Better Stanley Cup Final, 2001 or 2004?

LightningStorm

Lightning/Mets/Vikings
Dec 19, 2008
3,020
2,008
Pacific NW, USA
In your opinion, which 7 game SCF was better? They were both good for different reasons. If you look at the outside circumstances, 2001 was bigger. Colorado, the President's Trophy winner, and New Jersey, the defending champs (and 2nd best record), were on a collision course all season to meet in the finals. By contrast, nobody really expected Tampa Bay to win it all in 2004, and even fewer thought Calgary would make the finals. Plus of the first time cup winners in 22 seasons, Bourque winning his first cup was a much bigger deal than Andreychuk to most.

On the other hand, 2004 had much closer games. Only games 2 and 4 in 2001 were one goal games, while the final 4 games of 2004 were decided by a goal (including OT in games 5 and 6). So while there was less buzz about the matchup in 2004, the games itself were much closer.

In your opinion, which of these 7 game series occurring 3 years apart (and ending with a 22 year veteran finally hoisting the cup) was the better SCF and why?
 

Brodeur

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,834
15,210
San Diego
I suppose it depends on how one interprets "better."

2001 was great on paper, but each of the individual games kinda lacked in excitement for me. Colorado had a 6-0 blowout to open the series and games 6/7 were pretty one sided. For me, 2000 was a better series in terms of drama but rarely gets mentioned in the same breath as 2001.

Calgary/Tampa had a couple of OT games and game 7 was down to the wire.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
2004 had more dramatic moments, but the hockey itself was largely terrible. What were the shot totals in Game 7, 17-14 or something like that? But Games 5-7 at least came down to the wire in that one. They were lopsided in the 2001 series. Roy's blunder (Game 4 I think?) was really the only big moment I remember from the Avs-Devils matchup.

I guess I'd have to choose 2001 if pressed. Reason being, Game 7 for the Stanley Cup had some novelty appeal to it at that point. It's hard to believe, but that was only the third time in 30 years that the final series went the distance. Then all of a sudden we got three in a row from 2003-2006.
 

Hackett

BAKAMAN
Mar 4, 2002
21,545
9
Visit site
I was much more emotionally invested in 2004 than 2001 because I fell for the Calgary fairy tale that almost came true.

2001 was good, but we had become accustomed to that point of seeing the usual suspects deep in the finals. The devils were there for their 3rd time in seven years and second time in a row. The avs were there for their 2nd time in 6 years, but were an established heavyweight throughout that entire span.

Conversely, 2004 was completely fresh with Calgary and Tampa involved.

Both have lasting memories, whether its Bourque winning the cup, or whether Gelinas scored the cup winning goal in game 6. I'll take 2004.
 

DoobeeDoobeeDoo

The Doobster
Jul 3, 2013
1,509
9
Both were great finals, but I'm going to go with the 2001 SCF between the Devils & Avalanche.

Reasons
-2001 featured 2 teams that had won recent Cups prior to the meeting
-2001 featured the 2 greatest goalies of all time (Brodeur vs Roy)
-2001 featured a contrast of offense (Avalanche) vs defense (Devils)
-Ray Bourque's story was a bigger deal than Dave Andreychuk
-2004 was followed up by a locked out season, so it is often forgotten
 

GuineaPig

Registered User
Jul 11, 2011
2,425
206
Montréal
Both were great finals, but I'm going to go with the 2001 SCF between the Devils & Avalanche.

Reasons
-2001 featured 2 teams that had won recent Cups prior to the meeting
-2001 featured the 2 greatest goalies of all time (Brodeur vs Roy)
-2001 featured a contrast of offense (Avalanche) vs defense (Devils)
-Ray Bourque's story was a bigger deal than Dave Andreychuk
-2004 was followed up by a locked out season, so it is often forgotten

The Devils were the highest scoring team in the league, and the Avs allowed less goals in the regular season than them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: njdevils1982

Skobel24

#Ignited
May 23, 2008
16,789
920
Winnipeg
I'm a Flames fan, and I think 2001 Finals were so much better. Such an amazing finals, and seeing Bourque finally win it was just amazing.

Flames had a good run. Sucked how it ended, but I still have a lot of great memories of that year. I actually got to see them play Phoenix when they clinched the playoffs.
 

Plural

Registered User
Mar 10, 2011
33,703
4,852
2004 was hard for me. I really, and I mean really, wanted to see Kipper win it all. I remember being a 16 year old working at my uncles diner back then. When I closed the place up, I stayed for a while to look up for the game results from Text-TV. I also took a beer from the cooler one time. It was pretty cool. Sit at the diner table, drink beer and watch NHL records from Text-TV. I'll always remember it.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
2001 had the two best teams and probably the best quality hockey. However it didn't have the drama within the game quite as much. You wanted to see Bourque win and there was so much star power with both teams that you couldn't help but be emotionally invested in it.

