Biggest Playoff Chokers Since 2000? NYR vs SJ
- Thread starter Bramskii
- Start date
- Status
Voight
#winning
This is tough one but the Sharks going 1-8 in two straight conference finals is pretty bad.
dirtydanglez
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2022
- 4,727
- 4,614
sharks but the real answer should be the minnesota wild. 34-62 in the playoffs since 2000 with only 4 series wins and 13 series losses
The Sharks between 2009 and 2015 were brutal come playoffs. I don't know how their fans did it.
The Rangers have been overachievers compared to their talent level, I wouldn't consider them chokers. They were never good enough to do so
I gotta go with the Rangers here.
I think San Jose had much stronger teams to deal with during their peak years vs what the Rangers were facing. (Now mind you I think the sharks themselves were a much stronger team overall during these years than the Rangers)
Rangers lost twice to the eventual cup winner. Once in the first round against Pittsburg, and in the finals vs LA
San Jose lost 5 Times to cup champs.
once in the finals to the Penguins.
And the sharks had losses to much stronger teams.
03/04 flames
05/06 oilers
06/07 wings
10/11 sharks
12/13 kings
17/18 knights
These teams are better than anything the rangers had to consistently face. The west had some very strong teams during San Jose’s peak years.
I think San Jose had much stronger teams to deal with during their peak years vs what the Rangers were facing. (Now mind you I think the sharks themselves were a much stronger team overall during these years than the Rangers)
Rangers lost twice to the eventual cup winner. Once in the first round against Pittsburg, and in the finals vs LA
San Jose lost 5 Times to cup champs.
once in the finals to the Penguins.
And the sharks had losses to much stronger teams.
03/04 flames
05/06 oilers
06/07 wings
10/11 sharks
12/13 kings
17/18 knights
These teams are better than anything the rangers had to consistently face. The west had some very strong teams during San Jose’s peak years.
Crow
Registered User
- May 19, 2014
- 3,910
- 2,829
They definitely suck in the post season but I think that had more to do with the quality of their team. Wouldn’t consider them chokers which usually refers to teams that should have won.
HandsomeTom43
Registered User
- May 2, 2018
- 716
- 995
It’s definitely the Sharks. However I voted for the Rangers because f*** them.
dirtydanglez
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2022
- 4,727
- 4,614
its used for players and teams that fail to perform under pressure. i think a playoff team that only wins 35% of their games and 24% of their series qualifies.
The Wild feel less like chokers because I never really felt like any of their teams were good enough to win it all.
Video Nasty
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2017
- 4,743
- 8,310
Still not sure what my vote is without doing the research yet to jog my memory on the Rangers, but this is a good post and I've always thought the Sharks reputation as chokers was overblown.
We tend to forget that when they won the Presidents' trophy in 2008-2009, going into the season, the Cup favorites were Detroit and Pittsburgh, which ultimately held true with a SCF rematch. Montreal had the next highest odds, and then the Sharks were tied with the Ducks and Stars for next.
Sharks obviously overperformed and the Ducks underperformed in the regular season. Ducks took them out in the first round and held a 2-1 series lead over Detroit in the next round and took them to 7 games. It's hard for me to call this a choke, even though at surface level, it was the #1 team in the league by points losing to the playoff team with the least amount of points. Ducks were not your normal #8 seed. It didn't shock me and that has nothing to do with how the Sharks were perceived. They had some nice records the prior three seasons, but lost where expected.
And as you noted, can losing in the Conference Finals in 2010 and 2011 Conference Finals to Chicago and Vancouver really be labeled as chokes? Including the Sharks, Kings downed a 116, 112, and 107 point team in the West on their way to a Cup win in 2014.
I've never quite aligned with the Sharks choker label.
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,142
- 9,398
The Sharks had teams that had legit shots to win, and flamed out in the first two tounds.
The NYR had teams with no real shot at winning that managed to get further.
The NYR had teams with no real shot at winning that managed to get further.
They have? All I remember is 15 odd years of Lundqvist carrying subpar rosters further than they should go with a reliance on defense.
Furthest they went was the final. Who were their centers that year?
Yet @TheStatican would have us believe that polls on hfboards are objective data with concrete results.
Fatass
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 22,167
- 14,085
Is this only between these two clubs or are other clubs eligible?
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Which series were the Sharks supposed to win, exactly?
The reverse sweep in 2014 was pretty unforgivable but there are zero other series that they absolutely should have won but didn’t. They were badly outmatched by the 2010 Hawks, 2011 Canucks, and 2016 Penguins. The 2009 Ducks team was not a real 8th seed—they got healthy right in time for the playoffs and the Sharks’ most important players got injured, plus Jonas Hiller played out of his mind. Most other series losses (2008, 2012, 2013, 2017, 2018, 2019), they simply ran into better teams or lost a seven game series to an equally good team by the slimmest of margins.
The reverse sweep in 2014 was pretty unforgivable but there are zero other series that they absolutely should have won but didn’t. They were badly outmatched by the 2010 Hawks, 2011 Canucks, and 2016 Penguins. The 2009 Ducks team was not a real 8th seed—they got healthy right in time for the playoffs and the Sharks’ most important players got injured, plus Jonas Hiller played out of his mind. Most other series losses (2008, 2012, 2013, 2017, 2018, 2019), they simply ran into better teams or lost a seven game series to an equally good team by the slimmest of margins.
TheStatican
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2012
- 1,656
- 1,367
Is the plan to go with that for every poll you lose?Yet @TheStatican would have us believe that polls on hfboards are objective data with concrete results.
I didnt realize I could lose something that was personal preference. But I guess that's why you got so worked up and purposely misconstrued or flat out ignored my points. Because you were trying to win something that wasn't a contest.Is the plan to go with that for every poll you lose?
HandsomeTom43
Registered User
- May 2, 2018
- 716
- 995
Some of those Shark squads were loaded. The year they actually made the finals probably wouldn’t have been one of their three best teams since 2000.They have? All I remember is 15 odd years of Lundqvist carrying subpar rosters further than they should go with a reliance on defense.
Furthest they went was the final. Who were their centers that year?
Yet @TheStatican would have us believe that polls on hfboards are objective data with concrete results.
The Rangers team was largely carried by the King. They were good not great. The Sharks should have won a title, the Rangers could have. I wouldn’t really consider any of the Rangers teams chokers.
I know his poll was going to skew towards San Jose. Shame they never won a title. Speaking as a Caps fan, I always viewed San Jose as kindred spirits, but that one title for us helps change the perception of the franchise from chokers to champs and I feel for the SJ fanbase.
Voight
#winning
Even so, from 2004 to 2011 the Sharks finished with 100+ points every season except for 2006 (99 points). They weren't barely making the playoffs as an 8th seed.
Beau Knows
Registered User
The Nuge
Some say…
Hard to not vote for the Sharks. They were one of the most elite teams in the league for a long time and just never put it together come playoffs
JohanFranzenstein
Registered User
- Dec 6, 2013
- 2,209
- 2,238
Sharks, which pisses me off because they mopped the floor with the Wings back to back postseasons.
And the rangers were making the playoffs handily through that period aswell. In a much weaker conference.
The debate comes down to whether a stronger team in San Jose should have done more against much stronger opponents, vs the rangers who faced weaker opponents. But the rangers themselves were weaker than the sharks.
Ironically one thing the rangers had is great goaltending, is the one thing the sharks needed more. And the rangers needed more offensive, which San Jose weren’t entirely hurting for.
- Status
