2001 Playoffs

[tony d]

Based upon the question I raised in the other thread this has to be raised:

Do the 2001 Colorado Avalanche win the Stanley Cup without ray Bourque?

If they don't then who?

Click to read more...

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I think with or without Bourque, the Avs win their division (Edmonton was second, 25 points back), in which case they likely draw Los Angeles in the first round. Los Angeles had upset Detroit in the first round, and proved to be a formidable opponent for Colorado in the second round, bowing out in 7 games. Personally, I think the only thing that pushed Colorado by Los Angeles was the win-it-for-Ray mentality that really brought the team together. I think Colorado is out in the first two rounds without Bourque, and you'd see Los Angeles playing St. Louis in the conference final, either of whom would lose to New Jersey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Even if the Avs make it to the finals, I can't see them beating NJ without Bourque. Roy was the deserving Smythe winner in 2001, but without Bourque, I can't see the Avs keeping NJ's offense in check. The Avs had it so that 2 of Bourque, Blake, or Foote were on the ice at most points in the game. I honestly don't think a Forsbergless Avalanche team would have even come close to beating NJ in the finals without Bourque (assuming they even get past Los Angeles).

 

[Johnny Engine]

And if LA gets to the conference finals, does Potvin gain the confidence and credibility to be a starting goalie well after the lockout?

 

[seventieslord]

I am thinking that since the Avs won the cup in game 7 of the finals, that no, they don't win the cup. Bourque had to be worth one win somewhere along the line in one of those two 7-game series wins.

 

[mco543]

This is probably biased since Felix Potvin is my favorite player ever but he was very streaky and if they get past the Avs it could very easily propel the Kings to the finals if not the Stanley Cup. I recall that Brodeur wasn't up to his standards in that finals and the Kings could very well have snuck up on them and gotten the upset while riding the hot goalie.

 

[tony d]

For the record here were the final standings in 2000-2001:

East

1) New Jersey
2) Ottawa
3) Washington
4) Philadelphia
5) Buffalo
6) Washington
7) Toronto
8) Carolina

West

1) Colorado
2) Detroit
3) Dallas
4) St.Louis
5) San Jose
6) Edmonton
7) Los Angeles
8) Vancouver

So without Bourque Colorado probably doesn't finish 1st in the West (Probably 3rd as the Northwest was weak that year), that opens up some new playoff matches, here's how I'd have it going in the West as the East would remain the same:

Detroit over Vancouver
Los Angeles over Dallas
Colorado over Edmonton
St.Louis over San Jose

Yeah I think that opens up a L.A./St.Louis conference final in the West and possible easy pickings for New Jersey in the conference finals.

 

[Ilya Zubrus*]

I'd say no, the series was really close between NJ and Colorado so without Bourque the Devils would have won the series in 6 in my mind.

The Devils were just way too dominant for the Avalanche not to have Bourque on their side.

 

[Zaphod]

If you remove Bourque from the equation you also open up the possibility in that particular reality that Forsberg doesn't lose his spleen in the 2nd round... but a Bourque-less, Forsberg-less Avs team would be limping to the final.

 

[Thegeneral66]

For the record here were the final standings in 2000-2001:

East

1) New Jersey
2) Ottawa
3) Washington
4) Philadelphia
5) Buffalo
6) Pittsburgh
7) Toronto
8) Carolina

West

1) Colorado
2) Detroit
3) Dallas
4) St.Louis
5) San Jose
6) Edmonton
7) Los Angeles
8) Vancouver

So without Bourque Colorado probably doesn't finish 1st in the West (Probably 3rd as the Northwest was weak that year), that opens up some new playoff matches, here's how I'd have it going in the West as the East would remain the same:

Detroit over Vancouver
Los Angeles over Dallas
Colorado over Edmonton
St.Louis over San Jose

Yeah I think that opens up a L.A./St.Louis conference final in the West and possible easy pickings for New Jersey in the conference finals.

Inconsequential, but fixed for accuracy.

 

[Big Phil]

No way do the Avs win, I highly doubt it at least. Bourque for starters inspired that entire team. That whole "Mission:16W" was built for Ray to win his Cup. Plus even at 40 yeas old Bourque was an elite defenseman too, a first team all-star that year.

I personally believe that the 2001 Devils were arguably better than the 2000 Cup winning Devils. So yeah take away Ray and the Devils win for sure

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think with or without Bourque, the Avs win their division (Edmonton was second, 25 points back), in which case they likely draw Los Angeles in the first round. Los Angeles had upset Detroit in the first round, and proved to be a formidable opponent for Colorado in the second round, bowing out in 7 games. Personally, I think the only thing that pushed Colorado by Los Angeles was the win-it-for-Ray mentality that really brought the team together. I think Colorado is out in the first two rounds without Bourque, and you'd see Los Angeles playing St. Louis in the conference final, either of whom would lose to New Jersey.

