Sedin Brothers Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 The Canucks have had some pretty stacked teams despite their inability to win the big one. I'm actually going to go with the 2014 team. I think if we started Miller we could have beaten Calgary pretty easily and given Anaheim a very difficult match. Bonino, Richardson all played well. Kassian could have been real difference makers if they played Anaheim. I'm still not quite sure what happened to that 2012 team. Hindsight is 20-20, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 1994 team. A team full of heart, came back 3-1 from the flames in 3 straight overtime games and almost beat the mighty rangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonald Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 Im thinking from 2008-2012 if we didn't lose to the kings or hawks each year we would've been known as a dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 1994 - probably the best shot of all of them if for no other reason than being down 1 goal late in Game 7 2004 - most explosive offense, goaltending issues aside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 The 2011-12 team was a good one, but I'd have to say the 1992-93 one was one that was deadly and under-performed in the playoffs. Both the 2002-03 and the 2003-04 teams were good ones too as well as the 2006-07 team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squamfan Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 8 minutes ago, Jonald said: Im thinking from 2008-2012 if we didn't lose to the kings or hawks each year we would've been known as a dynasty. we could of had four straight cups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 The 08-09 with Mats Sundin as the 2C was very strong Daniel - Henrik - Burrows <- 1A line Demitra - Sundin - Kesler <- 1B line Raymond - Wellwood - Bernier <- was actually not a detriment to the team. Decent defensively... with Speed, Skill and Size. Rypien - Johnson - Hansen Hordichuk, Pyatt Ohlund - Salo Mitchell - Bieksa Edler - O'Brien Luongo Sanford This team should have went all the way. Unfortunately.... Luongo was very shaky, the defense was not mobile enough, lack of PPQB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatedkid666 Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 every year in the sedins/luongo era also the peak of the west coast express Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowtieCanuck Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 1994. More well rounded team than the 2004. Besides, a goal post is what stopped that team from winning the cup that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonald Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 4 minutes ago, Squamfan said: we could of had four straight cups Wanted at least one, prayed for a second, wished for a third, and dreamt of the fourth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 2004, and 2009-2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 When I look back now 1994 seems like it was a stacked team, but at the time I felt like we were the over-achieving underdogs. I don't think there's been a Canuck team that's ever played with as much heart and determination (maybe 1982?). So we were best poised then because of grit, but maybe not with skill. Could 2004 been the year if Bert hadn't been out? We could have beaten Calgary at least, which feels like it could have paved the way to the finals. And if SamJam had been right about the Schneider-Perry trade, I think 2012 would have been our year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10pavelbure96 Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 17 minutes ago, BowtieCanuck said: 1994. More well rounded team than the 2004. Besides, a goal post is what stopped that team from winning the cup that year. Nathan Lafayette would have tied it. Not won it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 As stated before, the 92-93 team had a great regular season but underperformed in the playoffs, at 12, I was a little young to understand why back then. 2002-2003 had to have been one of the most heart breaking and frustrating years. If the Canucks had've one 1 game out of 3 from the Minnesota freaking Wild they probably would've gone on to win it all. Burke was too stubborn to upgrade from Dan Cloutier though. 2011-2012 could've easily been the Canucks year but the quite possibly the best built team for the playoffs in NHL history drew Vancouver in round 1 and the Canucks were merely a speed bump on their way to the Stanley Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10pavelbure96 Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 1994 hands down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 1994 and 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 1994, they almost had it. 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 could have done it too if they'd had a decent goalie in net. 2011/2012 as well if we hadn't matched up against the Kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 93 Good team that lost in the second round to a SC finalist. That team failed in the second round but was a pretty good team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JV77 Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 2002-2003. IMO that team top to bottom was a built for a long playoff run with all the right pieces, expect for just 1 thing....We all know what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 I think 2011 we were a Stanley Cup team no question. To me the 94 run was a bit of a surprise. The Vancouver Canucks were the best hockey team in the world in 2011. Better than Boston As far as I'm concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.