D-Money Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Would Hamhuis, Kesler, Samuelsson, and Henrik have all been injured to the same degree? What about reffing? Under '94 rules Rome would have been lauded for throwing a fantastic hit, rather than banished for the rest of the playoffs. Regardless, as much as I loved the guys in '94, it's 2011, no question. The '94 team caught fire in a bottle, whereas the '11 team dominated all year...until they were decimated with injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 We all saw how much the 2011 team dominated with a healthy roster. When you see guys like Henrik, Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Kesler, Higgins, Edler, Ehrhoff, Bieksa and Salo get injured, you see any shot at the Cup go away, so I'd say the 2011 team would win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 wait a sec... you mean the 2011 team without Kesler, Sedins injured, no Hamuis, Bieksa hobbled... you mean that team? they would lose against a healthy Bure and Linden in their prime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks.brad Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 how about we say the series was 3-3. this is a winner take all game 7 final with all injuries to both teams taken into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 The 2011 team would win, I mean: we were first in goals scored, last in goals against, had the best power play, box play and all around team in the league in 2011. The '94 run was magical, but the one 17 years later was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Burrows 14 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 94, one reason. Luongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 no question the 2011. players are bigger faster and more skilled today. As much as I want to say 1994 I just don't think they would win a 7 game series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Is Schnieder playing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanBeef Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 If the 2011 team was healthy, they would dominate the 1994 team. When healthy, everyone played great. Just look at the first two games of the series. Even Ballard and Raymond were solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I think the '94 team would have beat the 2011 Bruins. There's no way the Bruins would have had their way with the '94 Canucks like they did the 2011 Canucks. Lucic would've had his head beat in by Odjick, Bure woulda skated circles around Chara and McLean woulda stole the Conn Smyth from that neo-con Thomas. So in short, '94 Canucks would beat 2011 Canucks in 6 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 I have given this a lot of thought. I came to the thread and then back again and back some more to think about it. The 2011 team had more talent. Raffe Torres and Malholtra as a third line that could score was far better than the 94 canucks third line. I would say the Sedins together are better than bure but not playoff version of Sedns. Regular season yes, playoffs no. Kelser is better than Ronning or Momesso but I dont think he was skilled as Geoff Courtnall offensively. The 94 canucks second line clobbers the 2011 version of Kesler Raymond etc The 94 second line probably had the best natural chemistry i have ever seen on the canucks , with the exception of the Sedins with each other. Canucks D was better now. Im afraid Lumme and Brown cant compare , but then again Hamhuis went down in game 1. Luongo is a better goalie than Mc Lean but again, which Luongo ? Regular season yes......PLAYOFF , especially the 94 playoffs ? Mc Lean was better in 94 than Luongo in 2011 playoffs. Different era so different stats but the 94 canucks dont even make it a series against the Rangers without Mc Lean So if we take the 1994 Canuck playoff team vs the 2011 playoff team canuks of 94 beat them in 5 games with goaltending being the difference. The 94 firepower out trumps the canucks 2011 playoff firepower and there would be little Luongo could do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 2011. 1) Because I never saw the '94 team and 2) The 2011 club was a powerhouse in every way that ultimately broke down on the biggest stage because of injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwdivision Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 A fun thread. There should be a 3rd option to this. I wasn't alive but the 1982 Canucks should be in the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 1994 wins, hands down. Many on the board are saying that the 2011 team were injured and we would have won the cup if it weren't for that. If we look back on that playoffs though, you notice that we didn't really dominate any of the teams we faced along the way, were the Canucks injured for the entire run? They ripped through the regular season but couldn't finish any playoff series quickly, with the exception of San Jose which was pretty lucky. I think the '94 team wouldn't have only beaten the '11 Canucks but also the '11 Bruins as well. The '94 Canucks were big, tough, had good depth, good scoring, great leadership, clutch performers, great goaltending, great coaching, you name it. The '11 team may have had that in the regular season but never seem to in the playoffs. Personally I believe the seasons of both versions of Canucks teams were an anomaly. The '94 team were much better than their record indicated and the '11 team were not as good as theirs. The '94 Canucks were very similiar to the '12 LA Kings in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The evolution of the sport suggests the 2011 squad wins via sweep, but emotionally, I'm still tied more closely to the 94 team. Everyone loves an underdog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venom52 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The 2011 Canucks should have won the cup in 4 games. Too bad they only scored 8 goals in the entire series. Thank fricken god for Luongo, or esle we would have been swept. I'll take 94 Canucks because Bure alone could probably outscore that team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I think the '94 team wouldn't have only beaten the '11 Canucks but also the '11 Bruins as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Doctor Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 1994 team by far. Very solid 4 line team with Linden, Ronning, Bure, and Momesso in their prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The 2011 Canucks should have won the cup in 4 games. Too bad they only scored 8 goals in the entire series. Thank fricken god for Luongo, or esle we would have been swept. I'll take 94 Canucks because Bure alone could probably outscore that team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Momesso in their prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.