Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

1994 vs. 2011


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

Poll: Legends Against Future Legends (77 member(s) have cast votes)

If the 1994 Canucks played the 2011 Canucks who would win?

  1. 1994 Canucks (30 votes [38.96%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 38.96%

  2. 2011 Canucks (47 votes [61.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 61.04%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:01 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#32 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,129 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:25 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#33 nwdivision

nwdivision

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Joined: 03-April 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

A fun thread. There should be a 3rd option to this. I wasn't alive but the 1982 Canucks should be in the list.
  • 0
Only in Canada, do Leafs fall in spring!

#34 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:48 AM

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.
  • 1

#35 BenDrinkin

BenDrinkin

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,315 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 07

Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:59 AM

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.
  • 0

#36 Venom52

Venom52

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 25-August 07

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:50 PM

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
  • 0

Posted Image


#37 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:55 PM

I think the '94 team wouldn't have only beaten the '11 Canucks but also the '11 Bruins as well.



Tim Hunter's nose would have made Lucic's nose cry ::D
  • 1
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#38 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,735 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:13 PM

1994 team by far. Very solid 4 line team with Linden, Ronning, Bure, and Momesso in their prime.
  • 0
Posted Image


#39 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,129 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:14 PM

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


Agreed. People are quick to throw him under the bus for how he played. However, if it wasn't for him we are getting swept as you mentioned. It pretty much cancels itself out; standing on his head in 3 games vs crapping the bed in 3 games; arguably 4.
  • 0
Posted Image

#40 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:45 PM

Momesso in their prime.



:shock:

I never knew he had a prime


::D
  • 1
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#41 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,113 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 09 November 2012 - 03:52 PM

1994 team by far. Very solid 4 line team with Linden, Ronning, Bure, and Momesso in their prime.

Without a doubt '94. Add Gus Adams and Courtnall. Well balanced thru the lines. The '11 team was not balanced offensively and Lou didn't come thru when needed. No one can say that MacLean let them down in any game. No one can say that the '94 team was not as physical as '11. Tim Hunter alone would never had stood by for the BS the Bruins dished out. WOULD NOT have happened! The '94 team were prepared to do what it took to win the CUP and should have. I cannot say that about the '11 team as much as I would like to.
  • 1

#42 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:25 PM

Agreed. People are quick to throw him under the bus for how he played. However, if it wasn't for him we are getting swept as you mentioned. It pretty much cancels itself out; standing on his head in 3 games vs crapping the bed in 3 games; arguably 4.


Better to allow 2-3 goals per game rather than 3 shutouts and 3 blowouts. In the end thats all Boston was, within reach, they still lost even when Thomas only allowed 1 goal, twice. Had Lu played decent in the 3 away games, we would all be laughing at how bad their offence was rather than blaming ours. We didn't get out played in the forward department, we got outgoalied.
  • 1

#43 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,129 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:55 PM

Better to allow 2-3 goals per game rather than 3 shutouts and 3 blowouts. In the end thats all Boston was, within reach, they still lost even when Thomas only allowed 1 goal, twice. Had Lu played decent in the 3 away games, we would all be laughing at how bad their offence was rather than blaming ours. We didn't get out played in the forward department, we got outgoalied.


Normally I would argue as I've heard this 47 times now but .. it's become tiresome long ago.
  • 0
Posted Image

#44 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:16 PM

That it does.
  • 0

#45 TACIC

TACIC

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 12

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:18 PM

2011

Put in the fact that the nicks were the top team all year. They had enough injuries for their own hospital. And the fact about the bucks scoring a lot even though the goalies are bigger
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to JimLahey for this awesome sig

TACIC

Yes i am a Leafs fan too, DEAL WITH IT!!

#46 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:07 AM

Agreed. People are quick to throw him under the bus for how he played. However, if it wasn't for him we are getting swept as you mentioned. It pretty much cancels itself out; standing on his head in 3 games vs crapping the bed in 3 games; arguably 4.


If we were swept I almost think it would have hurt less, that would mean we simply were not good enough.
Losing in 7 on home ice after having 2-0 and 3-2 leads, well that hurt like a son of a b**ch especially since we were the favorites.
As for Luongo, he was awful in Boston and mediocre in game 7. I'm hard on Luongo because he is capable of being God-like as you mentioned in 3 out of 7 games, and utterly pathetic at other times. I could've sworn we'd win game 7 but he turned in a pedestrian performance in the biggest game of his life. Yes we didn't score, but he didn't keep it close. I think the pain of losing might have been lessened if we hadn't been blown away in all of our losses. Injuries or not, that was very embarrasing.
  • 0

#47 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,113 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:39 AM

Simply look at the '94 roster and try and convince me that they would not have rolled right over the Bruins. '94 had balanced scoring led by Bure and were tough right thru the lineup.

The only similiarity was the reffing was against them in both series.
  • 0

#48 Alchemy Time

Alchemy Time

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:16 PM

I think the 2011 team would win, and here's why:

1.Assuming everyone on both teams were healthy, the 2011 team would be deeper.
2.Despite Bure being the most skilled player in the series, the 2011 team is more offensivly skilled (1994 Bure, Linden, Ronning, Courtnall were not as good as the 2011 Sedins, Kesler, and Burrows were.
3. 94 only wins in goaltending. Mclean was a beast in the 94 playoffs.
4. The 2011s have more skill and depth on defense (2011 Edler, Erhoff, Bieksa and Hamhuis were better than '94 Slegr, Lumme, Babych, Murzyn were).
5. This line would effectivly shut down Bure:

Higgins-Kesler-Burrows (Samuelsson would play with the Sedins)

Hamhuis-Bieksa

Edited by ER15, 10 November 2012 - 12:24 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#49 Venom52

Venom52

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 25-August 07

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:23 PM

Agreed. People are quick to throw him under the bus for how he played. However, if it wasn't for him we are getting swept as you mentioned. It pretty much cancels itself out; standing on his head in 3 games vs crapping the bed in 3 games; arguably 4.


