Boudrias 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...
CanucksSayEh Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 That it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemy Time Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venom52 Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 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...
Alchemy Time Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 5. This line would effectivly shut down Bure: Higgins-Kesler-Burrows (Samuelsson would play with the Sedins) Hamhuis-Bieksa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemy Time Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 It would go down like this: Bure gets the puck. Bure attempts to deke whole team. BURROWS STEALS BURROWS SCORES! Repeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The 1998 Canucks. Messier was on our team how could we lose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raoul Duke Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.