1994 Canucks vs 2004 Flames vs 2006 Oilers

[boopronger]

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

Yes exactly. There were more then a few games like this http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H20050876 - where edmonton out shot the Blues 37-12 but lost the game 4-2.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

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

An NHL team can fluke its way to a game 7, and the Oilers proved it. The 2002 Hurricanes fluked their way to game 6, or is that where you draw the line? The Oilers fluked their way into the playoffs that year and then fluked their way to the Cup final. They have nothing to apologize for obviously. Their team obviously worked quite hard, but the fact remains, had they won the cup, they would have been probably the weakest cup winner ever.

 

[jkrx]

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.

Losing your MVP will shake your confidence.

 

[Stephen]

Vancouver was just the most impressive the way they rolled three lines, had a great mobile blueline, outstanding goaltending, and just destroyed the Stars and Leafs after they got hot against Calgary. They battled a superior and battle hardened Rangers core and it could have gone either way. Their opponents were better than the Lightning or the Hurricanes.

Calgary was the second best, they had a pretty solid core that they rode for the better part of a decade after 2004 as a decent contender every year.

Edmonton was the worst, just a Cinderella team with no business being there. Losing Pronger hurt, but their total lack of success after 2006 and their inability to beat Carolina really says a lot about how they really just fluked it. Carolina was pretty hot that year but they're probably the one of the least talented cup winners of all time.

 

[IggyFan12]

I was very young but did Vancouver go Cup Crazy the way both Calgary and Edmonton did during their march to the Finals??? I heard something about a riot after they lost game 7 but did they have like a Red Mile thing going on?

Also where do you rank the 06 Senators who lost to the Ducks in 5?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Losing your MVP will shake your confidence.

I don't disagree, but if you're that mentally fragile then you didn't deserve to win in the first place.

Vancouver was just the most impressive the way they rolled three lines, had a great mobile blueline, outstanding goaltending, and just destroyed the Stars and Leafs after they got hot against Calgary. They battled a superior and battle hardened Rangers core and it could have gone either way. Their opponents were better than the Lightning or the Hurricanes.

Calgary was the second best, they had a pretty solid core that they rode for the better part of a decade after 2004 as a decent contender every year.

If by "core" you mean two players, then yes. Iginla and Kiprusoff carried the Flames in 2004 and after the lockout. This is why I rank Calgary third out of the three. 15 grinders working their butts off, one all-star forward, and a hot goalie. Hey, it worked, no shame at all in that. But they could only beat you one way, using one style. Edmonton and Vancouver were deeper and more versatile.

Edmonton ripped off a 7-game winning streak in the midst of their run. Similar to Vancouver cruising past Dallas and Toronto. They were the only team of the three that did not face elimination at any point on their way to the final. Calgary only faced elimination in Game 7 of round 1. The Canucks (oddly, since they seem to be the consensus best team in here) were almost toast in round 1, needing to win three straight in OT to comeback on the Flames.

It should be pointed out that Calgary was the one team that actually looked as though they were going to win the Cup at one point. The Canucks and Oilers both had to dig out of 3-1 holes to force a 7th game. Calgary never trailed in their series.

Edmonton was the worst, just a Cinderella team with no business being there. Losing Pronger hurt, but their total lack of success after 2006 and their inability to beat Carolina really says a lot about how they really just fluked it. Carolina was pretty hot that year but they're probably the one of the least talented cup winners of all time.

Carolina might have had the most heart out of all the Cup-winners I've witnessed. That team gets crapped on and called a fluke constantly in these parts, but I'd stack them up against any of the other post-2004 winners. They only maintained it for one year, but for that one year, they were the best team in the game. Vancouver or Calgary wouldn't have likely beaten them either.

Edmonton's lack of success after 2006 is irrelevent. The team was gutted in the off-season. Pronger, Peca, Spacek, and Samsonov were all lost for nothing. You don't think that the Canucks would have gone in the crapper in 1995 if say Linden, Ronning, Courtnall, and Lumme all walked away in the summer? What if Iginla was traded for Joffrey Lupul after 2004?

 

[DaveG]

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.

