Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
Darryl Sutter was a much better coach than GM, and Kipper had just broken out, and since he missed half the year was well rested. Plus Iginla was pretty awesome too.
1994 Canucks vs 2004 Flames vs 2006 Oilers
- Thread starter IggyFan12
- Start date
Darryl Sutter was a much better coach than GM, and Kipper had just broken out, and since he missed half the year was well rested. Plus Iginla was pretty awesome too.
Cawz
Registered User
And this ignores the fact that that was due to not having a goaltender for most of the season. The Oiler fan mantra that entire season was "wow, we'd be a great team if we could just get some goaltending". That was then proven in the playoffs.
Gobo
Stop looking Gare
- Jun 29, 2010
- 7,440
- 0
Horcoff played like one that year. That's why we're stuck with his contract now. Stoll could've been one too. Pronger was the #1 D, Roli was our goalie. Good times.
The 1994 Canucks had a bad regular season and were a talented team that finally geled in the playoff's. There core team was together for years, and they had great records the two previous years. They are much better than the other two teams mentioned.
In my opinion, being a Wings fans that got beat by both teams, I think that Calgary and Edmonton are very very close. Neck and neck for sure. I LIKE Edmonton on paper, but Calgary just seemed to get so much out of their 3rd and 4th line guys. Plus, I would have liked to know what would have happened if Rolie played in the finals. We can't forget that Markeneen did have a shutout in game 6. I'd give a very slight edge to Edmonton, but not by much.
In my opinion, being a Wings fans that got beat by both teams, I think that Calgary and Edmonton are very very close. Neck and neck for sure. I LIKE Edmonton on paper, but Calgary just seemed to get so much out of their 3rd and 4th line guys. Plus, I would have liked to know what would have happened if Rolie played in the finals. We can't forget that Markeneen did have a shutout in game 6. I'd give a very slight edge to Edmonton, but not by much.
same argument as: "If the canucks won 1 more game and recieved an OT loss they would have made the playoffs!!!"
you're splitting hairs, I countered.
So if your goaltending was that crappy for most of the season then clearly Edmonton was not the better team. Last I looked the goalie was part of the team.
Dwayne Roloson joined Edmonton with 20 games left. He played the next 19 straight games before sitting out the last game of the season after the playoff spot was locked up.
With the so called only missing piece keeping Edmonton from being great (according to Oiler fans) in place, the team went 8-7-4. Not exactly an overwhelming record in the most crucial part of the season, fighting for a playoff spot. And included in that final stretch was dropping 2 of 3 against Vancouver the team Edmonton was battling for that final playoff spot.
And why is it that if that Oiler team was as good as Oiler fans insist that they with the very same goalie managed to finish the very next season 5th in the division with a 32-43-7-71 record.
And before you say they lost Chris Pronger, if one player made that big a difference then that Oiler team was no where near as talented as Oiler fans suggest it was.
Sorry but I see nothing here that indicates that the 2005-06 Cup run was anything other than a case of a mediocre team getting on a hot streak and playing over their heads for a period of time. Otherwise known as a Cinderella team that ultimately gets beat by the better team in the final and falls back to their usual level of play the next season.
Well I think Horcoff has proved since that he is not a #1 centre...
By the way, Nucks had Linden playing centre back then and he was a 70+ point guy.
... Again, this is a bit of fabrication and hyperbole. The '94 Canucks were TEN times better than an '04 Flames team that outscored their opposition by 13% and beat some very good teams on the way to the Finals? I don't buy that. The Flames played great team defense and had an excellent goaltender - a lot of other teams have won with the same type of structure.
If you want to argue that the '94 Canucks were more talented than the '06 Oilers, I won't disagree with you, but it's pretty close. Those Oilers had terrible goaltending all season long and still outscored their opposition overall; I think that Edmonton's hot streak in the postseason was merely a result of finally having some quality in the net for a change.
... The Canucks were on the way down. They barely finished over .500 in '94, they were AT .500 in '95, and below .500 for the next four years after that. I'm not sure if there's ever been a more overrated goaltender than Kirk McLean. Vancouver was average offensively, pretty good defensively, and below average in the net. McLean played the hottest 24 game stretch of his life in the '94 playoffs and the team still couldn't win it all.