Cumulative Scoring

Avalanche victories: Colorado 14, Los Angeles 4
Kings' victories: Los Angeles 6, Colorado 3


Bourque certainly helped, most notably in Game 2, where he made a play that resulted in a 2-Goal swing (he batted a puck out of air on the goal line, and Nieminen scored on the ensuing rush), but the only reason the series went 7 instead of 5 was Felix Potvin. Without Bourque, at worst, the Avalanche lose by more than one goal in each game, but they still light up Potvin in the other four games same as usual.


New Jersey is a different story. Without Bourque driving them, I don't think the Avalanche respond to Patrick Roy's play in the opening period of Game 6. Instead, I think we see the same situation we saw in Game 6 of the 1997 WCF: The beginning stages of a defining moment in Roy's career that instead becomes the prettiest loss of said career when the Colorado Avalanche forget how to shoot the puck (and even then, there's no reason for Foote's goal to have gone in).

The other question is this: Does Roy continue to try to do too much to win for Bourque in Game 4 with the Avalanche being tripled-up in terms of shots-on-goal and inadvertently almost cost them the series in the first place?


Without Bourque and Forsberg, the Devils have the best 18/9 skaters for sure, but Brodeur had a lemon of a series. It's close, but I'll take the Devils. A streaking Potvin and the Kings would've ate the Devils' lunch though.

 

[jkrx]

The question is, who replaces Bourque in the line-up?

Would the Avs have made another deal except for the Blake deal or would they have used someone from the team?

If its the latter we would've probably seen more playtime for Muir, Berry or Pratt.

I would guess though that without Bourque, Avs would've traded or signed another defenseman before or during the season. Plus they would still have Pahlsson and Rolston to either keep with the team or trade for a veteran defenseman.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The question is, who replaces Bourque in the line-up?

Would the Avs have made another deal except for the Blake deal or would they have used someone from the team?

If its the latter we would've probably seen more playtime for Muir, Berry or Pratt.

I would guess though that without Bourque, Avs would've traded or signed another defenseman before or during the season. Plus they would still have Pahlsson and Rolston to either keep with the team or trade for a veteran defenseman.

i posted this yesterday in the winnipeg 1990 thread:

a couple things to remember:

- around the time they got bourque, pierre lacroix used to brag about having never signed a UFA that wasn't one of his own guys. so it's not likely they would have gotten a big name UFA defenseman in the summer of 2000 if bourque is still a bruin.

- this was lacroix's "big spender" era and he liked to make a splash at the trade deadline, getting fleury, bourque, and blake in consecutive years. usually, this wasn't because he had a hole to fill, but because the prospect of picking up an impending superstar UFA on the cheap was too good to pass up. plus, lacroix couldn't take the chance that a game-changing player would land in detroit, st. louis, or dallas-- "let detroit have their tomas sandstroms and dmitri mironovs, but they're not going home with theo fleury and rob blake." so i'm not sure you could say he would have been actively seeking a svehla or numminen if bourque hadn't been on the market.

- also, remember that ozolinsh was still on the team when they got bourque. basically, they went through the '99-'00 regular season with the same d-corps as the '00-'01 regular season (foote, klemm, miller, de vries, and skoula), only with bourque instead of ozolinsh. so again, i don't think lacroix is spending his spring on the phones desperately trying to land a defenseman to shore up his team if there's no bourque.

- if they never get bourque, they never trade ozolinsh to carolina for a grab bag of picks. keep in mind that the ozolinsh deal happened because 1. bourque made him expendable, and 2. the bourque deal made it urgently necessary to replenish the prospect pool, which was already weakened from the fleury deal.

- it wasn't until bourque retired that lacroix actively tried to pick up a defenseman. they had to give up aaron miller to get blake, and bourque retiring left them one d-man short. that summer, lacroix signed todd gill, who if i recall correctly was his first ever UFA signing. after gill flamed out and was released, they picked up kasparaitis at the deadline. this was the first time in the big spender era where lacroix wasn't saying to himself, "there's a superstar on the market and i'm sure as hell not going to let detroit or dallas get him," but getting a guy at the deadline to fill a need.

so the question might more accurately be, if bourque retires a bruin, do the avs still win the cup in '01 with ozolinsh and blake? and one other variable would be, is st. patrick as hungry that spring if he's not carpooling to the rink with bourque wearing that goofy 16W hat?

 

[jkrx]

i posted this yesterday in the winnipeg 1990 thread:

Good counterpoint and I totally forgot about Ozolinsh. So you think he would've kept Ozolinsh for the 2001 season and not traded for another veteran D?

 

[Ensane]

Either stellar memory or stellar research skills. Regardless, good post vadim.

I would guess though that without Bourque, Avs would've traded or signed another defenseman before or during the season. Plus they would still have Pahlsson and Rolston to either keep with the team or trade for a veteran defenseman.

Rolston never really clicked with any of the Avs' forwards. It's tough to say if he ever would have been as effective as he was on, say, the Wild a few seasons back.

 

[jcbio11]

Yeah they do. That team was the definition of the word stacked.