Biggest Playoff Chokers Since 2000? NYR vs SJ

[Voight]

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.

In that same time frame the Rangers never finished higher than 3rd and hit 100 points once.

Going beyond 2011, they finished 1st in 2012 & 2015 and while they didn't go all the way either year, they came close losing in the ECF

 

[TheStatican]

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.

I could care less what this poll is about, but it certainly says something that you feel the need to invoke my name in a thread I didn't even post in. It is nice to know you got me on your mind

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

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.

How many times was Minnesota the higher seed, though? I know they lost to St. Louis as a higher seed in 2017, but they also beat St. Louis as a lower seed in 2015.

By your measure you could consider Columbus a playoff choker (1 playoff series win + the play-in round over Toronto in 2020 for a series win% of .250, 15-26 in the playoffs all-time for a .366 win%), while ignoring that they've never been the higher seed in a playoff matchup and of their 6 playoff losses, 3 were to the eventual Cup champions and 2 others were to teams who lost in Game 7 of the Finals (coincidentally, both at home).

It would be like calling the Winnipeg Jets playoff chokers for going 1-6, 8-24 in the playoffs between 1983 and 1988 and ignoring that they played Edmonton who routed them 5x on the way to a Finals appearance and 4 Cups, and lost to Calgary the year the Flames went to the Finals.

 

[CascadiaPuck]

To me, choking is blowing an actual lead, whether on the scoreboard in a game or in a best of 7 series.

This thread seems to be about underperforming relative to your regular season record. Its not the same thing.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Sharks. Those were some dominant teams that just folded in the playoffs every year.

 

[bobholly39]

I never felt that the Rangers were chokers. In fact - quite the contrary, I felt they were overachievers, often doing quite well despite not having total juggernauts of teams. They were usually underdogs.

This is definitely San Jose for me

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Rangers probably aren't even in the top 10. What a silly poll.

 

[Artorius Horus T]

nah nah nah, the correct answer here is Bruce Boudreau

1 time presidents trophy winner, 9 division titles, 9 times over 100 point seasons,
3 play-offs series wins.

He is a good guy, person, but not very strong mental coach

but i guess id choose sharks

 

[Connor McConnor]

Sharks AINEC. Rangers were never actual SC threats.

 

[LightningStorm]

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.

Basically how I feel. The Sharks had a roster that was good enough to win a cup while with the Rangers, I do believe King Henrik helped them get further than they should've. The Sharks are the only team I look back at that should've won a cup.

In fact, from 2000 onward, I think the 2000-2007 Sens are a much better comparison to the Sharks than the Rangers.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

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

Last time I remember them winning was with a game clinching goal from Gaborik against Roy.

League fillers.

 

[Regal]

I believe the Sharks often had some flaws in the Thornton era, whether it was depth early on, or goaltending later, or the stars not being quite as good as some others after Thornton started declining. While consistently a good/great team, I never thought they were the “best” team. Still, you’d think they would have found a way at some point. I don’t know if I’d call them chokers per se, but losing to the Kings in 2014 after being up 3-0 is hard to ignore. As others have said, the Rangers probably had fewer expectations and so it’s harder to put that label on them.

 

[Matty Sundin]

Rangers typically just lost to teams that were just better or got out coached in a series. They also made the conference finals plenty of times and made the finals once and they were over achieving or got carried by the King. They were never seen as cup contenders and more just pretenders since the 2006. Even the year they won the president trophy, nobody was picking them.

I don’t even think last year was a choke even. They had hype due to name value on the team which were players that weren’t themselves(Tank, Kane).The devils were just better, better at responding and Ruff out coached Gallant and got him fired. San Jose should of did better then 1 finals appearance

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.