Jets vs. Ducks: "Closest" Sweep of All Time?

[Unholy]

OK Ducks fans. Get off your high Buttercup. The Jets had the lead for 3/4 of the series. So to say the Jets were not in it is a complete lie. Check your stats. If not call Donald or Mickey.

The teams were tied for most of the series. Ducks were just the better team and their players came through when it mattered. Check the win column.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

OK Ducks fans. Get off your high Buttercup. The Jets had the lead for 3/4 of the series. So to say the Jets were not in it is a complete lie. Check your stats. If not call Donald or Mickey.

Ducks were in complete control in two of the 4 games (games 1 and 2, Jets could barely sustain any possession in Ducks zone), and were also better in game 4. Jets were better in game 3, but not by much and not when they needed to close the game.

And it was already determined it wasn't the closest sweep results wise.

Jets will be better next season, but in this series Ducks were clearly better of the two. Really it wasn't a close series.

 

[seasontixholder*]

Ducks were in complete control in two of the 4 games (games 1 and 2, Jets could barely sustain any possession in Ducks zone), and were also better in game 4. Jets were better in game 3, but not by much and not when they needed to close the game.

And it was already determined it wasn't the closest sweep results wise.

Jets will be better next season, but in this series Ducks were clearly better of the two. Really it wasn't a close series.

And I said that it wasn't the closest sweep in previous posts. But some Ducks fans, not all seem to think the Jets were not even in the games which is an outright lie.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

I don't know about closest sweep of all time.

All i know is the Jets lost the series when Kesler tied game 3 late and Little couldn't score on the PP afterwards, instead hit the crossbar.

It looked like Ducks weren't going to lose that series no matter what, so in that sense it wasn't all that close.

IF the Jets weren't so banged up that series would've been much closer. Buff, Ladd, Little, Perreault, Trouba... That's a group of very good players having significant injuries already in the 1st round.

 

[Butch 19]

Jets vs. Ducks: "Closest" Sweep of All Time? - best oxymoron series of all time.

 

[Sojourn]

And I said that it wasn't the closest sweep in previous posts. But some Ducks fans, not all seem to think the Jets were not even in the games which is an outright lie.

Or maybe that's how you're interpreting it, and it isn't their(our fault).

Have any of us said the Jets weren't even in the games? That they didn't belong on the ice? That seems to be what you're suggesting some of us are saying. So, either these anonymous fans are lying, or you are.

 

[seasontixholder*]

Or maybe that's how you're interpreting it, and it isn't their(our fault).

Have any of us said the Jets weren't even in the games? That they didn't belong on the ice? That seems to be what you're suggesting some of us are saying. So, either these anonymous fans are lying, or you are.

Typical:

Originally Posted by JaegerDice View Post
No.

The Ducks were clearly superior every game.

Even when they were down on the scoreboard, they never looked like they weren't in complete control of the game.

Was never close....never thought the Jets had any chance...

Wasn't close.


I didn't think the Jets would win but a few bounces and it's a different series. But still not the closest of all time. No way.

 

[Pontius Palat]

Not the closest of all time, but when Tampa Bay swept Washington in 2011 it was pretty close:

1) 4-2 (ENG for Tampa)
2) 3-2
3) 4-3 (OT)
4) 5-3

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

After watching the series i dont think there was any way Jets could beat anahiem in a 7 game series with their currant roster.

Even with bounces going their way, i still feel like anahiem would beat them pretty handedly. I thought the jets played a good series, but it was pretty clear who the more expierenced/talented team was.


Its not a high horse, you guys got swept.... you guys didnt really out play anahiem in any games, and 3 of the 4 were pretty much dominated by anahiem.

 

[Sojourn]

Typical:

Originally Posted by JaegerDice View Post
No.

The Ducks were clearly superior every game.

Even when they were down on the scoreboard, they never looked like they weren't in complete control of the game.

Was never close....never thought the Jets had any chance...

Wasn't close.


I didn't think the Jets would win but a few bounces and it's a different series. But still not the closest of all time. No way.

So... a Chicago Blackhawks fan. That's your example of Anaheim fans outright lying.

I'm not saying your argument isn't well thought out, but your argument isn't well thought out.

 

[Tecumseh]

The Ducks dominated 3 of the 4 games. Game 3 was pretty even with neither team playing all that well. The games weren't as close as the score indicated. If you watch the Ducks play on a regular basis then it should be fairly obvious that they're very comfortable playing 1 and 2 goal games.

