Who should have won the cup? (any given year)

[Pens1566]

1999... Buffalo Sabres...

Yep. Bad call on Hull's foot in the crease.

 

[LadyJet26]

94 Canucks

I'm sorry but Vancouver's drought is/was a helluva lot longer then the Rags'

but oh well they'll win this year... every 12 years it happens, and this time they'll do it.

 

[trenton1]

Weren't the B's already behind in the game and down 3-2 in the series? If I recall correctly, they took a 2-0 lead in the series and got swept the next four.

No, the hit/injury was in game 3. The B's were up 2-0 in the series at the time and Neely was scoring literally every other Boston goal. After the hit derailed Neely, Mike Milbury declared war on Ulf and the Pens and the Bruins totally spun out of control and, in fact, lost those 4 in a row that you mentioned.

 

[Rayne*]

I'm surprised no one's said 2004 Calgary Flames, mainly due to that impossible-to-tell incident where it looked like Gelinas had scored but it was no goal.

Anyways, my pick: 1988/89 Montreal Canadiens.

 

[JimEIV]

Just to play devil's advocate....
I think luck can play a pretty big role, as the cliche goes, anything can happen in a game 7.

really, you don't need any more proof than Steve Smith and the 1985-86 Oilers.

I remember the game well. I remember an ENTIRE 3rd period remaining....I don't recall the exact time of the goal, but from memoery it was only like 5 minutes into the 3rd period.......I remember the highest scoring offense in history could tie not the game up with an entire period to go....I also remember Edmonton having a big Powerplay after the goal.

I always found it interesting how fans can focus on one indivual moment in time and forget about all the events and circumstances that lead up to the moment and follow it.

You see it during the couse of year at least once a week on these boards.....A fan will focus in on the 1 penalty that a ref called that led to a goal against there team and forget about the 0-5 powerplays their team had.........In my expirience things very rarely come down to one exact moment........That is why I hate the idea of shootouts in over time.

 

[wilka91*]

1996 Detroit Red Wings

I mean they won 62 regular season games!!! They were a machine!!!

Hell knows what happened in the conference finals.

 

[DJmastamind]

1999 Sabres. EVEN though I wanted Dallas to win, Hull clearly kicked the puck in the net.

1993 Penguins, I remember that game all too well, I was sure with a game 7 at home the Pens were gonna win, Still can't believe to this day that Dave Volek scores right between the legs of Barrasso. Nevermind Stevens face all over the ice that night, but that really stopped momentum in Pittsburgh's favor. They win that game, they win the cup.

 

[Chili]

The one I remember is 1971. Bruins had a tremendous team and won in 1970 and 1972. Dryden was amazing, but they still should have won that thing. Dammit.

That is the one I was thinking of. The Bruins set records that year, dominated the top ten scorers. Orr and Esposito in their prime. The one game in the Habs/Bruins series I remember in particular, the Bruins were up 5-1 late in the second period but it should have been more than that. The Habs scored late in the second (I believe it was Jean Beliveau) and then scored 5 unanswered goals in the third for a great comeback. I think the Bruins got a bit frustrated with Dryden from there and the Habs had the momentum and had many players with cup rings and knew how to win. The Hawks are a close second that year as well. They had an awesome team, Hull, Mikita, Esposito but the Habs were on a roll and won a great seven game series.

 

[Sotnos]

I always found it interesting how fans can focus on one indivual moment in time and forget about all the events and circumstances that lead up to the moment and follow it.

Funny, isn't it? God knows I've seen plenty of that in the past year or so...

I'm with the others who don't quite get the concept of a thread like this. The teams that won got the 16 wins needed to do so, there's no "should" involved. If you wanted to talk about who was expected to win any given year, that'd be another story.

 

[Pens75]

One other huge one for Pittsburgh was in 1925, semi finals against Montreal.

From what I have read it was close, Montreal went on to win the Stanley Cup.

Had Pittsburgh won that series, then went on to win the cup like Montreal did, how would that have reshaped hockey for Pittsburgh in 1925?

 

[salzy]

Philly could've gone the distance in 99 if Lindros hadn't suffered the freak punctured lung injury.

