How do you rate our team after 4000 games played?

[Kevin Biestra]

17 minutes ago, BlakeQuinnAndEggs said:

We are also the only team to ever go 0-3 in cup finals. Every one else has at least one win in that many appearances.

 

The Blues were 0-3 before winning their recent Cup.

[Baggins]

7 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

The consensus was that the Canucks were underachievers in 93/94 and that this was not going to be their year.  They had been monsters in 91/92 and 92/93 in the regular season and then lost in the second round I think.  In 1994 people just figured if they are going to be worse in the regular season then they won't do even better than before in the playoffs.  There were definitely some people who were prematurely ready for changes at that point...a bunch of the fan base quit on McLean in 1991 and wanted to trade him when Troy Gamble had a better year than him.  But the overall consensus wasn't really that the Canucks sucked and that their core was through.  They were all young still and it had been demonstrated conclusively that Linden, Ronning and Courtnall were playoff machines.

 

 

It's not that they were underacheivers, they were just pretty average. Finally getting the compensation from the Blues for signing Nedved turned the team around. Getting Brown and Hedican was a huge upgrade to their D.

[iceman64]

13 hours ago, danjr said:

Well, 50 years, 4000 games played.  I would say I have watched a thousand games, listened to maybe 500 more.  Tough not being in the province I was born in, and catching broadcasts.

In all those years and games, there have been some great memories.

Our Record.
4000GP  1675W  1769L  391T  165OT  75 shoot out wins 12217goals  13079goals against

.488% wins percentage.

Our win percentage is 30th WORST in that time period.
Just because of that single stat I give us a flat out fail.

Fav memory of that 5 decades is winning the first Presidents trophy.  Next is Daniel's goal, from Henrik.  (guess which LOL)

I would love to hear your takeaways from these 4000 games.

More proof that "winning it all NOW" never worked, and never will.. building does but selling the farm and depth throws a wrench into it every time. 

Will it ever change? Depending on if fans are ignored and the team gets built for a change but until that happens... No cup, ever! 

[EddieVedder]

7 hours ago, danjr said:

94 cup run was amazing.  At the same also kind of frustrating. Going down in the first series was crushing.  The finals hurt so bad.  I recorded all the Finals games on tape. To this day I have not had the heart to re-watch them.

94 was magical.  I was in 7th grade.  I remember we had a week long class field trip to outdoor school during the dallas series.  I came home expecting to hear we lost the series.  No cell phones or internet back then.  My dad told me we won and i remember erupting.  I can remember that spring/summer so vividly. 

[Me_]

Wow this is crazy:

 

Montreal Canadiens Records:

Team Name: Montreal Canadiens

Seasons: 104 (1917-18 to 2021-22)

NHL Playoff Appearances: 85

NHL Championships: 25 (23 Stanley Cups)

Playoff Record: 440-321

Record (W-L-T-OTL): 3487-2336-837-182 (7993 points)

All-time Goals Leader: Maurice Richard, 544

All-time Points Leader: Guy Lafleur, 1246

Most Goals, Season: Steve Shutt (1976-77), Guy Lafleur (1977-78), 60

Most Points, Season: Guy Lafleur (1976-77), 136

[iceman64]

11 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Couldn't care less about their record over 4000 games. 

 

I have watched them since Day 1 when they came into the NHL.

 

Canucks are my team.

 

I would rather watch the Canucks lose every game than watch the Laffs win 1 game.

I'm in the same boat since day 1 but mine is the Habs, pretty sure danny gallavan? The mtl commentator started it off but it still lives to the day followed by the Flamers and Laff's...

Before 94 after the Nux, the Islanders were my 2nd fave team, fave player from them was Butch Goring with the ugliest helmet ever but that guy worked his ass off and Garland (smaller version) reminds of him. 

[IBatch]

14 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I dunno I remember in 93/94 during the regular season talking to my elementary school friends and a friend of my cousin that were high school at the time. 

