1984- Who plays Edmonton for the Cup if the Battle of New York plays out differently?

[c9777666]

Let’s say that memorable Rangers/Islanders 1984 OT game 5 plays out a little differently, maybe if Smith doesn’t make that breakaway save before Morrow’s winner.

Imagine if the Drive for Five gets stalled in shocking fashion (we hear a lot about the ‘82 Penguin escape, but the Rangers came a lot close to an actual win).

One of Washington, the NY Rangers, or Montreal (The Adams playoffs still plays out the same) would have instead took on the mighty Oilers.

Washington was a good team that had a major Islander bugaboo- would they have fared any better with a different foe? (The Rangers had probably Herb Brooks’ best team (Glen Hanlon was a borderline all star, Larouche almost scored 50 goals, had their best record between 1979 and Messier’s arrival). And that would have been a very different matchup compared to their ‘86 playoff meeting (no Beezer, no Peeters, Herb Brooks instead of Sator.

Then there’s Montreal, a team I once posted about on here (1984 Montreal Canadiens- Losing Season, Winning Playoff), a team that in real life somehow got within 2 wins of the Cup Final with a rookie goalie in Penney, an aging and past his prime Guy Lafleur, a VERY young pre-official rookie season Chelios, and only one forward had double-digit playoff points (Mats Naslund). I think it was borderline miraculous Jacques Lemaire did this with a 35-40-5 team!

So, which of these teams would have gotten their shot at Gretzky and co?

And how differently might that ‘84 Cup have been viewed for Edmonton had they beaten one of these teams instead of the Islanders and the whole pass the torch dynasty v dynasty storyline?

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

I was too tiny to have followed those other teams back then, but based on what I know I think the Rangers would have got blown away, probably in 4-straight. Washington and Montreal would have been tougher opponents for Edmonton, but would still have lost. Edmonton in those days did not have a great record against Montreal or against Washington, both of which played a defensive style, which, obviously, was directly against Edmonton's style.

Really, in '83, '84, and '85, the only team that could even challenge the Oilers was the New York Islanders. Before the '84 Final, the Oil had lost something like 10 straight games against them, so there was a mental block.

It's really a pity there was never a Gretzky/Edmonton -- Montreal Finals. The Oilers should have been there in '86, but were shockingly upset, and Montreal probably should have been there in '88, but lost to Boston for the only time in a 43-year span.

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

Armageddon. That dragon was not getting back up after 1980.

 

[tony d]

Hard to say. Probably Washington. Montreal went on a Cinderella run that playoff themselves.

 

[double5son10]

Let’s say that memorable Rangers/Islanders 1984 OT game 5 plays out a little differently, maybe if Smith doesn’t make that breakaway save before Morrow’s winner.

Imagine if the Drive for Five gets stalled in shocking fashion (we hear a lot about the ‘82 Penguin escape, but the Rangers came a lot close to an actual win).

One of Washington, the NY Rangers, or Montreal (The Adams playoffs still plays out the same) would have instead took on the mighty Oilers.

Washington was a good team that had a major Islander bugaboo- would they have fared any better with a different foe? (The Rangers had probably Herb Brooks’ best team (Glen Hanlon was a borderline all star, Larouche almost scored 50 goals, had their best record between 1979 and Messier’s arrival). And that would have been a very different matchup compared to their ‘86 playoff meeting (no Beezer, no Peeters, Herb Brooks instead of Sator.

Then there’s Montreal, a team I once posted about on here (1984 Montreal Canadiens- Losing Season, Winning Playoff), a team that in real life somehow got within 2 wins of the Cup Final with a rookie goalie in Penney, an aging and past his prime Guy Lafleur, a VERY young pre-official rookie season Chelios, and only one forward had double-digit playoff points (Mats Naslund). I think it was borderline miraculous Jacques Lemaire did this with a 35-40-5 team!

So, which of these teams would have gotten their shot at Gretzky and co?

And how differently might that ‘84 Cup have been viewed for Edmonton had they beaten one of these teams instead of the Islanders and the whole pass the torch dynasty v dynasty storyline?

Nothing miraculous about it. Lemaire got two Top 4 D-men added to the mix at the end of the season w/ Chelios coming over from the US Olympic team and Rick Green returning from injury after missing all but 7 games of the RS. Honestly I think Lemaire's decision-making regarding that team includes some questionable decisions: firstly demoting Lafleur robbed the team of its most creative player and Lemaire's decision to only go w/ 5 defenseman the whole of the playoffs left the Canadiens D-corps gassed as that Islanders series went on.

