Strongest Teams That Didn't Win a Cup

[GrkFlyersFan]

2010 Flyers for me. That team was insane everywhere minus goaltending.

It was a fun year, but we Forrest Gumped our way through that one. That was like the only year the Devils were ever a good matchup for us(beat them 5 of 6 times in the regular season), we probably should have lost to Boston, and we lucked into the only ECF where we would have home ice since the Habs were on their own Cinderella run.

 

[Kurt Cobain]

People are forgetting the 1995 red wings would have won 55+ games if it was t for the lockout. They're not far behind their 96 team. Almost the same roaster too.

 

[GrkFlyersFan]

The 2004 Flyers really? I remember Keith Primeau carrying that team. I know it's a homer vote but the Flyers had much better teams than that one. 2000 Flyers were definitely better.

We had JR, LeClair, Recchi, Zhamnov, some good rentals like Markov and Malakhov, the defense was great, but the thing that set that team apart from other Flyers teams from the 90s on, is we actually had the hot goalie in Robert Esche. If not for the team trying to force Niitty in '06, Esche may have lasted longer as our starter, but Esche in '04 was on fire. Our D just became so banged up that Sami Kapanen actually had to play defense, and we still took a completely healthy TB team 7 and came within a goal of beating them.

 

[jbeck5]

05-06 ottawa senators

 

[Stuzchuk]

86 Oilers
93 Penguins

these are the first 2 that came to mind for me...

 

[Dogewow]

2006 Oilers were a playoff juggernaut

They lost to what some people consider one of the weaker, if not the weakest cup winning team in recent memory.

So no, them getting hot at the right time (plenty of teams do) does not put them on this list. They laid an egg in some of the games they played.

 

[BB6]

Why are they so deserving to have won? It's not like they had unfair calls go against them, they simply played worse hockey than the other team. Injuries aren't an excuse, it's the stanley cup finals everyone is playing injured, not to mention Boston lost important players like Horton too. I mean Vancouver got outscored 23-8 in the series with home advantage. They won a few very close games then got their ***** kicked hard.

You ask why and then say injuries aren't an excuse and act like losing Horton is comparable to the absurd amount of injuries the Canucks had. I feel like you've got some kind of axe to grind but that team was a ****ing juggernaut and yeah, they barley beat the hawks in the first round, a team that would win 3 out of 5 cups during that time.

I actually don't expect to ever see the Canucks that good again, even if we win the cup it'll be hard to match the sheer dominance of that squad.

H. Sedin, Kesler, Hamhuis, Edler, Ehrhoff, Malhotra, Samuelsson, Raymond, and Higgins. So... pretty much their first line center, their entire second line, most of their third line and half their defense.

Please continue to talk about how injuries don't matter and ignore the above quote, then continue to act baffled when someone says that team should have won.

*edit* I'd to add something I keep reading about them feasting on a weak division but the 1st GF, 1st GA, 1st PP and 3rd PK isn't something you can maintain without ******** on the whole league.

 

[njdevil26]

Definitely the 2000-2001 Devils

48-19-12-3 111p

Top 5 Scorers

Patrik Elias 40g 56a 96p
Alexander Mogilny 43g 40a 83p
Petr Sykora- 35g 46a 81p
Scott Gomez- 14g 49a 61p
Jason Arnott- 21g 34a 55p

Marty Brodeur- 42-17-11 .906 2.32

7 guys with 20+ goals (2 at 40+)

5 players with 40+ assists

5 guys were better than +30

The only person on the entire team under 0 was Scott Gomez at -1.


As a team 295 GF and 195 GA

22.9% PP
84.69 PK


This may have been the best Devils team ever and fell short by one game.

 

[WHOneedsSOX]

2014 Hawks. They were a lucky bounce away from winning 3 cups in a row.

 

[Dogewow]

Just so we're clear here "my favorite team that got hot at the right time that one year" does not get your team on this list.

Seeing a lot of that around here, and you could make an argument for any hot team in any given year if that were the criteria.

 

[Paralyzer]

The 03-04 Avalanche had and incredible roster on paper....

Yes they did:

Forsberg
Sakic
Kariya
Selanne
Blake
Foote
Tanguay
Hejduk
Konowalchuk
Liles
Svatos

Only issue was their Goaltending (Aebischer and Salo). Otherwise that team would have been Stanley Cup favorites.

 

[CascadiaPuck]

2011 Canucks feasted off of an awful division. I believe Kessler only scored 8 goals against playoff teams that year. Great team, but they padded their stats with their divisional games.

Yes, the Canucks were 13-5-2 against their division. They were also 41-14-7 against the rest of the league that season. That's one win shy of having double the number of wins vs. losses (of any kind). And the team actually had a higher winning percentage vs. the rest of the league than against their weak division. In sum, I believe you are incorrect.

The 2011 Canucks were banged up because they got utterly dominated by Boston physically.

You're completely right... except for the fact that the vast majority of the Canucks' injuries happened BEFORE the Finals. So, actually, I think you're wrong. As posted by sunnyvale420 elsewhere in this thread:

Malhotra eye exploded before playoffs
Hamhuis left game 1 scf and never returned with a torn abdominal muscle
Samuelsson left in the second round and never returned needing hernia and adductor surgery
Raymond broken back in game 6 scf, no penalty, no stretcher he was helped off the ice
Henrik played through a back injury since the second round
Kesler played through a hip injury since late conference finals
Edler played with 2 broken fingers
Ehrhoff hurt shoulder during wcf
Higgins hurt foot blocking a shot in second round
Bieksa had a bruised MCL after a slash
Rome suspended for a late hit in scf

The Canucks team that started the Final bore no resemblance to the one that had dominated the entire league. The Bruins won and it is what it is. But pretending that injuries weren't a factor is just false.