 

Most agreed that Canucks were not a good team

We were first in our division two years in a row - and set a lot of franchise records that stand to this day in 92 93.... Nedved scored 38 goals for us i think ... And then held out.   We were still second in our division in 93/94 but i don't remember anyone thinking we were a bad team - just having a down year and missing Nedved, he was a big reason for our success the year before.   101 points back then was excellent.   Take away the loser points - make all the OT/shutout wins a tie and you might be surprised at just how tough it was to get 100 points back then as a team.    Back then with McLean getting Vezina consideration, Ronning, Nedved, Linden, Bure, Gelinas all being very good young players, there was a lot of excitement and expectations something special was brewing.   Started in 89 really - our team seemed to know how to amp it up in the off season... then the old guard was replaced and we had a group of younger still in their prime vets - Adams and Courtnall, and of course Lumme.    Nedved was traded but the player refused to come (a mediator gave us Juneau or something can't quite recall) and was the main story from the start of the 93/94 season and carried over like a cloud.    "We need Nedved" was a common discussion id have with my hockey buddies.   He was a big strong center .. 6'3 i think and had great hands.   That team had way more talent then the WCE era and i'd say close to par with the peak Sedin era with the exception much larger and was much more successful in the post season.   We'd just gotten to the second round twice and had this young goal scoring phenom, like nothing the league had really seen before.    With respect i differ to my elders for the Flyers, MTL and NYI dynasty's ... wasn't until the Oilers that was old enough to really understand.  

 

So that's why 93/94 was a down year compared to where we felt we should be after a record setting 92/93.   Nedved.  Check out how many goals that team scored.   And in respect to the era - take some of todays stars and make them play against hulking defenseman that were allowed to hold and hang onto you, and destroy you with a hit.     Once we finally got our assets in Brown, Hedican and Lafayette - things got better.    We didn't have the year we thought we were going to - but nobody i knew felt weren't  a good team either, it was the best one we'd had to date remember, in the regular season at least.

Edited March 6, 2022 by IBatch

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, EddieVedder said:

94 was magical.  I was in 7th grade.  I remember we had a week long class field trip to outdoor school during the dallas series.  I came home expecting to hear we lost the series.  No cell phones or internet back then.  My dad told me we won and i remember erupting.  I can remember that spring/summer so vividly. 

That's cool.    I won't ever forget going camping when we played game 7 vs CAL...it was pre-planned and let's just say girls were involved (but had the VCR set to record)....we all listened to the game on the radio and it was probably my best hockey moment ever.   Couldn't wait to get home and watch Bure score lol.   Hanging out with that group of young adults was just an awesome memory.   Shared this a few times in the CDC.   Game six of course was just as awesome (NYR)... losing was depressing but felt that we were just getting started as a team given how young our guys were still, and would have many more chances at a cup.   Didn't work out ... beat the blues then got swept by the eventual cup finalists ... made it tough on COL the following year and they were a powerhouse.   Then the entire thing got blown up before we had a chance to see what Bure could in his peak prime etc.     Was tough. 

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, Baggins said:

It's not that they were underacheivers, they were just pretty average. Finally getting the compensation from the Blues for signing Nedved turned the team around. Getting Brown and Hedican was a huge upgrade to their D.

Yes they weren't as good without Nedved ... glad you brought that up ... but didn't feel like we were a bad team either.   Ronning, Linden and Bure were barely getting started.   And McLean too really, same with Lumme and Gelinas.   Would be like taking JT Miller or EP out of your lineup and seeing how well you'd do really.  

 

Edit:  Otto was the reason why Linden was moved from the wing - but i doubt he'd have been moved if we kept Nedved. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by IBatch

[iceman64]

I guess you can count all of the teams together but that doesn't add up to much before Bure came along, before him, our team were basically nobody's and hardly won at all.

If you put the win/loss/tie scenario after 1993 I think it will show more of a complete pic since we became known when Bure showed up that finally moved us forward.

[ShawnAntoski]

17 hours ago, iceman64 said:

More proof that "winning it all NOW" never worked, and never will.. building does but selling the farm and depth throws a wrench into it every time. 

Will it ever change? Depending on if fans are ignored and the team gets built for a change but until that happens... No cup, ever! 

Ditto

 

The merry go round of, "winning it all NOW", approach.  Most of the teams, that had won in the cap era, had all gone a few years of rebuilding there based from the draft.  Given Boudreas' ability to coach the roster, in earning points - will the new crew pay to add a rental or sell in the TDL ?

Edited March 6, 2022 by ShawnAntoski

[iceman64]

2 hours ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Ditto

 

The merry go round of, "winning it all NOW", approach.  Most of the teams, that had won in the cap era, had all gone a few years of rebuilding there based from the draft.  Given Boudreas' ability to coach the roster, in earning points - will the new crew pay to add a rental or sell in the TDL ?

