Toronto sweeps Ottawa in 2001 or Anaheim sweeps Detroit in 2003, which was more shocking?

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,266
12,891
Toronto, Ontario
Roberts, Tucker, Corson, Domi, McCabe, They even had old Dave Manson who I didn't realize played for the leafs(he only played 2 playoff games though).

Calling Darcy Tucker a playoff warrior based on what he did at the NHL level is laughable. He was notorious for lousy playoffs.
 

streitz

Registered User
Jul 22, 2018
1,258
318
Calling Darcy Tucker a playoff warrior based on what he did at the NHL level is laughable. He was notorious for lousy playoffs.


He still bullied the senators.



Also lousy? He wasn't an offensive player, he usually had like 30 or 40 points. He was a clown but his production was fine considering.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,266
12,891
Toronto, Ontario
He still bullied the senators.



Also lousy? He wasn't an offensive player, he usually had like 30 or 40 points. He was a clown but his production was fine considering.

He was lousy.

He was way too amped up in the playoffs, took foolish, selfish penalties because he played with no discipline and was comically easy to knock off his game. Just one decent hit landed against Tucker would send him into vendetta mode and off the game plan.

All of that would be more than enough to call him lousy, but his production also fell into a black hole in the post-season. Tucker managed just ten goals and 21 points in 68 playoff games. His post season PPG average was a measly .3 whereas in the regular season he produced at a better then half a point a game pace. In the regular season, he had four 20+ goal seasons for the Maple Leafs and posted 59 and 61 point seasons. In the playoffs his offence dropped off and his selfish penalties went up. He couldn't handle the intensity of the playoffs. It turned him into a rabid animal and his usefulness was gone.
 

streitz

Registered User
Jul 22, 2018
1,258
318
He was lousy.

He was way too amped up in the playoffs, took foolish, selfish penalties because he played with no discipline and was comically easy to knock off his game. Just one decent hit landed against Tucker would send him into vendetta mode and off the game plan.

All of that would be more than enough to call him lousy, but his production also fell into a black hole in the post-season. Tucker managed just ten goals and 21 points in 68 playoff games. His post season PPG average was a measly .3 whereas in the regular season he produced at a better then half a point a game pace. In the regular season, he had four 20+ goal seasons for the Maple Leafs and posted 59 and 61 point seasons. In the playoffs his offence dropped off and his selfish penalties went up. He couldn't handle the intensity of the playoffs. It turned him into a rabid animal and his usefulness was gone.


Well I remember him bullying Ottawa and taking out Peca. That's more then most of the Quinn era leafs did.
 

billybudd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2012
22,049
2,249
I will say this about Toronto in 2001. The 90 points they finished in 7th place with was just 2 more than the 88 points Carolina got for finishing in 8th place. Plus Carolina was tied in points with Boston and I'm assuming the tie breaker at the time was total wins, because they had 38 and Boston had 36. So it shows how close Toronto almost missed the playoffs that season.

In 2003 Anaheim finished 7th with 95 points, Edmonton was 8th with 92 points. However Chicago who finished 9th only had 79 points and was no threat to the Ducks missing the playoffs compared to how much closer the Eastern Conference standings were in 2001.

Were you watching hockey at this time or are you just going by numbers you're finding on hockey-reference.com? I don't know how many ways however many people need to tell you that, given context which was then common knowledge, the Leafs beating the Sens in 2001 was not some kind of shocking outcome. Toronto was everybody's dark horse pick in the East, in part, because of how strongly the first round matchup favored them.

I don't really want to hear about how the Leafs went 0-5 against the Senators in the regular season, either. More then than now, playoff hockey was an entirely different animal than regular season hockey. It was an attrition game, not a talent game. It was a game where chances were so hard to come by that you knew you needed to bury the one you got, because you might not see another for the rest of the series. A game of nerves and will.

The Leafs were built specifically to play that type of game and the Senators were earning a reputation that they were not. As such, the "upset" didn't surprise anyone because it was an upset that the conventional wisdom of the time would lead one to almost expect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon

LeafsNation75

Registered User
Jan 15, 2010
37,975
12,506
Toronto, Ontario
Were you watching hockey at this time or are you just going by numbers you're finding on hockey-reference.com? I don't know how many ways however many people need to tell you that, given context which was then common knowledge, the Leafs beating the Sens in 2001 was not some kind of shocking outcome. Toronto was everybody's dark horse pick in the East, in part, because of how strongly the first round matchup favored them.