Honestly, no I wouldn't have. I would be saying "what if?" but to say definitely that they would have won? Not hardly. I can't say the same for the rest of Canes fans, but I personally wouldn't.

Honestly I do think the Oilers are being underrated here though. The additions they made at the deadline made them a drastically different team then the one they had before. I can't recall with Vancouver (who I have as the best of the 3 anyway) but I don't remember Calgary's deadline additions being as vital. Adding Kipper was huge but IIRC that was well before the trade deadline. That Oilers team was pretty deep and pretty loaded. Once they got past the Wings the only team with the depth to match up with them was whoever won the Carolina-Buffalo series. That ended up being Carolina.

 

[IggyFan12]

The deadline additions for the Flames turned out to be huge. Kipper was injured for a large stretch of games as well which hurt their record. Ville Nieminin provided energy and timely goals, Nillson was able to play a strong two way game as well for the Flames. Also Chris Simon helped the PP and provided a big body with lots of playoff experience. After the lock-out the game passed Simon by but before he was a great pick up which gets over looked in the Flames 04 run.

 

[Ozz]

I say 'nucks.

 

[Kirikanoir]

1. Vancouver: In spite of a sub par regular season they were still the team who had won back to back division titles. thought they were a little unlucky to be behind 1-3 in the first series. Also IMO faced the toughest finalist team in NY Rangers.

2. Calgary: Strong defensive team with great goaltending. The kind of team you fear facing in the first round. Their run was not a complete surprise.

3. Edmonton: Most surprising, shocking run definitely. Best team, not even close.

They were battling my Canucks for the last playoff spot, so I saw quite a bit of them in the stretch drive. I was not impressed, basically a .500 team down the stretch who were fortunate to even make the playoffs. If Vancouver does not collapse and only win 8 of its last 22 there would no playoff or Cup run that year. That is why I can`t rank them above 3rd..

 

[Kyle McMahon]

They were battling my Canucks for the last playoff spot, so I saw quite a bit of them in the stretch drive. I was not impressed, basically a .500 team down the stretch who were fortunate to even make the playoffs. If Vancouver does not collapse and only win 8 of its last 22 there would no playoff or Cup run that year. That is why I can`t rank them above 3rd..

One of the most embarrassing playoff races in recent memory. Two underachieving teams that had clearly quit on their coaches and were just playing out the string. The problem was, only one of them could miss the playoffs and get their coach fired. Vancouver won that contest, and the Crow was history. The Oilers actually started playing like they were capable of once they were in the playoffs, and were rewarded with a trip to the final, but at the cost of having MacT around for three more years.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

It's truly one of the wonders of the 21st century how Calgary steam-rolled their way to the finals with THAT lineup.

 

[JT Dutch*]

... I just find it a bit comical that a team that finished one game above .500 and scored three more goals than they allowed (the 94 Canucks) could be "hands down" better than anyone else who made a Stanley Cup Final. Lot of revisionist history going on here.

 

[Derick*]

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

If you can fluke a goal, you can fluke a game. If you can fluke a game, you can fluke a series. If you can fluke a series, you can fluke a playoffs. It's just a matter of degree of likelihood.

It's also a matter of degrees of flukeness. Could the in-reality worse team in the league fluke its way to the cup? That is astronomically unlikely and almost certainly will never happen. Can a team that's really ~10th best in the league fluke its way to game seven of the finals? I think so.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

... I just find it a bit comical that a team that finished one game above .500 and scored three more goals than they allowed (the 94 Canucks) could be "hands down" better than anyone else who made a Stanley Cup Final. Lot of revisionist history going on here.

The Canucks were definitely more skilled than the 06 Oilers and about 10 times more talent than the 04 Flames. Remember in 92 and 93 they were near the top of the West with 100 point seasons they just underachieved in the regular season in 93-94.

 

[HemskyToHall*]

The Canucks were definitely more skilled than the 06 Oilers and about 10 times more talent than the 04 Flames. Remember in 92 and 93 they were near the top of the West with 100 point seasons they just underachieved in the regular season in 93-94.

And the Oilers underachieved as well, if you play it like that. They had the worst goaltending in the league until they got Roloson.