Unless we go on some long crazy winning streak, I hope we don't do anything at all and save it for the off-season. However if we don't get bigger without sacrificing too much skill, we're going to get slaughtered as usual, you know the drill, great season with a soft skilled team then it's lights out and we all go home... Especially without depth on the farm to fill in for injuries, it just doesn't get it done because the post is a completely different game. Teams will do anything to win, and if we don't have any pushback, you know where that ends. 

[ShawnAntoski]

1 hour ago, iceman64 said:

Unless we go on some long crazy winning streak, I hope we don't do anything at all and save it for the off-season. However if we don't get bigger without sacrificing too much skill, we're going to get slaughtered as usual, you know the drill, great season with a soft skilled team then it's lights out and we all go home... Especially without depth on the farm to fill in for injuries, it just doesn't get it done because the post is a completely different game. Teams will do anything to win, and if we don't have any pushback, you know where that ends. 

Ditto and let's see, if JR can live up to his reputation/resume.  Currently, the team roster, is not set & ready.  I agree, the team JB currently built doesn't have alot of depth, to go deep in the playoffs: where the rules are very different.  Preferably, they sell, get some futures and hit on there picks to build up, the farm.  But they also, have to look at Abby when it come to developement.

[Phil_314]

On 3/5/2022 at 2:06 PM, Kevin Biestra said:

I think it's at least theoretically possible to rank a team without a Cup higher than one with a Cup.  Just to make things even let's say the league started in 1980 for these purposes.  Philly went to the final in 80, 85 and 87 I think, plus the Lindros final and was there one after that...I can't remember offhand.  Could you rank the Flyers 1980-present over St. Louis 1980-present?  I probably would to be honest.

So 5 Cup Finals appearances enables a team to be ranked higher than a team that's won it all?  That's definitely an interesting take (not shutting you down but would be curious to see how you would justify it). 

[Kevin Biestra]

7 hours ago, Phil_314 said:

So 5 Cup Finals appearances enables a team to be ranked higher than a team that's won it all?  That's definitely an interesting take (not shutting you down but would be curious to see how you would justify it). 

 

Well to be honest I think five cup finals is more impressive than one cup and no other finals.  It suggests a better and more consistently great team.  But that aside, since I was using 1980 as the starting point, those 1980s Flyers teams were legendary and were only stopped from Cup victories by possibly the two greatest teams in NHL history and without question two of the three greatest...the Islanders dynasty and the Oilers dynasty (x2).

 

The Flyers of the 80s didn't win a Cup but they went to the final 3x and were an absolute beast team.  Mark Howe was +87 one year and Brad McCrimmon was +86.  If it wasn't for the two greatest teams of all time, those Flyers win three cups in eight years.

 

Then if I just think back to the great players from both teams over those years, off the top of my head the list is longer for Philadelphia.  Let's just go 1980-2000 to keep it simple...

 

Flyers (1980-2000 off the top of my head)

Bobby Clarke

Bill Barber

Rick MacLeish

Reggie Leach (all of the above were at the tail end of their runs but they were also the core for the 1980 trip to the final)

Brian Propp

Tim Kerr

Mark Howe

Pete Peeters

Pelle Lindbergh

Ron Hextall

Eric Lindros

Rod Brind'Amour

Ken Linseman

Mel Bridgman

Paul Holmgren

Brad McCrimmon

Dave Poulin

Rick Tocchet

Bob Froese

Brad Marsh

Mark Recchi

John Leclair

 

Blues (ditto)

Brett Hull

Mike Liut

Adam Oates

Bernie Federko

Wayne Gretzky (one year)

Brendan Shanahan

Al MacInnis

Joe Mullen

Doug Gilmour

Chris Pronger

Craig Janney

Rod Brind'Amour

Brian Sutter

Wayne Babych

Rob Ramage

Jeff Brown

Grant Fuhr

Curtis Joseph

 

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by Kevin Biestra

[IBatch]

7 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Well to be honest I think five cup finals is more impressive than one cup and no other finals.  It suggests a better and more consistently great team.  But that aside, since I was using 1980 as the starting point, those 1980s Flyers teams were legendary and were only stopped from Cup victories by possibly the two greatest teams in NHL history and without question two of three greatest...the Islanders dynasty and the Oilers dynasty (x2).

 

The Flyers of the 80s didn't win a Cup but they went to the final 3x and were an absolute beast team.  Mark Howe was +87 one year and Brad McCrimmon was +86.  If it wasn't for the two greatest teams of all time, those Flyers win three cups in eight years.

 

Then if I just think back to the great players from both teams over those years, off the top of my head the list is longer for Philadelphia.  Let's just go 1980-2000 to keep it simple...