A series at that time between both teams, completely healthy (including Savard for Boston if you want), would have been a thing of beauty. I'm not saying the Canucks would have been a lock to win at all. But I do think the games would have been very different.

EDIT: All of which is to say that I believe the 2010/11 Canucks were definitely one of the strongest teams to not win the Cup. When healthy, they performed very well. #1 GF, #1 GA, #1 PP, #3 PK, Art Ross winner (D. Sedin), Selke winner (Kesler), Ted Lindsay winner (D. Sedin), Jennings winner (Luongo/Schneider), #2 Hart voting (D. Sedin), #3 in Vezina voting (Luongo), etc. If the Canucks had won one more game that season, it would've gone down as one of the most dominating seasons in the last 20 years.

 

[Kcoyote3]

I would like to think the 02-03 Senators who lead the league and took New Jersey to 7 games in the ECF. The year Giguere won the Conn Smythe on the losing team.

I remember that series. Didn't Friesen have a big couple games?

 

[Paxton Fettel]

1996 Red Wings, by far the best team that didn't win the cup in the past 25 years

 

[Sacha Baron Corbin]

2011 and 2012 Canucks are both good examples. On paper I thought the 2012 team was better than the Finals team in 2011, not having Daniel until game 5 of the Kings series was a huge blow imo

 

[BigKing]

The crazy thing about the 2001 cup is the whole Rob Blake situation, which ended up being the deciding factor in who won the cup. The Devils and Avalanche were the two teams vying for him, yet they Kingd trade within the conference. Then the Kings get eliminated by the Avs that playoff year. It was really stupid on the Kings part, the Devils offered a huge package, but it was mostly futures, but it it did include; two firsts, their 2000 1st and a prospect Brian Gionta. Yet the Kings went and took the Avalanche deal cause Deadmarsh was involved. Who was out of the league in two years. It really was dumb because the Avalanche eliminated the Kings and Blake was a massive factor in eliminating the Kings in the 2nd round. Hind sight is 20-20 but that Devils team would have had; Stevens, Niedermayer, Blake and Rafalski as their top 4 and I can't think of a better top 4 ever. I'll never understand the Kings trading a talent like Blake within the conference.

Because it was a better deal at the time?

Kings don't make the playoffs, let alone the 2nd round, without Deadmarsh and Miller.

This isn't like Edmonton trading Pronger to Anaheim for trash.

 

[OkimLom]

Alright, so now we've recently had:
Strongest team to not win cup thread
Strongest team to win cup thread
Weakest team to win cup thread

I believe to finish it all off we need a "Weakest team to not win cup" thread.

1st dibs on 99 Sabres

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

2010 Flyers for me. That team was insane everywhere minus goaltending.

barely made the playoffs and made the finals because the pens and caps somehow lost to montreal

 

[GrkFlyersFan]

barely made the playoffs and made the finals because the pens and caps somehow lost to montreal

Though I admitted that team Forrest Gumped their way through the playoffs, that was a much better team than their 7th seed suggested. Between goalie injuries(7 different goalies dressed that season, 5 played, the starter Emery was out from February on), having to be coached by John Stevens the first couple months(never seen anyone do so little with so much), and having an adjustment period changing from Stevens to Lavi all slowed that team down in the regular season.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

In recent years:

95-96 Red Wings finished with 132 pts - before overtime rules were changed. Only avs finished with above 100pts (104) and went on to win the Cup.

Canucks in 10-11 were another strong contender.

Canucks weren't really that strong, they just managed to do everything right to get themselves to the final. Still should've won, not Boston.

I think the 2006 Oilers were much stronger anyway. Also think the 2015 Lightning were very strong too.

 

[nilssont]

03 wings?

 

[The Assclown]

I think the 05-06 Senators were one of the strongest teams of the last three decades and the idea that they didn't win the Cup still stuns me.

They were beyond dominant and well coached. I almost feel as if they played so well throughout the regular season that their intensity fell when it mattered the most and weren't able to find that second gear to ultimately win.

 

[These Are The Days]

The 2005 Sabres were freaking insane. God almighty if it wasn't for that team being completely decimated by injuries they would've won it all for sure.

Also came to pay respect to the 2004 Flames

 

[silkyjohnson50]

I agree with this list. Especially, Pens/Wings. Just a toss up in 08/09.

I disagree with 08. Pens were lucky to even get to 6 games in 2008. Detroit was clearly the better team and when they turned it on Pittsburgh had no answer.

09 Detroit definitely would be in the conversation though. Two of Detroit's top 3 players were playing injured, or in the case of Datsyuk, not even playing the first 4 games. If Lidstrom and Datsyuk were close to healthy Detroit wins back-to-back in my opinion. But that's the playoffs. You have to be lucky to be healthy by the time the Finals rolls around.

 

[Zanon]

Canucks fan saying 2011 Canucks. That was a really damn good, dominant team. That was supposed to be our year to finally do it. Still stings.