I don't really want to hear about how the Leafs went 0-5 against the Senators in the regular season, either. More then than now, playoff hockey was an entirely different animal than regular season hockey. It was an attrition game, not a talent game. It was a game where chances were so hard to come by that you knew you needed to bury the one you got, because you might not see another for the rest of the series. A game of nerves and will.

The Leafs were built specifically to play that type of game and the Senators were earning a reputation that they were not. As such, the "upset" didn't surprise anyone because it was an upset that the conventional wisdom of the time would lead one to almost expect.
Look everyone else made their points that the Ducks sweep was more shocking and I won't argue that anymore.

Now personally I remember in 2001 before playoffs started hopeful the Leafs could still win, but I was also more cautions compared to 2000 because of what happened against Ottawa in the regular season.
 

LeafsNation75

Registered User
Jan 15, 2010
37,975
12,506
Toronto, Ontario
He was lousy.

He was way too amped up in the playoffs, took foolish, selfish penalties because he played with no discipline and was comically easy to knock off his game. Just one decent hit landed against Tucker would send him into vendetta mode and off the game plan.

All of that would be more than enough to call him lousy, but his production also fell into a black hole in the post-season. Tucker managed just ten goals and 21 points in 68 playoff games. His post season PPG average was a measly .3 whereas in the regular season he produced at a better then half a point a game pace. In the regular season, he had four 20+ goal seasons for the Maple Leafs and posted 59 and 61 point seasons. In the playoffs his offence dropped off and his selfish penalties went up. He couldn't handle the intensity of the playoffs. It turned him into a rabid animal and his usefulness was gone.
Say what you want about Tucker and yes he might have went crazy against the Islanders during their playoff series against the Leafs in 2002, however no matter what they tried to do against him (Only in Long Island because they were to scared to play physical against them in Toronto) the Leafs still won that series with Tucker in the lineup.
 

streitz

Registered User
Jul 22, 2018
1,258
318
Say what you want about Tucker and yes he might have went crazy against the Islanders during their playoff series against the Leafs in 2002, however no matter what they tried to do against him (Only in Long Island because they were to scared to play physical against them in Toronto) the Leafs still won that series with Tucker in the lineup.


He also went low and took out their shutdown center/captain.


I remember Tucker literally jumped into the Ottawa bench and tried to fight their whole team once...lol

The guy was mostly a clown, and his point totals were usually average at best. That being said going 4-0 in series on a soft team like the sens at the time, Domi and Tucker played a big part in that(among others).
 

LeafsNation75

Registered User
Jan 15, 2010
37,975
12,506
Toronto, Ontario
He also went low and took out their shutdown center/captain.
I assume you are referring to the hit on Michael Peca? After it happened I remember Harry Neale saying the hit was clean and it was unfortunate that Peca got injured. However during those same playoffs Steve Yzerman did a similar hit on Chris Pronger and he only played 5 regular season games the next season. However no one blamed Yzerman for injuring Pronger the way Tucker got bashed for injuring Peca.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,266
12,891
Toronto, Ontario
I assume you are referring to the hit on Michael Peca? After it happened I remember Harry Neale saying the hit was clean and it was unfortunate that Peca got injured. However during those same playoffs Steve Yzerman did a similar hit on Chris Pronger and he only played 5 regular season games the next season. However no one blamed Yzerman for injuring Pronger the way Tucker got bashed for injuring Peca.

I'm not sure what you think Harry Neale's opinion has to do with anything but not, that hit wasn't remotely clean. Get serious.

Colin Campbell sent a memo to the officials because this wasn't called. This cheap shot directly target his knees and was cowardly and about as cheap as they come.
 
Last edited:

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
I assume you are referring to the hit on Michael Peca? After it happened I remember Harry Neale saying the hit was clean and it was unfortunate that Peca got injured. However during those same playoffs Steve Yzerman did a similar hit on Chris Pronger and he only played 5 regular season games the next season. However no one blamed Yzerman for injuring Pronger the way Tucker got bashed for injuring Peca.

