Best Rangers team to not win the Cup?
- Thread starter Crease
- Start date
JC704
Registered User
- Jan 6, 2012
- 785
- 267
My old man and uncles all say the 71-72, my older cousins, born in '80, respectively, say the 91-92 was the best. Ratelle's injury played a big part in that '72 season. My cousins also like to say that even though they knew that 91-92 team was "special," they just knew something would go wrong and sure enough, they ran into a loaded Penguins team loaded with future Hall of Famers.
Since I can't speak too much on older teams, I'll just throw a little love for last year's even though I know they aren't as close to those other two. Last year's team doesn't get enough due because of the unnecessary attrition they put themselves through in the postseason, but they came back against the Devils down 3-0 in Game 5 and 2-0 in Game 6. A bounce here and there and they are playing for the cup. Yes, they were outplayed, but they weren't ran off the ice like it felt like the Devils were in Games 1-3 and 6 in the Cup. Last year's team lacked some star power, but was incredibly balanced and there were contributions from secondary guys like Anisimov, Prust, Del Zotto etc. It's not "sexy" to look at, but it got the job done and unfortunately, had its season probably end one round too short.
Since I can't speak too much on older teams, I'll just throw a little love for last year's even though I know they aren't as close to those other two. Last year's team doesn't get enough due because of the unnecessary attrition they put themselves through in the postseason, but they came back against the Devils down 3-0 in Game 5 and 2-0 in Game 6. A bounce here and there and they are playing for the cup. Yes, they were outplayed, but they weren't ran off the ice like it felt like the Devils were in Games 1-3 and 6 in the Cup. Last year's team lacked some star power, but was incredibly balanced and there were contributions from secondary guys like Anisimov, Prust, Del Zotto etc. It's not "sexy" to look at, but it got the job done and unfortunately, had its season probably end one round too short.
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
1972 was very similar to 1992.
But the 1972 team beat two powerhouses and lost to a 3rd. The 1992 team struggled with a 4th place team and were pounded by the Pens, who with without Mario most of the series.
I don't want to hear about the Francis goal. The Pens stomped them in games 5 and 6 while mario was in a suit with a broken hand
But the 1972 team beat two powerhouses and lost to a 3rd. The 1992 team struggled with a 4th place team and were pounded by the Pens, who with without Mario most of the series.
I don't want to hear about the Francis goal. The Pens stomped them in games 5 and 6 while mario was in a suit with a broken hand
Wasn't around for 71-72, but that was probably the best team. 49-50 is obviously the other big choice, but I don't know if the Wings of '50 were as good as the B's in '72, in fact I'll go ahead and say they weren't. If the Rangers could have played some of their games at home, they would have won in '50 without a doubt in my mind. '72, they were extremely competitive even without Ratelle and that's pretty incredible when you look at how great that Bruins team was.
Been following the Rangers since 1962. Was present for almost every game from about 1967 through the mid-80's. Used to go to the Old Garden on 49th and Eighth Avenue and sit in the end balcony for $2, got season tickets as soon as the "New" Garden opened in 1967. Was sitting right near Ron Greschner when he scored the winning goal to defeat the Icelanders in '79, still have the ticket stub. So I think my opinion carries some weight.
In my humble opinion, the best team not to win Copa Stanley was 91-92. There is no question they were better than the Pens that year. If you recall, they were undefeated in 10 or 12 games in late March when there was a strike/lockout briefly, which broke their momentum. No question they would have beaten the Pens, and even though it was only in round 2, everyone knew that serieswas essentially the Cup final and the winner would coast to the Cup, which Pittsburgh did. Of course two years later the Rangers had their parade.
In 1971-72, the Rangers played heroically against the Bruins, but they were simply a notch below the Bruins in talent. There, the better team won and the Rangers slowly went downhill over the next few years until they actually lost to the Islanders in a best of three series in 1975.
Before 1962, I have little recall, as in my early childhood, the Rangers and the Bruins were invariably fifth and sixth, take your pick, in a six team league.
In my humble opinion, the best team not to win Copa Stanley was 91-92. There is no question they were better than the Pens that year. If you recall, they were undefeated in 10 or 12 games in late March when there was a strike/lockout briefly, which broke their momentum. No question they would have beaten the Pens, and even though it was only in round 2, everyone knew that serieswas essentially the Cup final and the winner would coast to the Cup, which Pittsburgh did. Of course two years later the Rangers had their parade.