 

[EventHorizon]

I remember the game well. I remember an ENTIRE 3rd period remaining....I don't recall the exact time of the goal, but from memoery it was only like 5 minutes into the 3rd period.......I remember the highest scoring offense in history could tie not the game up with an entire period to go....I also remember Edmonton having a big Powerplay after the goal.

I always found it interesting how fans can focus on one indivual moment in time and forget about all the events and circumstances that lead up to the moment and follow it.

You see it during the couse of year at least once a week on these boards.....A fan will focus in on the 1 penalty that a ref called that led to a goal against there team and forget about the 0-5 powerplays their team had.........In my expirience things very rarely come down to one exact moment........That is why I hate the idea of shootouts in over time.

I agree with everything you just said although it is fun to play what if with this one. I think this thread should have been more about what if (insert event) happened. Then what would have happened.

What if the Oilers do win that game. Do they go on to win the Cup? Then, do they go on to win the Cups in '87 and '88. If so, that would have been 5 in a row. So would the team have been broken up? If not, they could have won Cups from '84, straight through until about '94. Pretty scary thought (especially for a Ranger fan).

 

[Pens1566]

No, the hit/injury was in game 3. The B's were up 2-0 in the series at the time and Neely was scoring literally every other Boston goal. After the hit derailed Neely, Mike Milbury declared war on Ulf and the Pens and the Bruins totally spun out of control and, in fact, lost those 4 in a row that you mentioned.

My mistake. But with only one guy scoring all your goals, and losing 4 straight, do you really think they were good enough to win it all? They really fell apart in those last four games.

 

[octopi]

1996 Detroit Red Wings

I mean they won 62 regular season games!!! They were a machine!!!

Hell knows what happened in the conference finals.

Draper got his face crushed in, Yzerman was injured during the series and Roy was better than Osgood, thats what.

But they made up for it the next year.

 

[joe_shannon_1983*]

I will list the a few of the smaller "what-ifs" first, and then end it with probably the biggest "what-if" in memory:

Calgary in 2004: Was Gelinas' goal a goal? It seemed too hard to call, and could have definitely played a part in the outcome of the Final series.

Philadelphia in 2000: When Stevens crushed Lindros early in Game 7 of the Conference Finals, it took all the wind out of the Flyers' sails.

Buffalo in 1999: If Hull's goal had of been disallowed, it is possible that the Stars would have had to beat a primed Dominik Hasek in a Game 7, which would have certainly been interesting.

Pittsburgh in 1996: Francis went down with an injury in Round 3, allowing the Panthers to sneak by them. Not saying that the Penguins would have beat the Avalanche in the Finals, but it would have been a high-flying and intereting series nonetheless.

Pittsburgh in 1993: Huge favourite going into the playoffs, got beat by a huge underdog. Although even if the Penguins had of beat the Islanders they still would have had to get past an unreal Roy in the next round.

Edmonton in 1986: How would have the series against Calgary ended if it were not for Smith's blunder?

But perhaps the biggest one of all....

Boston in 1979: Too many men. Enough said.

 

[trenton1]

My mistake. But with only one guy scoring all your goals, and losing 4 straight, do you really think they were good enough to win it all? They really fell apart in those last four games.

Yeah. He was THAT dominant that spring. That's why he had to be taken out I guess. Still, the Bruins had a very good club though and may have been able to still get the other two victories if Cam simply got injured in another fashion. The Bruins falling apart after Ulf going after Cam had a lot to do with Milbury trying to exact revenge and the Pens spending the better part of the next few games on the PP.

 

[ForsbergForever]

The Pens in '96 is an interesting one. Florida's uber defensive style shut down the high flying Pens. For sure a finals with them and the Avalanche would've been an offensive clinic and shown how scoring is more fun than trapping and (maybe i'm overdoing it, but...) warded off the trap craze of the late 90's early 00s. Another Stanley Cup in #66's trophy case might have pursuaded him to keep playing and go one to more scoring feats.

 

[se7en*]

How about the '93 Kings? Montreal going after the illegal stick won them the game and the series, but I still have no respect for it. It was cheap and tacky.