You should go back and watch those two "hits" again. The much larger Pronger was trying to hit Yzerman, who spun out of the way. Pronger was clearly the hunter and Yzerman the hunted. It appeared Pronger blew out his knee from landing on it when he missed the hit. Tucker hit Peca. These are not the same even though both Pronger and Peca both got hurt.

Tucker's hit was kind of grey in terms of whether it was legal because he mostly took out Peca's leg cause he got so low, even though they were roughly the same size. In terms of hockey culture/code it looked pretty cheap though because going low bridge in that situation is unusual and dangerous and the resulting injury was severe. It looked like Tucker feigned a regular body check, Peca braced for it, then Tucker went low and took out his legs. I always thought it was a cheap shot.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,266
12,891
Toronto, Ontario
Look everyone else made their points that the Ducks sweep was more shocking and I won't argue that anymore.

Now personally I remember in 2001 before playoffs started hopeful the Leafs could still win, but I was also more cautions compared to 2000 because of what happened against Ottawa in the regular season.

Out of curiosity, how old were you in 2001?
 

streitz

Registered User
Jul 22, 2018
1,258
318
I assume you are referring to the hit on Michael Peca? After it happened I remember Harry Neale saying the hit was clean and it was unfortunate that Peca got injured. However during those same playoffs Steve Yzerman did a similar hit on Chris Pronger and he only played 5 regular season games the next season. However no one blamed Yzerman for injuring Pronger the way Tucker got bashed for injuring Peca.

Peca wasn't an angel himself, I don't care that Tucker took him out.

That being said I wouldn't classify that hit as clean, lol.






Not even remotely the same btw, Yzerman was protecting himself and put Pronger over his back. Tucker just flat out smoked Peca after he ditched the puck.
 

Peiskos

Registered User
Jan 4, 2018
3,665
3,614
Toronto has an established history of beating the Ottawa Senators in the playoffs, prior to the 2001 Sweep the Leafs beat the Sens in 6 games the year before. In total the teams have met 4 times in the playoffs, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 ..the Leafs won all of the series with relative ease.

So even as Leafs fan the answer here is Anaheim sweeping the Wings in 2003.
 

BayStreetBully

Registered User
Oct 25, 2007
8,200
1,960
Toronto
OP is correct about his recollection of just how big an upset Toronto over Ottawa was in 2001. It’s historical revisionism to claim otherwise.

Toronto made a pattern of beating Ottawa in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004, but no knew that before the start of the 2001 playoffs. 2001 Toronto and 2001 Ottawa were seen as completely different teams than 2000 Toronto and 2000 Ottawa, and whatever advantage Toronto might’ve had in 2000 weren’t as visible in 2001.

In 2001, Ottawa was seen as possibly the best team in the NHL outside of Colorado and NJ. It showed in the standings, it showed in their goal differential. Vast majority picked Ottawa over Toronto before the series. They looked at the return of Yashin after sitting out a season, seen at that moment as the most dangerous player on either team. They looked at the emergence of Hossa as a completely different player than the one who knocked out Berard’s eyes the year before. They looked at the addition of Havlat, who was having an impactful rookie season as someone who wasn’t part of the series a year earlier. They looked at the emergence of Wade Redden and the addition of Karel Rachunek, all as reasons why 2001 Ottawa was nothing at all like 2000 Ottawa.

Then on Toronto’s side you had an air of negativity for the entire second half of the 2001 season. The players even in April were still distracted by the Lindros saga, they said. Newcomers Roberts and Corson were bums, 10 years past their “best” date, and not difference-makers, they said. They experienced a free fall in the standings from the year before. And as the OP said, they lost all 5 regular season games to Ottawa that year. It wasn’t even supposed to be close. Heck, maybe even a series sweep for Ottawa.

We know how history turned out, but at the time, 2001 was a massive upset, and you can easily tell by the responses here who actually lived 2001 and who didn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeafsNation75

Doctor No

Registered User
Oct 26, 2005
9,250
3,971
hockeygoalies.org
you can easily tell by the responses here who actually lived 2001 and who didn’t.

Oh come on, don't start this sort of shit. Nearly everyone in this thread "lived 2001".

Plus, the question wasn't "was Toronto over Ottawa a big upset?". The question was, of the two options offered, which one was a bigger upset.