Anyway, to the question at hand I gotta think without the nemesis Islanders there Washington would be the obvious favorite to make the Finals. they were the best team of the three. Their head-to-head scores against Edmonton that RS are curious: 3-11 and 4-7 losses one week apart at the beginning of November (Caps had an atrocious start to the season, including losing their first seven), then a 9-2 at the beginning of February. My guess, they probably put up a decent fight against the Oilers before succumbing to them in 6.

 

[thegoldenyear]

I’m nearly as curious as to events and outcomes if Edmonton loses G7 a dozen days later in their own to-the-limit series against a traditional rival. Because that could’ve happened, too (in fact, jeez, help me out here: did the ‘80s Oilers only go 2-3 in winner-take-all games? 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989).

 

[Olliemets]

Nothing miraculous about it. Lemaire got two Top 4 D-men added to the mix at the end of the season w/ Chelios coming over from the US Olympic team and Rick Green returning from injury after missing all but 7 games of the RS. Honestly I think Lemaire's decision-making regarding that team includes some questionable decisions: firstly demoting Lafleur robbed the team of its most creative player and Lemaire's decision to only go w/ 5 defenseman the whole of the playoffs left the Canadiens D-corps gassed as that Islanders series went on.

Anyway, to the question at hand I gotta think without the nemesis Islanders there Washington would be the obvious favorite to make the Finals. they were the best team of the three. Their head-to-head scores against Edmonton that RS are curious: 3-11 and 4-7 losses one week apart at the beginning of November (Caps had an atrocious start to the season, including losing their first seven), then a 9-2 at the beginning of February. My guess, they probably put up a decent fight against the Oilers before succumbing to them in 6.

I concur. As a die-hard Isles fan I thought Washington had a very deep and talented team and were tough to play against. They might have trapped, counterpunched and hung in with the Oilers taking them to 5 or 6. That Montreal team clearly would have been out talented, and I could have seen the Rangers falling into a run and gun with Edmonton and getting swept in 4 entertaining games

 

[The Panther]

(in fact, jeez, help me out here: did the ‘80s Oilers only go 2-3 in winner-take-all games? 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989).

Yes, that's right -- 1984, in the second period vs. Calgary in game 7, Edmonton was losing 4-3. They were that close to being eliminated in round two.

Interestingly, I've never thought about Edmonton's record in game 7's, but your count for the 1980s is correct -- 2 wins, 3 losses. However, of those three losses, one was pre-Dynasty (1982 vs. L.A.) when the Oil were still wet behind the ears, and the other was the utterly insane series against Gretzky/Kings in 1989 (for which they should get a mulligan, as the whole event was so absurd; in addition that is one of the few games I've seen where terrible refereeing may have decided the outcome). The Oilers also won a game 7 in 1990, so that's another win for the Dynasty era.

 

[The Panther]

...Washington would be the obvious favorite to make the Finals. they were the best team of the three. Their head-to-head scores against Edmonton that RS are curious: 3-11 and 4-7 losses one week apart at the beginning of November (Caps had an atrocious start to the season, including losing their first seven), then a 9-2 at the beginning of February. My guess, they probably put up a decent fight against the Oilers before succumbing to them in 6.

Washington had a really unusual season in 1983-84. I had a thread about this a while back, but check it out:

In the end, they earned 101 points, finishing just behind the Islanders for first in their division. But before that...
-- they started the season 0-7-0
-- they were 18-19-3 in the first half of the season
-- they were 30-8-2 (!) in the latter half of the season, best in the entire NHL
-- they allowed only 84 goals against (!) the entire second half. For comparison, the Caps of 2018 gave up 120 goals against in their final 40 games. (Remember this the next time someone says there was no defence in the 80s.)

After a not-so-surprising sweep of Philly, the '84 Caps won game one against the Islanders before suddenly collapsing defensively, giving up 18 goals in the next four straight losses (albeit one goal was in overtime).

Strange season.

 

[streitz]

I think MTL would beat either the Rangers or the Caps that year.

 

[Big Phil]

For some reason I just think Montreal has enough gas in the tank to beat whoever is left. So we are looking at a Habs/Oilers final which wouldn't end well for Montreal. On a side note there would always be that nagging feeling that the Oilers couldn't beat the Islanders had they not played them.