It isn't as if 2004 didn't have any of that either. Iginla is pretty hard to dislike and so is Kipper. Plus the Lightning had what we thought might be a new found great trio of forwards for a long time afterward. The Iggy/Lecavalier fight was epic and it really had been a while since there was an exciting final in hockey (2001 being the exception). Probably the best final since 1994 that way. Games 5 and 6 were the meat and potatoes though. Man, that was some hockey there. Calgary's grinders even played well, Shean Donovan even scored some nice goals. The only problem is that despite a great last minute save from Khabibulin and a lovely play on the second goal by Lecavalier, this was a dull game. Each team was too timid and didn't "go" for it like they had in previous games.

But fine hockey either way. 2001 is more of those "greatest moments in hockey" memories but I'll still say from a neutral point the entertainment level was better in 2004.
 

LightningStorm

Lightning/Mets/Vikings
Dec 19, 2008
3,020
2,008
Pacific NW, USA
I suppose it depends on how one interprets "better."

2001 was great on paper, but each of the individual games kinda lacked in excitement for me. Colorado had a 6-0 blowout to open the series and games 6/7 were pretty one sided. For me, 2000 was a better series in terms of drama but rarely gets mentioned in the same breath as 2001.

Calgary/Tampa had a couple of OT games and game 7 was down to the wire.
Yeah this is basically what my OP was saying. I guess the main question is which do you think makes for a better series of those 2 scenarios?

I guess I'd have to choose 2001 if pressed. Reason being, Game 7 for the Stanley Cup had some novelty appeal to it at that point. It's hard to believe, but that was only the third time in 30 years that the final series went the distance. Then all of a sudden we got three in a row from 2003-2006.
Good point about the rarity of game 7's in the finals back then. In the 29 finals from 1972-2000, there were only 3 game 7's. Then 2001 started the run of 4 in 5 seasons, the ones after being the 3 straight from 2003-2006, meaning by the time we had one in 2004, it was the 2nd in a row and 3rd in 4 seasons.

2001 was good, but we had become accustomed to that point of seeing the usual suspects deep in the finals. The devils were there for their 3rd time in seven years and second time in a row. The avs were there for their 2nd time in 6 years, but were an established heavyweight throughout that entire span.

Conversely, 2004 was completely fresh with Calgary and Tampa involved.
Good point about the one area you can say the outside circumstances favored 2004. Both were fresh new teams when it came to the finals rather than 2 of the usual 4 of Detroit, New Jersey, Colorado and Dallas.

2001 was a better series, 2004 was a more dramatic series, if that makes sense.
Makes sense. 2001 did have the better teams, but 2004 did have the more dramatic games.

2001 had the two best teams and probably the best quality hockey. However it didn't have the drama within the game quite as much. You wanted to see Bourque win and there was so much star power with both teams that you couldn't help but be emotionally invested in it.

It isn't as if 2004 didn't have any of that either. Iginla is pretty hard to dislike and so is Kipper. Plus the Lightning had what we thought might be a new found great trio of forwards for a long time afterward. The Iggy/Lecavalier fight was epic and it really had been a while since there was an exciting final in hockey (2001 being the exception). Probably the best final since 1994 that way. Games 5 and 6 were the meat and potatoes though. Man, that was some hockey there. Calgary's grinders even played well, Shean Donovan even scored some nice goals. The only problem is that despite a great last minute save from Khabibulin and a lovely play on the second goal by Lecavalier, this was a dull game. Each team was too timid and didn't "go" for it like they had in previous games.

But fine hockey either way. 2001 is more of those "greatest moments in hockey" memories but I'll still say from a neutral point the entertainment level was better in 2004.
I can agree with your last paragraph. No cup presentation moment is more memorable than Sakic handing the cup to Bourque. But 2004 certainly had more entertaining games with the final 4 games being decided by a goal (including OT in games 5 and 6).
 

LightningStorm

Lightning/Mets/Vikings
Dec 19, 2008
3,020
2,008
Pacific NW, USA
Since I've seen the 2000 and 2006 SCF mentioned, I'll explain why I don't think either of those measure up to 2001 and 2004 (and I'll include 2003 since it was a 7 game finals in this span).

What 2001 and 2004 had that the other 3 lacked was the eventual loser being in control of the series. In fact, comparing the 2 finals the Stars made it to, I think the one where they beat the Sabres was more dramatic than when they lost to the Devils the next year. The Sabres won the opening game in Dallas, giving them control of that series. And while both series ended in 6, 1999 was tied at 2 after 4, while the Devils lead 3-1 in 2000. The Stars fought hard against the Devils in 2000, but as a Stars fan, I never felt that we were in control that series.