Other years are irreverent to this topic, we are judging only based on that single year only, then he was a #1 center for sure and there is statistical proof to back that up.
Linden wasn't top 30 in center scoring I believe that year (could be wrong).
I meant on paper - yes, they had miles more talent than the Flames. The Flames were the true sense of a 'team' that run and got by on grit and balls pretty much, with huge performances from their stars Iginla and Kiprusoff.
... Or, like I said, they just played excellent team defense? Sure, the Flames didn't have a collection of flashy offensive players; does that indicate to you a lack of talent?
The Flames allowed the 5th fewest number of shots per game in the NHL that season. Sure, Kiprusoff was excellent - but how much of that was him, and how much of that was the very solid team in front of him? Look at the other goalies on that team - Turek was 33 years old and playing his final NHL season, yet had a pretty respectable .914 save percentage. McLennan was 32 and had the best save percentage (.910) of his career. All this just leads me to believe that the Flames had an elite defensive team that season, one that allowed a low number of good quality chances, and were certainly better defensively than the '94 Canucks.
As for offense, you're letting the inflated numbers of '93-94 influence your thinking. In '93-94, the average team scored 272 goals. In '03-04 the average team scored 211 goals.
The '94 Canucks scored only 7 goals above the average, and allowed 4 more than average.
The '04 Flames scored 11 goals below the average, but allowed 35 less than average.
In the playoffs, the '94 Canucks had a goaltender playing the best stretch of games in his life, and had a record of 15-9. The '04 Flames had their goaltender do pretty much what he'd done all season and still ended up 15-11 in the playoffs. To me, there's less separating the two teams than you think; in fact, I'd be inclined to say the '04 Flames were the best of the three teams compared here.
Cawz
Registered User
Yeah, I'm talking about the team in the playoffs with Roloson. That same Oiler team through the season without Roloson wasn’t as good. I’ll admit that.
Yeah, it took a bit for the new tender to gel with his team. It happens. Roloson’s stats got better after the first few games. You are using quite a small sample size there. I could quote another sample size where he went 12 and 6, in an even more crucial time of the season. Or you could look at the goalie stats for the Oilers that season, having an 88.0% save percentage. That was good enough for 2nd last in the NHL.
Think about that stat for a minute. The Oilers ran with 2 goalies who had identical stats of 88%. Tied for 75th best goalie in the NHL that season.
Oops, I missed Morrison, who had a 88.4 save % that season as well.
Well, here youre showing that you don’t know what you are talking about. It wasn’t just Pronger, it was also Peca, Spacek and others that didn’t return, combined with the Oilers setting a team record for injuries in the following season. They ran out of defensemen on the farm team, so they had to call players up from juniors. They were leading the division at the Christmas break and ended up going 1-17-1 after trading Smyth. So yeah, it was a little bit more than just losing one player like you said. So much happened in that year that the 06 and 07 teams are not at all comparable.
Last edited:
Generally a team fighting for its playoff life does not have the luxury of time for players to gel. In Edmonton`s case they were fortunate that their competition melted down in the stretch drive.
Bottom line is a 8-7-4 record would not have been good enough to grab that last spot most years, so while backing into the playoffs by depending on your competition to fall apart maybe an incredible stroke of luck, it is hardly indicative of a great team.
Well I`m not the one who came up with the Pronger excuse as to why the Oilers sucked so much the season after their Cup run.
And losing players and injuries are things all teams deal with, its not an excuse. Good teams with depth play through it, average teams with little depth fall apart. Guess which category Edmonton fits in.
You make it sound like they were 10 games over .500 and leading the division by 12 points or something.Christmas break.
Edm 18-15-2=38
Minn 18-15-2=38
Col 18-15-2=38
Cal 17-13-3=37
Van 17-18-1=35
And here`s how they finished up after Christmas
Van 32-8-6=70
Minn 30-11-6=66
Cal 26-16-7=59
Col 26-16-5=57
Edm 14-28-5=33'
Sounds like the main reason Edmonton was leading the division early in the season was most of the rest of the division was underachieving.