In 1971-72, the Rangers played heroically against the Bruins, but they were simply a notch below the Bruins in talent. There, the better team won and the Rangers slowly went downhill over the next few years until they actually lost to the Islanders in a best of three series in 1975.
Before 1962, I have little recall, as in my early childhood, the Rangers and the Bruins were invariably fifth and sixth, take your pick, in a six team league.
Like the previous poster, I am a long time fan with memories going back as far as 1958. Attended many games in the old MSG and was a season ticket holder during the first decade at the current MSG.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to compare teams from different eras. If you subscribe to the idea, as I do, that athletes are continually becoming better (bigger, stronger, faster, etc), than the teams from the early 90s would have beaten the teams from the early 70s. Though it might be heresy, I honestly believe that a bottom level team from today would easily beat, say the great Montreal teams from the 50s, eight games out of ten. Not only are today's players bigger, stronger, and faster, but they are more skilled.
So, I think you need to remove the evolving skill level of players from the equation and just look at teams in relation to their relative eras. The 91-92 teams was a wonderful team and I was really upset when they were eliminated. That is when I really began to take seriously the idea that I would live my entire life without seeing the Rangers win the Cup. If the question is which team did I feel had a better chance of winning the Cup as the playoffs started, 72 or 92, I would have said 92. At the start of the playoffs in 72, I really had little confidence that we were going to win the Cup. The Orr/Esposito team was at its peak and Ratelle was hurt.
But that is not the question. The question is which is the best Ranger team not to win the Cup. I would have to say 71-72 team. That was a team that had been building for years and was at the peak of its talent level. Looking at our current team, we are always complaining about the lack of depth we have and our inability to ice a legit. 3rd line. The 71-72 team was so stacked that its 3rd line was Pete Stemkowski, Ted Irvine, and Bruce MacGregor: all skilled players with the ability to play higher up in the lineup. The team was stacked.
The unanswered question of course, is whether that team could have won with a healthy Ratelle. To this day, I can still see Dale Rolfe taking a shot from the left point and the puck hitting Ratelle in the ankle. The silence in the Garden when he limped off the ice was "deafening." Who knows.....
I have a soft spot for 91-92 with Messier and the emerging Leetch, Richter, Graves group that would win two years later. I have little doubt that the 91-92 Rangers could have defeated the 71-72 Rangers. But taking into consideration only the time frame the teams played in, I believe the 71-72 team is the best Ranger team not to have won the Cup.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to compare teams from different eras. If you subscribe to the idea, as I do, that athletes are continually becoming better (bigger, stronger, faster, etc), than the teams from the early 90s would have beaten the teams from the early 70s. Though it might be heresy, I honestly believe that a bottom level team from today would easily beat, say the great Montreal teams from the 50s, eight games out of ten. Not only are today's players bigger, stronger, and faster, but they are more skilled.
So, I think you need to remove the evolving skill level of players from the equation and just look at teams in relation to their relative eras. The 91-92 teams was a wonderful team and I was really upset when they were eliminated. That is when I really began to take seriously the idea that I would live my entire life without seeing the Rangers win the Cup. If the question is which team did I feel had a better chance of winning the Cup as the playoffs started, 72 or 92, I would have said 92. At the start of the playoffs in 72, I really had little confidence that we were going to win the Cup. The Orr/Esposito team was at its peak and Ratelle was hurt.
But that is not the question. The question is which is the best Ranger team not to win the Cup. I would have to say 71-72 team. That was a team that had been building for years and was at the peak of its talent level. Looking at our current team, we are always complaining about the lack of depth we have and our inability to ice a legit. 3rd line. The 71-72 team was so stacked that its 3rd line was Pete Stemkowski, Ted Irvine, and Bruce MacGregor: all skilled players with the ability to play higher up in the lineup. The team was stacked.
The unanswered question of course, is whether that team could have won with a healthy Ratelle. To this day, I can still see Dale Rolfe taking a shot from the left point and the puck hitting Ratelle in the ankle. The silence in the Garden when he limped off the ice was "deafening." Who knows.....
