Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

94 & 2011 SCF Run


Nucks89

Recommended Posts

The 2011 loss, you could see it coming. By game 6, we had a M.A.S.H unit next to the rink, and Thomas wasn't letting anything in. The '94 loss was more memorable to me, and more heart wrenching. Had I owed a gun then, I likely would've shot my TV, hoping the bullet would end up somewhere in Messier's anatomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nucks89 said:

Is it just me, or is the 94 team more beloved than 2011? I felt like the 2011 team was mentally fragile. 

The '94 Canucks had the best playoff goalie in franchise history, 'Captain' Kirk McLean - "The Save" in Game 7 in Calgary in the 1st overtime before Pavel Bure avenged Stan Smyl's '89 missed breakaway against the very same goalie, Mike Vernon, in the 2nd overtime. McLean had one of his greatest performances by stealing Game 1 at MSG in the finals. 

 

The '11 Canucks had the 'The Dragon Slayer' - Alex Burrows. He spared Roberto Loungo the reputation as a meltdown goalie  in the playoffs when the latter couldn't stop Jonathan Toews from tying up Game 7 shorthanded late in the game. Luongo was also horrible in the games in Boston while his Bruins counterpart Tim Thomas was great throughout the finals.

 

The '94 and '11 Canucks both have great colour schemes but the '94 Canucks had the more superior primary logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nucks89 said:

Is it just me, or is the 94 team more beloved than 2011? I felt like the 2011 team was mentally fragile. 

You are bang on with this. Luongo at times did not make the saves he need to and the offense mostly lead by the Sedins failed to score when they needed to. The 94 team just seemed to give everything they had and their "best" was just not good enough at the end of the day. They faced a team that was a rehash of the "Oilers" and were hand picked by a team that had money to burn on players. I really thought they had no chance against the mighty NYR's but still managed to take them to a game 7. The 2011 team on the other hand, I fully expected them to win , especially when they took that 2-0 commanding lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

You are bang on with this. Luongo at times did not make the saves he need to and the offense mostly lead by the Sedins failed to score when they needed to. The 94 team just seemed to give everything they had and their "best" was just not good enough at the end of the day. They faced a team that was a rehash of the "Oilers" and were hand picked by a team that had money to burn on players. I really thought they had no chance against the mighty NYR's but still managed to take them to a game 7. The 2011 team on the other hand, I fully expected them to win , especially when they took that 2-0 commanding lead.

Don't underestimate that '94 team. That was a rejuvenated team that underachieved during the regular season after back-to-back first place finishes in the Smythe Division. Matter of fact, the Canucks should have won that final in six if Bure scored on his penalty shot and the officiating wasn't biased in Game 4. The Canucks were up 2-0 in that game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Nucks89 said:

Is it just me, or is the 94 team more beloved than 2011? I felt like the 2011 team was mentally fragile. 

I found the 2011 team with exceptions of course kind of unlikeable, I also wasn't a huge fan of there brand of hockey.  

 

I felt the 94 team had grit, skill and lot of heart. I felt 2011 team had lots of skill some grit and a lack of heart.

 

I don't remember injuries slowing down the 94 team nor do I remember them being an excuse. I'm sure this is all a matter of perception, but the 2011 team seemed full of excuses.

 

Marchant pretty much bullied the Canucks and they had no response at all it was the one and only time I was embarrassed to be a Canucks fan and was embarrassed for the players it was an awful experience for me.  I might be getting a little dramatic but It should have been the highest point in Canucks history but to me it was the lowest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thrago said:

I found the 2011 team with exceptions of course kind of unlikeable, I also wasn't a huge fan of there brand of hockey.  

 

I felt the 94 team had grit, skill and lot of heart. I felt 2011 team had lots of skill some grit and a lack of heart.

 

I don't remember injuries slowing down the 94 team nor do I remember them being an excuse. I'm sure this is all a matter of perception, but the 2011 team seemed full of excuses.

 

Marchant pretty much bullied the Canucks and they had no response at all it was the one and only time I was embarrassed to be a Canucks fan and was embarrassed for the players it was an awful experience for me.  I might be getting a little dramatic but It should have been the highest point in Canucks history but to me it was the lowest.

I thought the 94 team went to "war" where as the 2011 team? ......Not so much. Game 7 was an embarrassment compared to the 94's game 7. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As other posters have said, the 94 team seemed to have more heart and character. Linden, McLean, Momesso, Murzyn, Gelinas, Ronning, Babych, Courtnall...the list goes on. They just seemed tougher (mentally and physically) and less likely to fold. I hope we can recapture that dynamic with this new core. The 2011 team was certainly by far more talented, but the 94 team seemed to have the intangibles that playoff hockey often demands. Each won their games in their own way, however, and each could have very well come out the winner had the chips fallen slightly more in their favour. I was heartbroken both times though, as I'm sure everyone else here was.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2018 at 8:55 PM, Nucks89 said:

Is it just me, or is the 94 team more beloved than 2011? I felt like the 2011 team was mentally fragile. 