 

[puckyeah]

High horse?

The Jets were in the lead for much of it, but were they in control? Certainly not. It was close in terms of the score. That's it. I'm not going to suggest Anaheim completely dominated the play, because I don't think that is the case, but they did carry the play in at least 3 of the 4 games.

Another factor is that the Ducks are better than the "way they win" which is winning close games while "in hand".

Ducks have much better players, other than Byfuglien, i hadn't even heard of anyone on the Jets, i was like "who are these guys" they're going to beat Kesler, Perry and Getzlaf?

Ducks didn't even get out of first gear in this series, they had way more to give if they needed it.

 

[Koonta]

Another factor is that the Ducks are better than the "way they win" which is winning close games while "in hand".

Ducks have much better players, other than Byfuglien, i hadn't even heard of anyone on the Jets, i was like "who are these guys" they're going to beat Kesler, Perry and Getzlaf?

Ducks didn't even get out of first gear in this series, they had way more to give if they needed it.

Again this is a sore winner, perfect example of it.

 

[CapitalistInfidel]

Sharks getting swept by Chicago in the wcf was a lot closer than most remember. Two 1 goal games, two 2 goal games with one of those coming from an empty netter.

When asked which series was the toughest in 2010 Patrick Sharp didn't hesitate and said even though it was a sweep the San Jose series was the toughest.

 

[puckyeah]

Again this is a sore winner, perfect example of it.

A sore winner? I didn't win anything, my comments aren't based on something that i've "won" just based on observation, you know, from watching the games. Sorry you didn't agree with my opinion.

 

[tmurfin]

No sweep is close. Jets lost 4 in a row, that's not close to anything.

 

[Khelvan]

Kids these days. Everything is "of all time."

Sure, when your context is a single decade. Maybe.

 

[fsanford]

Not winning a single game in a playoff round, does not allow the word close series to be invoked.

 

[umwoz]

Not really... The Ducks vs. Pavelec was pretty close though.

 

[ZeHockeyFan]

Again this is a sore winner, perfect example of it.

Just no. As a fan of neither team, I can attest that Winnipeg looked no way in control of any game in its entirety during the series. They had their moments- most noticeably in game 3- but Anaheim didn't look a whole lot perturbed even when Winnipeg had those moments. Sure this wasn't the (near) tennis match that was the NYR vs NYI in 1994, but Anaheim was in complete command for most of the series.

 

[SirQuacksALot]

Kids these days. Everything is "of all time."

Sure, when your context is a single decade. Maybe.

But is this the most annoying generational trend of all time?

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

When asked which series was the toughest in 2010 Patrick Sharp didn't hesitate and said even though it was a sweep the San Jose series was the toughest.

Byfuglien and Niemi stepped up huge in that series.

 

[Koonta]

Just no. As a fan of neither team, I can attest that Winnipeg looked no way in control of any game in its entirety during the series. They had their moments- most noticeably in game 3- but Anaheim didn't look a whole lot perturbed even when Winnipeg had those moments. Sure this wasn't the (near) tennis match that was the NYR vs NYI in 1994, but Anaheim was in complete command for most of the series.

Whatever, his additional comments came off to me as being a sore winner. As for the OP no I don't think it was the closest sweep ever and I can concede that the Ducks carried the balance of the play for the majority of the games. However the Jets carried the lead for the majority of the series but were never able to get that one extra goal to get that 2 goal cushion. The Ducks were the better team and were full value for their win but at the risk of being called a sore loser, I will say that the Jets had significant injuries that may not have changed the outcome of the series but maybe a couple of the games.

Okay now will come all the 'don't use injuries as an excuse' or 'all teams have injuries' retorts. But I don't care not using it as an excuse but a reason why some of the Jets players were not at their best.

Anyway, over this now and moving on. Ducks fans should focus on the Calgary Flames now anyway, no need to be distracted by Jets fans anymore. However if the Flames manage to upset the Ducks can't guarantee I won't come back and rub the salt into some of the Ducks fans that were rubbing it in when this first series was over.

 

[caliamad]

Detroit vs Anaheim 1997.

Detroit Sweep, 3 games went to OT, 1 Double, 1 Triple.

I actually think the 2003 sweep of the Red Wings was not only close, but actually I think Detriot badly outplayed Anaheim at every position but goalie. If it wasn't for J.S. Giguere, it would have been a sweep the other way.

 

[Mad Brills*]

habs lightning last year.

Despite ****** goaltending by lindback, the habs won 3 one goal games.