One strange thing that happened, the Habs had home ice advantage in 1984 vs. the Islanders. I can't remember why this happened.

 

[c9777666]

For some reason I just think Montreal has enough gas in the tank to beat whoever is left. So we are looking at a Habs/Oilers final which wouldn't end well for Montreal. On a side note there would always be that nagging feeling that the Oilers couldn't beat the Islanders had they not played them.

One strange thing that happened, the Habs had home ice advantage in 1984 vs. the Islanders. I can't remember why this happened.

Adams Division had a better record vs the Patrick Division in head-to-head competition.

Same thing happened with Quebec/Flyers the following year.

 

[reckoning]

I think it would've been Montreal as well. They were a better team than their record. Lemaire had taken over as coach. Green and Chelios arrived to finally take some of the pressure off Robinson.

The thing I remember the most about that spring was all the hype over Steve Penney. The press kept pointing out the similarities to the '71 team: management once again deciding that their goaltending wasn't good enough and called up an unknown from the minors to lead the team into the playoffs, and they upset the favored Bruins in the first round.

Unfortunately for Habs fans, Steve Penney's career didn't turn out nearly as good as Ken Dryden's.

 

[The Panther]

One strange thing that happened, the Habs had home ice advantage in 1984 vs. the Islanders. I can't remember why this happened.

Wait... what??

 

[double5son10]

Wait... what??

Goofy inter-divisional rule at the time.
"Although the Canadiens finished five games under .500, in the regular season and lost their three meetings to the Islanders, who had the second- best regular-season record, the Canadiens hold the home-ice advantage in this playoff series. The reason is that their division, the Adams, had more points in head-to-head meetings with the Patrick Division in which the Islanders play within the Wales Conference."
ISLANDERS TOP CANADIENS AS SMITH SETS MARK

Don't look for any logic in that. It was Ziegler's NHL. It wasn't the only time the rule had taken effect, just the most egregious. 1982 Campbell Conference Finals Chicago had home-ice over the Canucks in spite of finishing with 5 fewer points.

 

[The Panther]

The reason is that their division, the Adams, had more points in head-to-head meetings with the Patrick Division in which the Islanders play within the Wales Conference."

 

[Big Phil]

Adams Division had a better record vs the Patrick Division in head-to-head competition.

Same thing happened with Quebec/Flyers the following year.

Wait... what??

We forget about those bizarre rules as time goes on because they were so brief. The Islanders also had home ice advantage in the 1984 Cup final vs. Edmonton and shouldn't have. Reminds me of the 1972 Dolphins in the NFL. They have a perfect record but still had to play in Pittsburgh in the AFC championship game. Why? Because the divisions alternated home field in the AFC/NFC championship games at that time. It too changed. Like Baseball today, the league that wins the all-star game has home field advantage in the World Series. Although home field is less important in baseball.

 

[The Panther]

The Islanders also had home ice advantage in the 1984 Cup final vs. Edmonton and shouldn't have.

Technically, they didn't have home ice advantage. They had games 1, 2, and 6 scheduled for their home ice, while Edmonton had games 3, 4, 5, and 7.

 

[Big Phil]

Technically, they didn't have home ice advantage. They had games 1, 2, and 6 scheduled for their home ice, while Edmonton had games 3, 4, 5, and 7.

Wow, really? Why in the world did they do that? That was a weird format that year. I always there was a 2-3-2 split based on Edmonton being so far away and avoiding the travel. I had no idea it was split like that. I've always thought that Edmonton winning in Game 5 was pretty important because they'd have gone back to Long Island for 6 and 7.

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

Wow, really? Why in the world did they do that? That was a weird format that year. I always there was a 2-3-2 split based on Edmonton being so far away and avoiding the travel. I had no idea it was split like that. I've always thought that Edmonton winning in Game 5 was pretty important because they'd have gone back to Long Island for 6 and 7.

They did not want to see the Isles win 5 in a row.

 

[Big Phil]

They did not want to see the Isles win 5 in a row.

I doubt it. They did a similar thing in the finals in 1985. They did a 2-3-2 format. Or at least I think they did. It never went past Game 5. Would the next two of been in Philly? I am not sure. The 2-3-2 format was short lived in the NHL. Only a couple of other times in the mid 1990s did they do this when an eastern team was playing someone out west (eg. Toronto/San Jose, Tor/Van)