How good were the 94 Rangers?

[SnowblindNYR]

As a guy in my late 30s I was 7 (almost 8) when they won the cup. My dad reminds me that when Zelepukin scored to tie game 7 against the Devils I was like "what kind of name is Zelepukin?". Still a valid question. But I have no memory of it. My first hockey memory was the 96 final when my dad told me that it was two new teams (I guess with Colorado it was only half true). Since the Rangers aren't exactly the most successful franchise ever I see games sometimes and hear about Messier's guarantee and Leetch's and Richter's heroics all the time. Frankly too much, hoping we get to talk about 2024 like that soon.

That said how good were they? I didn't want to ask this on the Rangers board as they're biased. Every year we have a good team I'm conditioned to think that they're still not as good as the 94 Rangers. That team started 7-0 (only two teams have done so since them, one of them are the 2024 Rangers) and finished the first two series 8-1. Not only that they did so in dominating fashion. However, today I learned that they didn't play a team that got 90 points or more other than the Devils. And they struggled to beat the Devils and the Cinderella Canucks in 7 by 1 goal ultimately. There's a lot of mythology around that team but how good were they for that era?

Click to read more...

 

[WarriorofTime]

Leetch/Messier/Zubov/Kovalev were all really good. Also had a good goaltender in Richter. Well constructed depth. Not really a team that stands out on a historical level and they also didn't really sustain it with a multi-year run of being close, but for that particular season they were very good and deserved to win.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Leetch/Messier/Zubov/Kovalev were all really good. Also had a good goaltender in Richter. Well constructed depth. Not really a team that stands out on a historical level and they also didn't really sustain it with a multi-year run of being close, but for that particular season they were very good and deserved to win.

Also Graves had 52 goals that year. Kreider is often compared to him.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Also Graves had 52 goals that year. Kreider is often compared to him.

Graves vs. Kreider is an interesting debate for sure. Good call, he was also a core piece on the '94 team.

 

[MadLuke]

The 1994 Devils was quite the legit team to beat to reach the finals (remember being really scare Mtl would maybe have to face them that spring), not far from the team that was able to cruise to the cup to beat the Red Wings in 4.

President trophy winner than won the cup, #4th in offense, 3rd best defense, ooze playoff pedigree, solid centers, wings, Ds, goaltender, nice deep piece with tthe Tikkanen and others ex-oilers

 

[sr edler]

Why call a hockey club a franchise when there's not even a history of relocation. It just seems a bit unnecessary and self-defeating.

 

[VanIslander]

I remember 1994 vividly.

It was the 1st year of grad school for me and my apartment was in Windsor, next to the Detroit River, within eyesight of the Joe. I went to Red Wings games when there were visitors to cheer for. But my hometown team was #1 and their superpower was apparent.

After the Canucks squeaked by Calgary in 7 games I thought omg, ... we are going to the Finals! There was no way in hell Toronto was going to handle our SPEED! If gambling was legal back then i would have put my entire school savings on it. Seriously.

And, after that round 1, the opponent expected was the Devils. With the Rags as a possibility. It turns out that the NY-NJ 7-game series was incredible. (I used to say "epic", but the lack of references since makes it less historic.)

The Rangers were top 4 in 1994. I don't think they would have beat Calgary. They beat NJ and Vancouver, barely.

They earned their win, but two of the series could have gone the other way. It was skin of teeth material.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

I feel they beat many of the cap era cup teams

 

[JackSlater]

Really good team. Well balanced team, underrated toughness. Not sure it was the clear cut best team in the league, but it was on the shortlist at a time when there were a lot of really strong teams. The clear overlap with Edmonton is also pretty unique historically and intrigues me. In terms of quality I agree that it is a better team than most post-cap Stanley Cup winners, but for the era it doesn't stand out in a good or bad way. Vancouver winning that Stanley Cup final would have been a huge upset to me and most others.

 

[BraveCanadian]

For sure they were the weakest entry of the Oilers dynasty.

Leetch was the only true hof star at his peak on that team. Although Richter was in his Ranford-time as well. Messier was great obviously but already mid-30s and on the down side.

They had a lot of gritty depth, very timely scoring and Richter playing out of his mind at times and kind of just snuck in between a changing of the guard in the NHL both from a major star perspective and the leagues style of play too.

 

[The Panther]

For sure they were the weakest entry of the Oilers dynasty.

Heh, heh. There is quite a bit of overlap with the 1990 Oilers:
Messier
Anderson
Tikkanen
Graves
Beukeboom
MacTavish
Lowe

Leetch was the only true hof star at his peak on that team. Although Richter was in his Ranford-time as well. Messier was great obviously but already mid-30s and on the down side.