The games we won were all low-scoring and by a 1 goal difference. The games we lost the Canucks only scored 1 or 0 goals. Pretty hard for any goalie to win like that.
  • 0

Posted Image


#50 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:24 PM

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.


The 2011 team "dominated" until the other teams stopped letting them dominate. Then the Sedins were told to sit down and not get back up, which they obediently did.

Luongo will go down as the all time choke artist in the canucks net, worse than cloutier because he drummed himself up so much.
Kirk McLean (the Chicoutimi Cucumber) was cool calm and collected, he could shake off a bad one.He was a stand up goalie, you won't see him doing the bellyflop/front stroke like Lu everytime the puck comes near him. And I don't know the exact dimensions of the equipment but Lu looks like the stay puft marshmallow man in net. All he needs to do is stand there, but he does not.

Leadership? Linden, enough said.

Skill? I'll take 1 Pavel Bure over 2 Sedins any day.

Grit/Toughness? Hunter, Odjick, Momesso, Diduck, Dirk vs Bieksa? Kesler? Plug? wimpywimpywimpy

Every team suffers through injuries and fatigue but if you are always taking it and NEVER giving it, you will not win a championship..

1994 takes it in 6
  • 1

#51 Alchemy Time

Alchemy Time

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:28 PM

Luongo will go down as the all time choke artist in the canucks net, worse than cloutier because he drummed himself up so much.
Kirk McLean (the Chicoutimi Cucumber) was cool calm and collected, he could shake off a bad one.


The only reason Mclean is remembered for being fantastic in '94 is because that was the ONLY time he was actualy good. The rest of his career he was mediocre at best.
  • 0
Posted Image

#52 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:30 PM

5. This line would effectivly shut down Bure:

Higgins-Kesler-Burrows (Samuelsson would play with the Sedins)

Hamhuis-Bieksa


Wrong. It would go down like this: Bure gets the puck. Takes 3 strides and has a breakaway, Luongo's knees start to shake terribly and he does his patented bellyflop, Bure...Scores!

Repeat
  • 0

#53 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:34 PM

The only reason Mclean is remembered for being fantastic in '94 is because that was the ONLY time he was actualy good. The rest of his career he was mediocre at best.


McLean is remembered as being fantastic in '94 because he was. No-one is saying he's a hhofer.

Luongo crap the bed in 4 out of 7scf games, big time. UNACCEPTABLE (not to mention the numerous other games where he has been lit up under pressure)
  • 0

#54 Alchemy Time

Alchemy Time

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

It would go down like this: Bure gets the puck. Bure attempts to deke whole team. BURROWS STEALS BURROWS SCORES!

Repeat


FTFY

Edited by ER15, 10 November 2012 - 12:39 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#55 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:39 PM

This is more realistic:

Bure takes the puck, does 20 laps, every player on the ice falls over from vertigo, Bure bounces the puck in off of Burrows forehead, Burrows is credited with the goal, Assist to Bure and Bure

Better?
  • 0

#56 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:23 PM

The only reason Mclean is remembered for being fantastic in '94 is because that was the ONLY time he was actualy good. The rest of his career he was mediocre at best.


He was a Vezina finalist as a Canuck 2 times, just like Luongo. In a higher scoring era his '94 playoff stats were miles ahead of all Luongo's playoffs seasons except for 2007. He was very good for the time he played in Vancouver.
  • 0

#57 pimpcurtly

pimpcurtly

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,368 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 06

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:59 AM

He was a Vezina finalist as a Canuck 2 times, just like Luongo. In a higher scoring era his '94 playoff stats were miles ahead of all Luongo's playoffs seasons except for 2007. He was very good for the time he played in Vancouver.


Well said! I think a lot of people expected to see him play like '94, all the time. But that just wasn't attainable. He was godly that spring.
  • 0
Posted Image

#58 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 11 November 2012 - 06:57 PM

The 1998 Canucks.

Messier was on our team how could we lose....
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#59 Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,029 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:14 AM

Do it by breaking down the lineups.

2011 (not exact, but close)

D Sedin - H Sedin - Burrows
Higgins - Kesler - Samuelsson/Raymond
Hansen - Lapierre - Torres
Oreskovich - Hodgson - Glass

Bikesa - Hamhuis
Edler - Salo
Alberts - Rome/Ballard

Luongo
Schneider

1994 (again, not exact but close)

Bure - LInden - Adams
Courtnall - Ronning - Gelinas
Lafeyette - Craven - Momesso
Antoski - McIntyre - Hunter/Odjick

Lumme - Diduck
Hedican - Brown
Babych - Glynn/Murzyn

McLean
Whitmore

If you look at it in that perspective, the '11 team looks a little more solid on paper. But that '94 just had that heart and that feeling like they could beat anyone no matter what.

Close call, but I'd say the '94 team, just due to Bure, McLean, and Brown.
  • 0

Kershaw_zps0cb5a848.jpg


#60 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:35 AM

94 Goaltending was better than 2011 (not a ton aside from the games in Boston, but overall still better).

2011 Skaters were better than 94, more depth, more skill.

94 Wasn't as gritty and tough as Boston imo, so they wouldn't push us around and win the cup like people think Boston did.

And if you are comparing them as to how they did, the 94 team was way way healthier than the 2011 team, which made a huge difference in why we didn't win.


I would say 2011 for sure, More Skill, More Depth, Then IMO the also had Good enough grit and Goaltending to compete with that of the 94 Squad.
  • 0

zackass.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.