Cawz
Registered User
Well, its the reality of the situation. In one game, the Oilers dman and Rolie collided behind the net, giving away the game. Teams dont have that luxury, but its a reality that team chemistry is important, especially with defensemen and goalies.
The fact of the matter is that the team with Roloson went 20-13-4, even with the rough start. If they had Roloson all year long, they wouldnt have been climbing uphill at that point of the season.
Its one of the reasons. Ask St Louis and Anaheim how big a hole his absence makes. But its only one of the reasons. They were doing alright and leading the pace for their division for almost half the season. But they couldnt keep it up and then the injuries piled up to the extent that the farm was stripped bare...
Yeah, but the extent to which you have injuries and lose players affect teams differently. To ignore that fact is foolish. Thats such a weak argument. Losing a hall of fame defenseman along with the others players plus the injuries is not what all teams go through.
And you make it sound like you have no idea what youre talking about. How did I make it sound like that?
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
Some things need to be set straight here:
The Oilers had a TERRIBLE regular season realtive to what they should have accomplioshed. Two main reasons.
1) As repeated, abysmal goaltending. We're not talking just "shaky" goaltending, or "pedestrian goaltending". We're talking average AHL-caliber goaltending. Markkanen and Conklin both had save percentages of .880 over the course of the season, Mike Morrison faring little better at .884. That is historically bad for the current era.
Unbelievably, all three of those goaltender won more games than they lost if the shootout is disregarded. Conklin has hung on as a bench-warmer for a few years, Markkanen went to Finland after one more (poor) season as Roloson's backup, and Morrison ended up in the ECHL and then the Slovenian league (yes, Slovenia).
It is often claimed that Roloson came in and immediately shored up the goaltending situation. This is false. Roloson was inconsistent and was letting in some downright awful goals down the stretch. It was starting to be suggested that the Oilers may as well throw Markkanen in for the final few games in hopes that he would get hot for a week, as he'd shown flashes of before.
2) When I mentioned in a previous post that the Oilers and Canucks were battling to see who would miss the playoffs and get their coach fired, I wasn't joking. The Oilers completely quit on MacTavish over the final two months of the season. People (myself included) were screaming for MacT's head from mid-February on, because the team had obviously stopped playing for him.
Most teams that encounter the two situations outlined above are in the draft lottery. That the team somehow managed to win enough games to make the playoffs in spite of these conditions is an indication that the team was actually pretty damn good. I think once they ended up in the dance they figured 'well, we're here anyway, lets buy into what MacT is selling and show everyone what we're capable of'. And they did.
Comparing what the previous and future teams did is irrelevent. Both were drastically different than the 2005-06 edition. I don't ever recall a champion/finalist being gutted in the offseason like that in hockey. The 1997 Florida Marlins come to mind.
The Oilers had a TERRIBLE regular season realtive to what they should have accomplioshed. Two main reasons.
1) As repeated, abysmal goaltending. We're not talking just "shaky" goaltending, or "pedestrian goaltending". We're talking average AHL-caliber goaltending. Markkanen and Conklin both had save percentages of .880 over the course of the season, Mike Morrison faring little better at .884. That is historically bad for the current era.
Unbelievably, all three of those goaltender won more games than they lost if the shootout is disregarded. Conklin has hung on as a bench-warmer for a few years, Markkanen went to Finland after one more (poor) season as Roloson's backup, and Morrison ended up in the ECHL and then the Slovenian league (yes, Slovenia).
It is often claimed that Roloson came in and immediately shored up the goaltending situation. This is false. Roloson was inconsistent and was letting in some downright awful goals down the stretch. It was starting to be suggested that the Oilers may as well throw Markkanen in for the final few games in hopes that he would get hot for a week, as he'd shown flashes of before.
2) When I mentioned in a previous post that the Oilers and Canucks were battling to see who would miss the playoffs and get their coach fired, I wasn't joking. The Oilers completely quit on MacTavish over the final two months of the season. People (myself included) were screaming for MacT's head from mid-February on, because the team had obviously stopped playing for him.