It's not just you at all. The '94 team was all heart and guts and the 2011 team was mentally (and physically) fragile, however they were so good (and lucky?) despite that and despite being not built for playoff hockey that they managed to extend their season all the way to a June 15. So many key players to that team had virtual no-show postseasons it's almost a miracle they survived the first round, which they very narrowly didn't and probably shouldn't have considering how it ended up unfolding.

 

Luongo had his trademark meltdowns at the worst possible times. The Sedins combined for just 12 goals and a combined -20 through 25 games. Kesler stole the show in round 2 and that was it; and everyone else aside from maybe Burrows was average at best.

 

To me there is no comparison between the '94 and '11 teams in terms of postseason at least. I loved the '94 guys because they were warriors who were willing to do whatever it took to win and came closer than any other team we ever had against all odds. The 2011 guys for the most part were a collection of talented pantywaists with delusions of grandeur who squandered the advantages they had and disappeared when the going got tough. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2018 at 4:28 AM, dougieL said:

As other posters have said, the 94 team seemed to have more heart and character. Linden, McLean, Momesso, Murzyn, Gelinas, Ronning, Babych, Courtnall...the list goes on. They just seemed tougher (mentally and physically) and less likely to fold. I hope we can recapture that dynamic with this new core. The 2011 team was certainly by far more talented, but the 94 team seemed to have the intangibles that playoff hockey often demands. Each won their games in their own way, however, and each could have very well come out the winner had the chips fallen slightly more in their favour. I was heartbroken both times though, as I'm sure everyone else here was.

 

 

Game 7 against the Bruins we out shot them 40 to 27 and out hit them 47 to 29. Lou had a .850 S%. I'm surprised how many confuse result with effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Game 7 against the Bruins we out shot them 40 to 27 and out hit them 47 to 29. Lou had a .850 S%. I'm surprised how many confuse result with effort.

A lot of teams TRY to win the cup every year but only ONE succeeds. B) Getting shutout in a game 7 of the SC Final? Was  there enough........ "effort"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2018 at 9:02 PM, mephnick said:

Never want to lose against Calgary and if you actually remember how that Hawks series went down it would be the worst series loss in Canucks history and would have stained the franchise for years to come. We gave up a commanding series lead and blew the lead in game 7 on a SHORTHANDED goal with like a minute left. The only reason that Toews goal isn't a legendary hockey meme is because of Burrows. So no, I'll take the Finals losses.

This.

 

The only thing worse than losing in the finals would have been the choke artist label you know the eastern media would to this day not let us live down.

 

That really was as close to an epic failure as you can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only positive memory I have from the 94 game 7 loss is when my friend threw his tv off the balcony in a fit of anger after and hit his dads car. 

 

Seriously though, the 94 team was outmatched, outgunned, and out d-bagged by that Rangers team. The refs turned a blind eye to the Rangers deliberate attempts to injure. Yet they never folded or gave up. They are still the best "team" the Canucks ever had imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The only positive memory I have from the 94 game 7 loss is when my friend threw his tv off the balcony in a fit of anger after and hit his dads car. 

 

Seriously though, the 94 team was outmatched, outgunned, and out d-bagged by that Rangers team. The refs turned a blind eye to the Rangers deliberate attempts to injure. Yet they never folded or gave up. They are still the best "team" the Canucks ever had imo. 

Yes I remember the cockiness from Messier and the rest of the ex-Oilers and their other top guns such as Leetch and Kovalev. Even with all they were going through they still fought right to the bitter end. Ronning ,who was small in stature, never once backed down to any of the rough stuff and we all know how Bure stuck up for himself in the Dallas series. That team is a hero in my books and it hasn't been replaced since. Maybe that changes with the new core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While losing in the finals was heartbreaking, it was exciting hockey that the regular season or even early playoff series' can't match.  Absolutely I'm glad we've made it to the finals twice.  If we couldn't at least say that we did that, our historical "record" would be even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, EdgarM said:

A lot of teams TRY to win the cup every year but only ONE succeeds. B) Getting shutout in a game 7 of the SC Final? Was  there enough........ "effort"?

Not on Lou's part.... B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2018 at 8:13 PM, Nucks89 said:

If someone told you ahead of time they would lose in game 7 of the SCF, would you have preferred the Canucks lost to Calgary & the Hawks in the first round respectively?

 

A fan will say that seeing their team win playoff games is memorable. Another will say it's too heartbreaking.

 

You?

No way. I can not speak for the 94 fans but the journey of 2011 was magical. I just got goosebumps thinking of that bending we put on the hawks. Series should have been 4-0 sweep had the refs not pulled all these strings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...