two goals in the three games they lost with Markkanen in net. Can't blame the goaltending situation when you can't muster more than two measly goals in three losses.

Not that I totally disagree with you - but losing your playoff MVP in net can have more effect than just your GAA.