2003 was one that was technically 7 games but didn't feel that close. Going into game 7 I didn't think the Ducks had a chance. The Devils owned them every game in New Jersey, while for the Ducks 3 wins in Anaheim, 2 were in OT (including one where Brodeur had his stick gaffe). Just like the other 3 games in NJ, game 7 was a blowout for the Devils. In terms of one sided series getting to a game 7, this was different than 2011. While the Bruins had blowout wins in their victories while all the Canucks came in 1 goal games, at least the Bruins hadn't won in Vancouver yet in the series going into game 7, so it was much more up in the air for who would win game 7 than 2003, where everyone basically knew the Devils would win on home ice again.

2006 was the same. Edmonton never had control of the series. Carolina had a 3-1 lead. The Oilers fought hard to come back and force a game 7, but the Hurricanes had control of the game the whole way.

This contrasts with 2001 and 2004, where the winner was down 3-2 and had to win a game 6 on the road. New Jersey had control after their game 5 blowout win to go up 3-2, even though Colorado won the last 2 games in blowouts. Calgary came even closer to winning in 2004. Though Tampa never trailed in the last 2 games after falling down 3-2 in the series, game 6 did go to OT with the Flames at home. And as we all know anything as simple as an unlucky bounce could've won the Flames the cup in that scenario. And while the Lightning grabbed an early lead and never gave it up in game 7, the ending was definitely the most intense experience I've had as an NHL fan being that I'm a Lightning fan. Khabibulin had to make some really big saves after Calgary cut Tampa's lead to 2-1.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
2004 had a Canadian team for the first time in a hundred years or so, so that made me much more emotionally invested (I was living in Vancouver at the time) in the teams. Not that I was rooting against Tampa, because I liked their team also and several of their players. I guess I liked both teams, so I just sat back and enjoyed it. Bit bummed to see the Canadian team lose, though.

In 2001 I was living in a subtropical Asian country where no one knows the Winter Olympics exists, let alone the NHL, so I had to go to an American colleague's apartment (with a satellite hook-up) to watch game 7 of the Finals. Missed games 1 through 6.

I can see the argument that 2001 had "better" hockey, but I just cared more in 2004.

As an added (minor) point, I also think I felt more sympathy to both Tampa and Calgary (esp. Calgary) in that they were "small" NHL teams that didn't necessarily attract a lot of high-priced free agents. By 2001, both Colorado and New Jersey were high-spending franchises.
 

Brodeur

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,834
15,210
San Diego
The Sabres won the opening game in Dallas, giving them control of that series. And while both series ended in 6, 1999 was tied at 2 after 4, while the Devils lead 3-1 in 2000. The Stars fought hard against the Devils in 2000, but as a Stars fan, I never felt that we were in control that series.

From a Devils perspective, we had come back from being down 3 games to 1 in the Conference Finals against Philadelphia. So when Modano got the game 5 OT winner, I know I felt like Dallas winning the next two was a very real possibility.

2003 was one that was technically 7 games but didn't feel that close. Going into game 7 I didn't think the Ducks had a chance. The Devils owned them every game in New Jersey, while for the Ducks 3 wins in Anaheim, 2 were in OT (including one where Brodeur had his stick gaffe). Just like the other 3 games in NJ, game 7 was a blowout for the Devils.

'03 was another weird series along the lines of '01 but without the superstar names. Not sure I'd classify game 7 as a blowout per se. The first period was real tentative from both sides and it was 0-0 going into the first intermission. Devils got a pair of 2nd period goals. Dan Bylsma missed on a golden opportunity early in the 3rd period. Friesen scored to make it 3-0 with 4 minutes left to seal it. I know I didn't feel like it was a safe lead until that point.

Looking back at it, there are some memorable moments from that series. Brodeur stick gaffe and the Kariya "off the floor, on the board" sequence. If Anaheim had won the series, Kariya's game 6 goal would probably be remembered more fondly. Also didn't help that Kariya left Anaheim three weeks after the Finals.
 