And this post:
Toronto sweeps Ottawa in 2001 or Anaheim sweeps Detroit in 2003, which was more shocking?

Answered both questions (Toronto was a big upset, and Anaheim was bigger).
 

BayStreetBully

Registered User
Oct 25, 2007
8,200
1,960
Toronto
Oh come on, don't start this sort of ****. Nearly everyone in this thread "lived 2001".

Plus, the question wasn't "was Toronto over Ottawa a big upset?". The question was, of the two options offered, which one was a bigger upset.

And this post:
Toronto sweeps Ottawa in 2001 or Anaheim sweeps Detroit in 2003, which was more shocking?

Answered both questions (Toronto was a big upset, and Anaheim was bigger).

The responses here don’t just say which was the bigger upset. The responses here claim Toronto-Ottawa 2001 was barely an upset, and that Toronto was expected to win, Ottawa players were chokers and Toronto had grizzled veterans, how old were you in 2001, etc. Mostly false, along with a dose of condescension. These reputations were forged over time throughout the early 2000’s. That wasn’t evident on the eve of the 2001 playoffs. Historical revisionism at play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeafsNation75

Doctor No

Registered User
Oct 26, 2005
9,250
3,971
hockeygoalies.org
The responses here don’t just say which was the bigger upset. The responses here claim Toronto-Ottawa 2001 was barely an upset, and that Toronto was expected to win, Ottawa players were chokers and Toronto had grizzled veterans, how old were you in 2001, etc. Mostly false, along with a dose of condescension. These reputations were forged over time throughout the early 2000’s. That wasn’t evident on the eve of the 2001 playoffs. Historical revisionism at play.

To the extent that some (certainly not all) posters are exaggerating on one side of the equation, your post above seems to be attempting to balance it on the other side in one swell foop.

It's like you decided to take any single thing that could be put on that side of the ledger without respect for balance, and then build them up beyond the point of recognition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,347
59,255
Ottawa, ON
Meh, the storyline was always that Ottawa needed battle-hardened veterans for the playoffs (at the time it was said they were too European) in the dead puck era which they couldn’t afford without the cap as they were running half of Toronto’s salary.

Toronto has had so little playoff success that beating the Senators and Gretzky high-sticking a guy became the only post-season storylines for almost thirty years.

It’s not surprising that it’s been mythologized and revered to the point of absurdity since then.

It was certainly an upset but upsets literally happen every year. The revisionism is that this is somehow significant historically. The harsh truth is that it’s noteworthy to Senators fans and Leaf fans and that’s it.

The Leafs never won a series after beating the Sens so ultimately it amounted to very little.

And for the record I was 23 years old at the time.
 
Last edited:

streitz

Registered User
Jul 22, 2018
1,258
318
Meh, the storyline was always that Ottawa needed battle-hardened veterans which they couldn’t afford without a cap as they were running half of Toronto’s salary.
Toronto has had so little playoff success that beating the Senators and Gretzky high-sticking a guy became the only post-season storylines for almost thirty years.
It’s not surprising that it’s been mythologized and revered to the point of absurdity since then.


This.


I'm not trying to harp on the sens, I was pulling for them to win all their series against the leafs since outside of Roberts Toronto didn't have many/any players I liked and a bunch of players I disliked quite a bit(Corson, Domi, Tucker, Reichel, bunch of others).


That being said I feel some leafs fans, particularly @LeafsNation75 and @BayStreetBully are trying to turn this into some epic of all epics series where the biggest underdog of all time defeated the amazing 2nd seed senators.


Truth is Steve Thomas probably had more playoff experience then the entire sens roster combined.
 

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
OP is correct about his recollection of just how big an upset Toronto over Ottawa was in 2001. It’s historical revisionism to claim otherwise.

Toronto made a pattern of beating Ottawa in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004, but no knew that before the start of the 2001 playoffs. 2001 Toronto and 2001 Ottawa were seen as completely different teams than 2000 Toronto and 2000 Ottawa, and whatever advantage Toronto might’ve had in 2000 weren’t as visible in 2001.