 

[Canucks5551]

I was very young but did Vancouver go Cup Crazy the way both Calgary and Edmonton did during their march to the Finals??? I heard something about a riot after they lost game 7 but did they have like a Red Mile thing going on?

Also where do you rank the 06 Senators who lost to the Ducks in 5?

I'd say it got pretty crazy.

 

[Cawz]

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.

Both those games were affected by the loss of Roloson, as mentioned already. So thats half of Carolinas wins.

Anyways, the correct answer is the Oilers. Defense wins championships, and the Oilers had the best defence. Nucks had the best offense and the tenders were wash, since they all played great. Anyone calling the Oilers flukes didnt watch much Oiler hockey that year.

 

[Kirikanoir]

And the Oilers underachieved as well, if you play it like that. They had the worst goaltending in the league until they got Roloson.

1992-93
Vancouver Canucks 1st 46-29-9-101
1993-94
Vancouver Canucks 2nd 41-40-3-85
1994-95
Vancouver Canucks 2nd 18-18-12-48

And in comparing the standings remember in the 90s there was no shootout wins or OT loser points to help pad the Win and Points columns.


2003-04
Edmonton Oilers 4th 36-29-12-5-89 missed
2005-06
Edmonton Oilers 3rd 41-28-0 -13-95
2006-07
Edmonton Oilers 5th 32-43-0-7-71 missed

Given Edmonton`s finish before during and after their Cup final year I think its a real stretch to say they underachieved. Unlike Vancouver who finished 14 points ahead of 9th in 94, Edmonton with a 5-4-1 record finished 3 points ahead of 9th.

They really did little to help[ themselves make the playoffs and had to depend on the collapse of Vancouver who only won 8 of their last 22 to get in.

 

[HemskyToHall*]

completely different teams for one reason - Chris Pronger.

The canucks managed to keep their core for a while, oilers lost their mvp.

 

[Kirikanoir]

completely different teams for one reason - Chris Pronger.

The canucks managed to keep their core for a while, oilers lost their mvp.

And that still ignores the point that Edmonton was extremely fortunate even to make the playoff with Chris Pronger. Now did Edmonton take advantage of it once they got in, certainly. But if Vancouver does not have a late season meltdown and manages to pick up 1 more win and 1 loser point, then there would be no Edmonton Cup run that year.

Best way to answer the question is this, Ask yourself which of the three teams was the biggest surprise to get to the Stanley Cup Final? I suspect Edmonton would be the most popular answer.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

And the Oilers underachieved as well, if you play it like that. They had the worst goaltending in the league until they got Roloson.

Absolutely they had all the ingredients - other than a big one...a real #1 centre.

 

[HemskyToHall*]

And that still ignores the point that Edmonton was extremely fortunate even to make the playoff with Chris Pronger. Now did Edmonton take advantage of it once they got in, certainly. But if Vancouver does not have a late season meltdown and manages to pick up 1 more win and 1 loser point, then there would be no Edmonton Cup run that year.

What ifs could be made for any of these teams. What if Vancouver faced Detroit in the 2nd round? They were 1-3 against them in the regular season and detroit had one of the best teams in the league.

Best way to answer the question is this, Ask yourself which of the three teams was the biggest surprise to get to the Stanley Cup Final? I suspect Edmonton would be the most popular answer.

All three are equally as surprising to me.

 

[HemskyToHall*]

Absolutely they had all the ingredients - other than a big one...a real #1 centre.

Neither did the flames or canucks.

In fact if you mean #1 center, shawn horcoff was 22nd in nhl scoring amongst centers and was second amongst playoff centers in scoring, so yes they had a #1 center.

 

[Kirikanoir]

What ifs could be made for any of these teams. What if Vancouver faced Detroit in the 2nd round? They were 1-3 against them in the regular season and detroit had one of the best teams in the league.

So Vancouver could have faced the mighty 100 point Detroit Red Wings.

Well lets see

Detroit 100 points Van 1-3-0 season

1st Round Calgary 97 Points Van 2-4-1 season
2nd Round Dallas 97 Points Van 1-3-0 season
3rd Round Toronto 98 Points Van 2-2-0 season
4th Round NY Rangers 112 Points 0-2-0 season

You really think Detroit was that much better than the teams Vancouver did have to play that playoff year.