Messier was 32-33 that season (not sure it that counts as "mid-30s). But I think he was still very much in his prime until the end of 1996. Remember he was 2nd in Hart voting in 1995-96 and would have had a 50-goal season if not for late-season injury...

Looking at the Hall of Famers, I'd say Zubov was already at his peak by that season (he led the team in scoring). Graves isn't a Hall of Famer, but he clearly hit his peak that year. As did Richter.

They had a lot of gritty depth, very timely scoring and Richter playing out of his mind at times and kind of just snuck in between a changing of the guard in the NHL both from a major star perspective and the leagues style of play too.

This is probably true, I think. The '94 Rangers were constructed to be the '90 Oilers, basically, but with two elite offensive defencemen. They were an attacking team who skated through the left-wing lock and were okay with trading chances with opponents.

Jersey was a really good team on the rise and not surprisingly they challenged NYR. But I don't think any other club really did. Yeah, I know the Islanders weren't good and were completely overwhelmed, but Washington was a pretty good team (had just eliminated Pittsburgh). And even though the Final went to 7 games, I really think it could have been over in four if not for some bounces in game one (and Kirk McLean playing the game of his life). I just don't think the Canucks were ever going to beat the Rangers in that series, no matter what happened. NYR just took their feet off the gas near the end, and had to rally in game 7 to finish it off.

_____________

This is a bit off-topic, but 1993-94 is probably what I think of as the end of the NHL's most entertaining and most "perfect" mini-era, circa 1986-87 to 1993-94. That was the golden age.

 

[buffalowing88]

Why call a hockey club a franchise when there's not even a history of relocation. It just seems a bit unnecessary and self-defeating.

Am I missing something?

That Rangers team was pretty dominant. A lot of it hung on the balance of good goaltending, though. Without someone steady in net, idk if things go very differently.

But they were also so, so deep. They just added on vets at the deadline and constructed a Kennan death squad of sorts.

I was all of 6 or 7 when those finals happened in person, I just remember how cool Messier seemed.

Watched all of the series since and he still seems cool. 6-year-old me was right.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Heh, heh. There is quite a bit of overlap with the 1990 Oilers:
Messier
Anderson
Tikkanen
Graves
Beukeboom
MacTavish
Lowe

Messier was 32-33 that season (not sure it that counts as "mid-30s). But I think he was still very much in his prime until the end of 1996. Remember he was 2nd in Hart voting in 1995-96 and would have had a 50-goal season if not for late-season injury...

Looking at the Hall of Famers, I'd say Zubov was already at his peak by that season (he led the team in scoring). Graves isn't a Hall of Famer, but he clearly hit his peak that year. As did Richter.

This is probably true, I think. The '94 Rangers were constructed to be the '90 Oilers, basically, but with two elite offensive defencemen. They were an attacking team who skated through the left-wing lock and were okay with trading chances with opponents.

Jersey was a really good team on the rise and not surprisingly they challenged NYR. But I don't think any other club really did. Yeah, I know the Islanders weren't good and were completely overwhelmed, but Washington was a pretty good team (had just eliminated Pittsburgh). And even though the Final went to 7 games, I really think it could have been over in four if not for some bounces in game one (and Kirk McLean playing the game of his life). I just don't think the Canucks were ever going to beat the Rangers in that series, no matter what happened. NYR just took their feet off the gas near the end, and had to rally in game 7 to finish it off.

_____________

This is a bit off-topic, but 1993-94 is probably what I think of as the end of the NHL's most entertaining and most "perfect" mini-era, circa 1986-87 to 1993-94. That was the golden age.

To be fair they were a Nathan Lafayette post away from probably going to a game 7 OT and then it's a coin flip.

 

[Gorskyontario]

They were a solid cup winner, but not one of the top winners of the 90s. I would rank them above the 93 habs, 95 devils. Maybe above the 1990 Oilers only because of Leetch.

They had a pretty easy two rounds. No idea what happened but the isles and caps weren't exactly hard opponents at the time. Then two super epic 7 games series after, which I thankfully caught on TV.

Mixed feelings. Rangers had a lot of players I disliked, but I've always disliked the Canucks(except Linden who was a classy player). It was nice seeing Larmer win(who was always one of my favorites). The 1994 cup finals was one of the most epic in my lifetime though.

 

[VanIslander]

That year the buzz was a Calgary vs. New Jersey Final.

 

[The Panther]

Calgary? Seriously? I was living in Calgary then and I don't remember there being any buzz over them.