In 2001, Ottawa was seen as possibly the best team in the NHL outside of Colorado and NJ. It showed in the standings, it showed in their goal differential. Vast majority picked Ottawa over Toronto before the series. They looked at the return of Yashin after sitting out a season, seen at that moment as the most dangerous player on either team. They looked at the emergence of Hossa as a completely different player than the one who knocked out Berard’s eyes the year before. They looked at the addition of Havlat, who was having an impactful rookie season as someone who wasn’t part of the series a year earlier. They looked at the emergence of Wade Redden and the addition of Karel Rachunek, all as reasons why 2001 Ottawa was nothing at all like 2000 Ottawa.

Then on Toronto’s side you had an air of negativity for the entire second half of the 2001 season. The players even in April were still distracted by the Lindros saga, they said. Newcomers Roberts and Corson were bums, 10 years past their “best” date, and not difference-makers, they said. They experienced a free fall in the standings from the year before. And as the OP said, they lost all 5 regular season games to Ottawa that year. It wasn’t even supposed to be close. Heck, maybe even a series sweep for Ottawa.

We know how history turned out, but at the time, 2001 was a massive upset, and you can easily tell by the responses here who actually lived 2001 and who didn’t.

While we're doing "revisionism", Roberts led the Leafs in goals in his first year with the team, and watched his previous year's point total from Carolina. As someone who was very much alive in 2001, the general feeling was that the Leafs had gone one-for-two with their big free agent signings.
 

BayStreetBully

Registered User
Oct 25, 2007
8,200
1,960
Toronto
While we're doing "revisionism", Roberts led the Leafs in goals in his first year with the team, and watched his previous year's point total from Carolina. As someone who was very much alive in 2001, the general feeling was that the Leafs had gone one-for-two with their big free agent signings.

Roberts was seen as a great signing because of what he did in those playoff years with the Leafs. We eventually came to appreciate his regular season play too, but not until after the 2001 playoffs. The question before the 2001 playoffs was whether a 34 year old Roberts was too old and banged up to make an impact on the playoffs. He recently missed an entire year to injury. He was long past his prime Calgary years.

While there was some initial joy over his and Corson’s signings in the summer of 2000, that was only because they were the “best” available UFAs in a weak UFA class, and their paltry $2-2.5 million annual salaries reflected that. There was no UFA Curtis Joseph that year, no UFA Mogilny or UFA Roenick. The real stars and difference makers. Roberts and Corson were the best of a lowly bunch, they were from Toronto, and the Leafs needed grit after a thrashing by the Devils the year earlier. So might as well sign them. But did they have any skill?

Roberts was in fact seen as a reason why the Leafs fell in the standings in 2000-2001. The Leafs were too old and too slow, it seemed. Steve Thomas had suddenly regressed, though not surprising for a 37 year old. Gone were their promising youth of 1-2 years ago, and the remaining youth they did have in Nikolai Antripov seemed to stop developing. The rest of the team was coined to be a mess. Jonas Hoglund was Mats Sundin’s backpack, Darcy Tucker was Sideshow Bob, and Corson was seen as no better. An old Roberts with a banged up body himself was seen as an epitome of why the Leafs took a step back in 2001.

I hope you’re not suggesting the Leafs and everyone else knew they had a playoff warrior in Roberts on the eve of the 2001 playoffs who was capable of being a series difference maker against powerhouse Ottawa. With the benefit of hindsight, we all know Roberts rekindled his reputation as a playoff warrior, and his reputation for taking care of his body as an old man was so wonderful that he cashed in on his time in Toronto by making a career out of this reputation post-NHL. We also all know now that the early 2000’s Senators were abysmal failures, gutless, soft, the very opposite of what a playoff team in the early 2000’s should look like. A beating by the same team year after year after year after year will make that clear. But there was nothing to suggest any of this at the time.

I don’t doubt many of you were alive in 2001, but many of your responses here suggest you didn’t “live” 2001, didn’t watch the Leafs and/or Sens game after game that year, didn’t follow the team mood day after day. And if you did, all of that appears to be long forgotten, and understandably so. A neutral observer has no reason to remember those days and that series, and a Senators fan wishes to actively forget. Your responses suggest something akin to a historian looking at old data of the Peloponnesian War, and then piecing together a puzzle forcefully until you have a narrative that explains the overall present-day reputation of the past Greek armies.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->