Most teams that encounter the two situations outlined above are in the draft lottery. That the team somehow managed to win enough games to make the playoffs in spite of these conditions is an indication that the team was actually pretty damn good. I think once they ended up in the dance they figured 'well, we're here anyway, lets buy into what MacT is selling and show everyone what we're capable of'. And they did.
Comparing what the previous and future teams did is irrelevent. Both were drastically different than the 2005-06 edition. I don't ever recall a champion/finalist being gutted in the offseason like that in hockey. The 1997 Florida Marlins come to mind.
Cawz
Registered User
He didnt play all that terrific at the start, but he did get better as the games went on. His last 9 games, he had a save % of 93.0% or something like that. I remember discussing it with someone heading into the playoffs. He was dwelling too much on his first few games, the fact that he cost a 1st round pick and the "fact" that he was a "career backup". I pointed out his stats immediately heading into the playoffs and said that his game was coming together and they could make some noise. I made a point of reminding this to him numerous times throughout the playoffs.
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
Obvious bias: but I personally discount teams that trapped their way to the Finals during the clutch & grab era.
I know this was 7yrs ago but I need to correct the Canucks lines
In the playoffs
Adams Linden Bure
Courtnall Lafayette Craven
Momesso Ronning Gelinas
Antoski McIntyre Hunter
Ronning almost never played with Bure because Ronning likes to carry the puck. That wouldn't work for Bure. Towards the end of the finals. Craven and Linden switched spots.
Glynn Lumme
Hedican Brown
Didick Babych
Forgot about which sides some of those defensmens were.
Slegr Plavsic were healthy scratches when Canucks got Brown and Hedican from Blues. Odjick was a healthy scratch as well because Antoski was bigger and faster. Carson was healthy scratch as well.
The Panther
Registered User
Yeah, it's an interesting question. I dunno. I'm not sure it's even relevant to consider what the respective teams did after, is it? I mean, the point is how good they were during their runs, not how good/bad they were months/years later. Not the point.
Honestly, all three were not expected to go on playoff runs. The Canucks couldn't get past Edmonton in '92, and were Gretzky-ed by Los Angeles in '93 in a year when they really should have beaten the Kings. In 1993-94, they took a big tumble downwards in the standings, and I remember thinking they probably were done as a contender. But after one of those 1-3 series comebacks (as often seems to happen), they gelled and went on a great run.
Even as an Oilers' fan, I was glad to see Calgary back in the playoffs in '04, and I cheered for them. Iginla was just awesome, and Kiprusoff also. They probably just didn't have quite enough depth at forward to get the job done (although, had their been 'electronic tracking' of the puck, they might indeed have won the Cup in game six of the Finals, in overtime...but never mind).
Edmonton clearly became a much better team around the mid-point of the 2005-06 season, and then consolidated it with the trade-deadline acquisitions. In their first 19 games, they were only playing at .500 level, but after that went 32-19-12, which isn't too shabby. (The '04 Flames likewise were only .500 in their first 18 games.)
I'm tempted to say Vancouver was the least surprising and therefore was the best team... They certainly had the most depth at forward. But then I think of how they were 1-shot away (three times) from being eliminated in round one, and also of how Calgary and Edmonton faced (I think) stronger competition on the way to the Finals...
What I would suggest is that Calgary '04 and Edmonton '06 were teams "built for the playoffs", as the saying goes. Edmonton had the best D-man (Pronger) of the three teams, and Calgary maybe had the best goalie (Kiprusoff). Those two teams were designed to take down more talented, deeper line-ups (and did). The '94 Canucks were more like a really strong group of players that had failed to gel consistently during the season, but then went on a run starting halfway through round one. The Canucks obviously had the game-breaker (Bure) that the others lacked, though Iginla was no slouch in '04.
In conclusion, I dunno. At the end of the day, each team achieved exactly the same thing (game 7 Finals' loss), so I guess they were even.
Honestly, all three were not expected to go on playoff runs. The Canucks couldn't get past Edmonton in '92, and were Gretzky-ed by Los Angeles in '93 in a year when they really should have beaten the Kings. In 1993-94, they took a big tumble downwards in the standings, and I remember thinking they probably were done as a contender. But after one of those 1-3 series comebacks (as often seems to happen), they gelled and went on a great run.