 

[Gorskyontario]

That year the buzz was a Calgary vs. New Jersey Final.

That is literally not true at all.

 

[VanIslander]

I was in grad school in Windsor, my apartment WITHIN EYESIGHT OF THE JOE (though it took half an hour to cross the bridge), and i was always going to games cheering for the opposition. I am a Vancouver Islander. I hate Calgary to my core (this will be the kindest post ever) but Calgary was built to be a playoff success. When Van squeaked by them i thought omg, we're going to the Finals! (The Western conference was weak that year). Some touted the Rags, others the Devils. A Calgary vs. either NJ or NY was expected (i was 25 years old; the good old days). My Canucks shook us all by winning a Game 7 series versus the Flames. THAT's when i knew we were going to the finals! (I had no delusions of grandeur as i was in middle school when my Canucks where ***-handed an exit quickly in the Finals by the Islanders in 1982.)

The Canucks over Flames and NY-NJ tilts were the pre-Finals sparks.

My Canucks beat Fleury, Nieuwendyk, Roberts, MacInnis, Suter... sad-ass Vernon and top-scoring poser Reichel.

 

[MadLuke]

Calgary was loaded (I think it was the best team in nhl 94 pc version) and had some 1989 piece now veteran still there, the Devils were the big team in the east people feared , once Mario was out leaving the question of who would win wide open. So I can imagine some Devils-Flames talk but it would have been far from a consensus..

In Toronto, after the 93 playoff and with how well they were playing that season I do not imagine them saying that it was the Flames year for example...

 

[VanIslander]

No way slow-footed T.O. was getting by Vancouver. If gambling was legal then, i'd have put all my uni savings on it. It played out exactly as expected. Play and watch a sport intensely for decades, and some things are apparent.

Epilogue: I am the guy who said prior to the 2024 playoffs that Boston or NYR will be in the Finals! No Florida, Toronto, other. (I have not watched more than a dozen games of Colorado and Edmonton, so i ain't so sure of the West.)

 

[sr edler]

Very talented and deep team but also very flawed because 1) coached by an egotistical douchebag, and 2) captained by another egotistical douchebag.

Fortunately for the Rangers their homegrown Americanos (Leetch, Richter) pulled enough rope, and the depth stepped up as well.

Am I missing something?

A franchise means either a business or (in a sports context) a collections of teams. It just seems unnecessary to me to call your own favourite hockey club a business (even if it practically is one) or a collections of teams (especially if it isn’t the latter, as in the case of the Rangers) when you can call it a team or a club instead.

 

[sr edler]

The people who thought the early to mid 90s Flames would be a power house, even after losing Gilmour and Loob, and with Joe Nieuwendyk suddenly their 1C, if you teleported them into the early 20s they would probably be blind Brady Tkachuk truthers.

 

[McGarnagle]

One of the biggest trade deadline overhauls in history. They went out and got about 6 or 7 players, mostly ringers from the 80s Oilers and Keenan's Blackhawks.

Going over the top at the deadline was probably a reaction to their 1992 experience where they dominated the regular season but ultimately were not playoff ready. Jury is out on whether trading guys like Amonte and Weight was worth it, though I'm sure no one in NY would change a thing after getting the cup.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

To be fair they were a Nathan Lafayette post away from probably going to a game 7 OT and then it's a coin flip.

Well if you wanna look at it like that the Canucks were 1 Leetch post and or ot goal in Game 1 away from it being a sweep and a wrongly disallowed goal to Tikkanen in Game 5 from it being over in 5. Games 5 and 6 were what made that series look close the Rangers dominated the first 4.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Well if you wanna look at it like that the Canucks were 1 Leetch post and or ot goal in Game 1 away from it being a sweep and a wrongly disallowed goal to Tikkanen in Game 5 from it being over in 5. Games 5 and 6 were what made that series look close the Rangers dominated the first 4.

First 3. Game 4, Vancouver is carrying the play and dominating early. They go up 2-0, Leetch gets a goal and then Richter makes the penalty shot save on Bure. A late goal from Zubov in the 2nd turns the tide and the Rangers carry the 3rd. If Bure scores on that penalty shot, it's very possible Vancouver wins the game.

Games 1-3: Rangers dominate (and win two of the three, with McLean stealing game 1)
Game 4: Tale of two games, Vancouver owns the first half, Rangers the second half.
Games 5-6: Vancouver dominates (and wins both)
Game 7: Nail biter all the way through. Rangers quick start with goals by Leetch & Graves is probably the difference.

You can try and dissect this series any way you want, but to come up with a conclusion that it wasn't about as close as possible seems wrong to me.