 

[futurcorerock]

1993 Kings or Leafs (as much as the stick call was cheap, the Gretzky miss was even worse, plus i'm tired of hearing about how it's been 56 years.)
2004 Flames
1999 Stars (Sabres win game 6, Stars win game 7)
2000 Blues

 

[reckoning]

Draper got his face crushed in, Yzerman was injured during the series and Roy was better than Osgood, thats what.

But they made up for it the next year.

Detroit was having trouble getting on track throughout the entire playoffs that year. Their first two series were against Winnipeg and St. Louis, two teams below .500 that shouldn`t have been a problem. But Winnipeg took them to 6 games and St. Louis took them to 7th Game OT. They only lost 4 out of 41 games in the last half of the season, then lost 5 out of 13 in two playoff rounds. All things considered, Colorado may have won without Patrick Roy.

 

[tom_servo]

The '93 Pens team bothers me the most, because they had everything going for them. They walked into the playoffs with the top record in the league, a healthy team, a white-hot Lemieux, and a record-setting 17 game win streak. And sharp new uniforms.

They dispatched of the Devils in five quick games, and were going on to face an inferior Islanders team who had just lost their top scorer in the last round! You couldn't just ask for anything more.

But, that's why they play the games. We could've seen a Lemieux-Gretzky Final that season.

Interesting note about the '93 Pens... for all of their goal-scoring wizardry (four players on the roster had 100 points or more), only two teams in the league gave up fewer goals (Toronto, Chicago).

 

[tom_servo]

My subconscious continues to believe that the '96 Red Wings did win the Cup. That was a fantastic team.

As for the '99 Sabres... maybe Hull's goal was BS, but even given that, they still would've had to have scored themselves in that OT, and then won Game Seven in Dallas.

 

[starsman93*]

1999 Sabres. EVEN though I wanted Dallas to win, Hull clearly kicked the puck in the net.

1993 Penguins, I remember that game all too well, I was sure with a game 7 at home the Pens were gonna win, Still can't believe to this day that Dave Volek scores right between the legs of Barrasso. Nevermind Stevens face all over the ice that night, but that really stopped momentum in Pittsburgh's favor. They win that game, they win the cup.

errrrrr he didnt kick the puck in the net, he kicked the puck to his stick then shot it in. and the word you just "kicked" made the play legal showing intention of him to kick the puck to his stick before he put it in the net. I think that was the rule

 

[Big Phil]

In order the best single season teams to not win the Cup.
1 - '71 Bruins
2 - '86 Oilers
3 - '93 Pens
4 - '96 Red Wings

121, 119, 119, 131. That is in order the point totals. Not saying the '71 habs were slouches but how in the world did the Bruins lose? You've got Orr and Espo in their primes. Cheevers is stellar in net, then Bucyk, Hodge, Cashman round out the offense.

The '86 Oilers were coming off two straight Cup wins. And then won the next two after '86. But the thing about the Oilers was that despite how good they were on offense they once in a blue moon let important games get away from them. The Oilers should have never let a 7th game happen in the first place.

'93 Pens had everyhting going for them. The best player in the game, four 100 point scorers, yet the Isels somehow beat them. Still an Isle team without Pierre Turgeon should never have been in game 7.

The '96 Red Wings bother me a bit. Yeah they had 62 wins and 131 points, which only the '77 Habs have ever had more points, but nothing jumped out at them with me. They had Chris Osgood for crying out loud as their #1. Yeah cry baby Osgood! Fedorov had 107 points Yzerman had 95 but no one was DOMINANT. They were well rounded but the other three teams on this lost would beat them. They just stock piled points that year for some reason. The Avs beat them fair and square that year. But 131 points is insane so they got to be on this list.

 

[Kenadyan]

As for the '99 Sabres... maybe Hull's goal was BS, but even given that, they still would've had to have scored themselves in that OT, and then won Game Seven in Dallas.

Thank you.

I'm not a Stars fan, but I do get tired of hearing "No Goal" from Buffalo fans.

Like if the NHL had disallowed Hull's goal, whose to say the Stars wouldn't have won the game later in OT. It's as though if Hull's goal were disallowed, Buffalo automatically wins the Cup.