Even as an Oilers' fan, I was glad to see Calgary back in the playoffs in '04, and I cheered for them. Iginla was just awesome, and Kiprusoff also. They probably just didn't have quite enough depth at forward to get the job done (although, had their been 'electronic tracking' of the puck, they might indeed have won the Cup in game six of the Finals, in overtime...but never mind).
Edmonton clearly became a much better team around the mid-point of the 2005-06 season, and then consolidated it with the trade-deadline acquisitions. In their first 19 games, they were only playing at .500 level, but after that went 32-19-12, which isn't too shabby. (The '04 Flames likewise were only .500 in their first 18 games.)
I'm tempted to say Vancouver was the least surprising and therefore was the best team... They certainly had the most depth at forward. But then I think of how they were 1-shot away (three times) from being eliminated in round one, and also of how Calgary and Edmonton faced (I think) stronger competition on the way to the Finals...
What I would suggest is that Calgary '04 and Edmonton '06 were teams "built for the playoffs", as the saying goes. Edmonton had the best D-man (Pronger) of the three teams, and Calgary maybe had the best goalie (Kiprusoff). Those two teams were designed to take down more talented, deeper line-ups (and did). The '94 Canucks were more like a really strong group of players that had failed to gel consistently during the season, but then went on a run starting halfway through round one. The Canucks obviously had the game-breaker (Bure) that the others lacked, though Iginla was no slouch in '04.
In conclusion, I dunno. At the end of the day, each team achieved exactly the same thing (game 7 Finals' loss), so I guess they were even.
All 3 teams had fantastic goaltending (McLean, Kiprussoff and Roloson) one superstar who was Conn Smythe worthy (Bure, Iginla and Pronger), great leadership (guys like Linden and Courtnall, Iginla and Conroy, Ryan Smyth and Jason Smith to name a few) and deep forward groups. All 3 were definitely worthy of winning the Cup but it was a couple plays or incidents that kept them from the top of the mountain. In Vancouver it was Richter stop on Bure on the penalty shot and the Nathan LaFayette post in game 7. In Calgary it was the Gelinas no-goal and the St. Louis overtime winner in overtime of game 6 and in Edmonton it was when Dwayne Roloson got hurt in game 1. Great teams that had meh regular seasons but played to their potential (and even a bit beyond it) in the playoffs and just fell one game short.
Thenameless
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2014
- 3,855
- 1,788
This is one of the few times that the Canucks will have an advantage over the Flames and the Oilers.
Kiprussoff is the best goalie of the bunch, and I remember even depth defencemen like Montador and Commodore really showing up to play.
For the Oilers, Pronger was it. Raffi Torres drove up his stock during this playoff run too.
What I see with Vancouver was a good balance of many strengths that puts them over the top. Goaltending was slightly above average, but got hot in the playoffs (you need this). The D-men were mostly good at defending (and pretty physical, if anyone remembers Don Cherry avoiding the question of what the Canucks were going to do with the Leafs) with Jeff Brown being the one exceptional offensive player quarterbacking the power play. The forwards had a nice combination of elite scoring, support scoring, grit, and toughness - though they weren't very good defensively.
Kiprussoff is the best goalie of the bunch, and I remember even depth defencemen like Montador and Commodore really showing up to play.
For the Oilers, Pronger was it. Raffi Torres drove up his stock during this playoff run too.
What I see with Vancouver was a good balance of many strengths that puts them over the top. Goaltending was slightly above average, but got hot in the playoffs (you need this). The D-men were mostly good at defending (and pretty physical, if anyone remembers Don Cherry avoiding the question of what the Canucks were going to do with the Leafs) with Jeff Brown being the one exceptional offensive player quarterbacking the power play. The forwards had a nice combination of elite scoring, support scoring, grit, and toughness - though they weren't very good defensively.
Sentinel
Registered User
Funny how Vancouver had the best forward, Calgary the best goalie, and Edmonton the best defenseman. 