LightningStorm

Lightning/Mets/Vikings
Dec 19, 2008
3,020
2,008
Pacific NW, USA
From a Devils perspective, we had come back from being down 3 games to 1 in the Conference Finals against Philadelphia. So when Modano got the game 5 OT winner, I know I felt like Dallas winning the next two was a very real possibility.
I can see where you are coming from. After all, game 6 did go to 2nd OT. From a Stars perspective though, I never thought we had a chance coming back. You guys clearly outplayed us that series, and Belfour stole game 5, and is the only reason we survived to 2nd OT in game 6. In fact, Belfour stole the WCF vs Colorado that year too. The 2000 Stars team, while still among the best defensively and goaltending wise, was not the same team offensively that won the President's trophy the previous 2 seasons (and the cup the previous one). Meanwhile, the Devils were as good defensively (probably the 2 best defensive teams in the league at the time) and had a much better offense that year. People forget how good the Devils offense was under Robinson.


03 was another weird series along the lines of '01 but without the superstar names. Not sure I'd classify game 7 as a blowout per se. The first period was real tentative from both sides and it was 0-0 going into the first intermission. Devils got a pair of 2nd period goals. Dan Bylsma missed on a golden opportunity early in the 3rd period. Friesen scored to make it 3-0 with 4 minutes left to seal it. I know I didn't feel like it was a safe lead until that point.
I remember watching that game 7 and yeah, it was a scoreless first and tentative as you describe it. After the Devils scored 2 in the 2nd though, I knew it was over. The Ducks that season weren't built to come from behind, while the Devils were the last team you wanted to fall behind to.

back at it, there are some memorable moments from that series. Brodeur stick gaffe and the Kariya "off the floor, on the board" sequence. If Anaheim had won the series, Kariya's game 6 goal would probably be remembered more fondly. Also didn't help that Kariya left Anaheim three weeks after the Finals.
Yeah, Kariya coing back after getting hit by Stevens was unforgettable. And while you make some good points about the 2000 and 2003 being tentative, one thing they both have in common is the Devils always had control of the series (or at the very least, the Stars and Ducks never had control).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LightningStorm

Lightning/Mets/Vikings
Dec 19, 2008
3,020
2,008
Pacific NW, USA
-Ray Bourque's story was a bigger deal than Dave Andreychuk
I'd like to talk about the Bourque vs Andreychuk angle of this thread. Look, of course people remember Bourque's story more. The only people who remember Andreychuk's as much are Lightning fans like myself. I totally get that. Bourque obviously is a legendary defenseman (all time leader in goals, assists and points for a d-man speaks for itself). His all time ranking is far higher than Andreychuk, who at best was a complimentary star player. Plus he had probably the most iconic cup presentation moment of all time with Sakic handing the cup straight to him (Andreychuk was Tampa's captain, so he received it first anyway). Having said that, I think Andreychuk has the better story when it came to winning his first cup in 22 seasons.

Andreychuk seemed to have some real bad luck with timing late in his career before going to Tampa. He played part of 4 seasons with the Devils (traded there during the 1996 season and was traded after 1999). During the dead puck era (1995-2004), those were the only 4 consecutive seasons one could've played for the Devils and not won the cup (after all, they did win it the season before he came and after he left). In 2000, he started out with Boston, then was part of the Bourque trade to Colorado, who lost to Dallas in the WCF. After that season, he goes back to Buffalo and Colorado wins the cup, making it the 3rd time in his career (and 2nd straight season) he missed being on a cup winner by one season.

In the 2001 offseason, right after Bourque won his elusive cup, the conventional wisdom was that Andreychuk would sign with a contender. But instead, he signed with Tampa. We were terrible at the time and far from being a contender. He was named captain his first season with the team. They struggled, failing once again to make the playoffs. However, in the 2002 offseason, he stated his desire not to be traded, wanting to finish his work with the Lightning. In 2003 we made the playoffs, then in 2004 we win the cup, rewarding Andreychuk for his leadership, patience and loyalty.

Let me make it clear though, by stating this I am not saying that Bourque winning his cup with the Avs is diminished just because he took a shortcut and Andreychuk didn't. Bourque gave his heart and to the Bruins for 20 seasons despite the lack of support from management. You can't knock him one bit for going to that stacked Colorado team at the end of his career. Plus he was far from a passenger on the 2001 Avalanche. He was a major player from them. While I don't think going to a contender diminishes Bourque's cup win at all, Andreychuk not jumping ship from the Lightning to go to a contender is worthy of extra praise. Even before the 2004 season, not many people thought we could win the cup. We were seen as a playoff team, but not a cup contender. It's reasons like this that he has a statue outside of the arena in Tampa despite his brief time there, and why I think he deserved that statue.

Again, I understand why Bourque's story is more known, but Andreychuk's is truly remarkable.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Ray Bourque's Stanley Cup is one of the most hollow "achivements" in hockey history. He hitched his wagon to a team that was likely to win without him. Andreychuk spent three seasons playing for TB before winning the cup. Andreychuk earned his, Bourque's was more like a participation ribbon. Cheap way to get your name on the cup.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->