I have a soft spot for 91-92 with Messier and the emerging Leetch, Richter, Graves group that would win two years later. I have little doubt that the 91-92 Rangers could have defeated the 71-72 Rangers. But taking into consideration only the time frame the teams played in, I believe the 71-72 team is the best Ranger team not to have won the Cup.
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
- Sep 4, 2005
- 6,791
- 3
96-97 was a solid team stacked with proven playoff performers. Gretzky, Messier, Leetch, Richter, Graves, Beuk, etc. All the team lacked was a solid youth infusion, Ferraro twins, didn't cut it. Trading Zubby F'd the team's blueline. Zubby and Kovalev were the difference between a solid 91-92 team and a cup in 93-94, you need that young talent to win.
Can't believe no one has mentioned the fact Graves was suspended for a love tap on baby Mario's wrist for the rest of that series after the Rangers took a 2-1 series lead on a Kris King OT goal in Pittsburgh.
I guess a lot of people also forget the officiating in Games 5 and 6 was beyond awful. Pittsburgh got TWO penalty shots in Game 6, in an era where teams wouldn't get two penalty shots in a season. And, IIRC, the Rangers had killed off two marginal penalties right before the Francis' bull**** goal. The Rangers had a 4-2 lead and were coasting, until the refs got involved.
Also, Neilson's strategy of rotating VBK and Richter in every game came back to bite him in the playoffs that year. They didn't really have a pure #1 that could be reliable enough game after game. The Devils series went 7, but, the Devil wins were seemingly lucky, and the Ranger wins were in dominating fashion. They put up 8 goals in Games 5 and 7. Devils scored quite a few fluky goals to keep those scores respectable, but really the games weren't all that close.
Honestly believe the Rangers would have curbstomped the Bruins and then probably would have beaten Chicago and a young Domink Hasek in six.
I guess a lot of people also forget the officiating in Games 5 and 6 was beyond awful. Pittsburgh got TWO penalty shots in Game 6, in an era where teams wouldn't get two penalty shots in a season. And, IIRC, the Rangers had killed off two marginal penalties right before the Francis' bull**** goal. The Rangers had a 4-2 lead and were coasting, until the refs got involved.
Also, Neilson's strategy of rotating VBK and Richter in every game came back to bite him in the playoffs that year. They didn't really have a pure #1 that could be reliable enough game after game. The Devils series went 7, but, the Devil wins were seemingly lucky, and the Ranger wins were in dominating fashion. They put up 8 goals in Games 5 and 7. Devils scored quite a few fluky goals to keep those scores respectable, but really the games weren't all that close.
Honestly believe the Rangers would have curbstomped the Bruins and then probably would have beaten Chicago and a young Domink Hasek in six.
People don't talk about the playoffs in 1992 because the team won it all in 1994. If it were 73 years (and counting) and fans around the league were still chanting 1940, 1940 people would remember more from that series.
From what I hear those 70s teams were awesome, BUT the Bruins and Habs were outstanding then too.
1996. They were flying that year until they traded Ferraro, Norstrom, and Laperriere for Churla, Kurri, and McSorley. Were in first place into mid-March. Had 2 lines that were scoring (Graves-Mess-Verbeek and Robitaille-Ferraro-Kovalev). Thought they needed to get tougher to match-up with the Devils and Flyers in the play-offs. Well, that was great until they matched-up with the speedy Penguins. I have always thought the 96 team was better than the 92 team.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
I'm going with 71-72 because they knocked off a monster Canadiens team that had just won 3 out of 4 Cups.
The Rangers just hit it wrong in the 70,s. In the early part of the decade Boston and Montreal were stacked. Then you had the Broad St Bullies for 2 years before Montreal regrouped, all the while you had the Islanders building a Dynasty. You could make a good argument that outside of those 4 teams the Rangers were the consistently the best team not to win a Cup from 1970-1994. Based on a 25 year period there were probably about 15- 20 seasons where they had a decent chance of at least making the finals.
That is why 1994 is so special!
I Am Chariot
One shift at a time
- Mar 19, 2006
- 14,602
- 0
71-72
Not even debatable imo. That team was the real deal, really should have a cup to show for it.
Not even debatable imo. That team was the real deal, really should have a cup to show for it.
I Am Chariot
One shift at a time
- Mar 19, 2006
- 14,602
- 0
