Riviera82 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...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 2011 Less heart, less toughness, less size, less clutch performers, too soft, wildly inconsistent goaltending. 1994 makes short work of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 2011 Less heart, less toughness, less size, less clutch performers, too soft, wildly inconsistent goaltending. 1994 makes short work of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Bure would have gave the "Mother of all Elbows" to each Canucks defender, lol. Babych would have chopped down Kesler in front of the net. Having McLean, without the 2-line pass would have been an extra passing defenseman, springing the '94 players with break-aways. Momesso/Hunter/Antoski would have gooned the Sedins. Linden was a complete player in his prime. Think Kesler, except bigger. In terms of skills, it's arguable. The players on the 2011 team had better stats for the regular season, but the 94 team was able to raise their game in the post-season. Many, if not most, of the players on the 1994 run had better playoff stats than regular season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus099 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 It's the Canucks so both teams would lose somehow the way things go for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 It's hard to make a fair comparison when your basing your assesment of the 2011 team off the finals because of how injured we were. Especially since when we were healthy, we had all those things you said we didn't and we were pretty much unstoppable. If both teams are healthy, 2011 team for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Even if the 2011 team was completely healthy at the beginning of this series, they wouldn't have been by the end. That's how I look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Murray Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Game 1 1994 (2) @ 2011 (3) http://www.whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.asp?GameID=2210484&teamfee=-1 Game 2 1994 (4) @ 2011 (3) http://www.whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.asp?GameID=2210502&teamfee=-1 Game 3 2011 (5) @ 1994 (2) http://www.whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.asp?GameID=2210505&teamfee=-1 Game 4 2011 (3) @ 1994 (4) http://www.whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.asp?GameID=2210506&teamfee=-1 Game 5 1994 (1) @ 2011 (3) http://www.whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.asp?GameID=2210508&teamfee=-1 Game 6 2011 (3) @ 1994 (1) http://www.whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.asp?GameID=2210513&teamfee=-1 Whatifsports says 2011 wins in 6 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Even if the 2011 team were completely healthy I do not think they could compete with the 1994 team. You say we were unstoppable and during the regular season that was quite true. During the playoffs however the only team we dominated were the Sharks and they were very injured on top of being notorious playoff chokers. Some might even say we were lucky to get through that series in 5 games, it might've turned out differently if not for the fortunate stanchion goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The 94 Team didn't get through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs any easier than the 2011 team. I don't think that really proves anything. When the 2011 team was healthy they were unstopppable, including in the playoffs. And I don't expect that to be any different again the 94 team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 1994 finished off Dallas and Toronto in only 5 games, both teams seeded higher than the Canucks. '94 could also win numerous games in a row. After going down 3-1 to Calgary they went 11-2 en route to the final. The 2011 team were unstoppable in the playoffs you say? I seem to recall having a 3-0 series lead against 8th place Chicago, yes we won, in 7 games, in overtime... That could have easily become the worst choke job in league history and we were 1 goal away from that. Hardly unstoppable. It took 6 games for Kesler to finish off Nashville, a team that has difficulty scoring at the best of times. We had the #1 ranked offense and defense, why did it take so long? San Jose was our easy series and based on their track record and injury list, it probably should've been a sweep. Boston...we were stopped. And there you have it. Home ice advantage throughout the playoffs and it still went 25 games with us not winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yes, when healthy they were unstoppable. We almost choked. We were almost stopped. But we didn't choke, and we weren't stopped. Why did it take 6 games for us to beat Nashville you ask? You are forgetting there are two teams on the ice. And with the way Nashville plays (which I shouldn't have to explain) It's not much of a surprise it took a little longer. You don't give SJ enough credit, our wins were all (aside from game 2) one goal wins, they were probably harder for us than Toronto and Dallas were for the 94 back in 94. When you compare the roster's it isn't all that close. As I said if a healthy 2011 team played a healthy 94 team the 2011 team would surely win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yes, when healthy they were unstoppable. We almost choked. We were almost stopped. But we didn't choke, and we weren't stopped. Why did it take 6 games for us to beat Nashville you ask? You are forgetting there are two teams on the ice. And with the way Nashville plays (which I shouldn't have to explain) It's not much of a surprise it took a little longer. You don't give SJ enough credit, our wins were all (aside from game 2) one goal wins, they were probably harder for us than Toronto and Dallas were for the 94 back in 94. When you compare the roster's it isn't all that close. As I said if a healthy 2011 team played a healthy 94 team the 2011 team would surely win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 As far as I know the whole 2011 team was healthy against Chicago, we had the widest series lead possible and it came down to one goal wins the series. This team was definitely beatable and they were beaten. Maybe they would not have been so injured if they were bigger and tougher, '94 has them in this regard. We will have to agree to disagree again, I believe '94 would have pounded them into submission and outscored them by a fair margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 "unstoppable" is a term i would reserve for damn near sweeping everyone in convincing fashion. No almosts, or close calls. The Kings were unstoppable, Canucks caused some heart attacks with how close they came to an early exit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I would bet on the 94 team if the 11's had too use 90's equipment and reffing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 2011 team has the skill, but 1994 had the heart and determination. 94 team wins it on heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamero89 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 94, one reason. Luongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 The 94 Team didn't get through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs any easier than the 2011 team. I don't think that really proves anything. When the 2011 team was healthy they were unstopppable, including in the playoffs. And I don't expect that to be any different again the 94 team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Captain Kirk played far from great in the 4 losses. Granted he stole game 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.