 

Flyers (1980-2000 off the top of my head)

Bobby Clarke

Bill Barber

Rick MacLeish

Reggie Leach (all of the above were at the tail end of their runs but they were also the core for the 1980 trip to the final)

Brian Propp

Tim Kerr

Mark Howe

Pete Peeters

Pelle Lindbergh

Ron Hextall

Eric Lindros

Rod Brind'Amour

Ken Linseman

Mel Bridgman

Paul Holmgren

Brad McCrimmon

Dave Poulin

Rick Tocchet

Bob Froese

Brad Marsh

Mark Recchi

John Leclair

 

Blues (ditto)

Brett Hull

Mike Liut

Adam Oates

Bernie Federko

Wayne Gretzky (one year)

Brendan Shanahan

Al MacInnis

Joe Mullen

Doug Gilmour

Chris Pronger

Craig Janney

Rod Brind'Amour

Brian Sutter

Wayne Babych

Rob Ramage

Jeff Brown

Grant Fuhr

Curtis Joseph

 

 

Ahh it was Craig Janney that refused to report .... then we got Brown and Hedican.    I agree, the Flyers were a great team in the 80's .... they actually might have won if Kerr wasn't out as well - against the Oilers.  

[Kevin Biestra]

4 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Ahh it was Craig Janney that refused to report .... then we got Brown and Hedican.    I agree, the Flyers were a great team in the 80's .... they actually might have won if Kerr wasn't out as well - against the Oilers.  

 

Yeah both the Flyers (80, 85, 87) and the Bruins (88, 90) were Cup worthy teams, maybe even mini dynasty worthy.  In all five instances they just ran into the Oilers or Islanders.

 

Yeah Janney what a dink.  That entire situation was a mess...Nedved leaving the way he did, Janney won't report, then Brown arrives and turns into a scurvy dog.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Yeah both the Flyers (80, 85, 87) and the Bruins (88, 90) were Cup worthy teams, maybe even mini dynasty worthy.  In all five instances they just ran into the Oilers or Islanders.

 

Yeah Janney what a dink.  That entire situation was a mess...Nedved leaving the way he did, Janney won't report, then Brown arrives and turns into a scurvy dog.

Yes Calgary was so good during the 80's too...had to amp up and amp up their team to compete against the Oilers which made the Battle or Alberta must watch games ... rare times they slipped and late in the decade (Smith gaffe, and when Coffey/Gretzky moved on), CAL was right there to fill in.    They almost didn't win a cup.    I agree with Bruce's comments from last Friday - it takes a lot of luck AND a good team.    Have to be good to be lucky and all that too.   Given the cup is the goal, it's hard to put teams ahead of ones that have won, but i agree that some teams were really good for long periods of time since 1980 (and actually like that as a cut-off - the WHA joined and the original expansion teams had time to catch up etc) .... that didn't win a cup or like St. Louis, just recently did.   Was it 25 consecutive playoff appearances St. Louis had?   They for sure were a contender in the early 90's as well. 

[kloubek]

The only true solid era of this team imo came when the Sedins were in their prime. I remember at one point in a season we had the #1pp AND #1PK, and I believe we were #1 in goals scored at that time as well, along with either the least goals against or close to it. We had a truly formidable team for a good 3-4 years there. 

I know we made it to the finals in the early 80's and early 90's, and exciting as that was I don't think we had that great of a team in either era. Lots of heart, some good elements, but we probably got a little lucky to make it to the finals both years. It's unfortunate the Sedins took so long to become the players they did, since by all rights we had the other pieces in the early 2000's that we very possibly would have won the cup if they had - minus perhaps good goaltending. (Let's face it - Cloutier was just not very good, and by the time we got Luongo [for Bertuzzi] the WCE has lost their spark.)

 

Can you all imagine the Sedins and Luongo in their prime, along with the WCE in their prime? We missed that combination by a couple of years, unfortunately. So very close.

[Kevin Biestra]

6 hours ago, kloubek said:

The only true solid era of this team imo came when the Sedins were in their prime. I remember at one point in a season we had the #1pp AND #1PK, and I believe we were #1 in goals scored at that time as well, along with either the least goals against or close to it. We had a truly formidable team for a good 3-4 years there. 

I know we made it to the finals in the early 80's and early 90's, and exciting as that was I don't think we had that great of a team in either era. Lots of heart, some good elements, but we probably got a little lucky to make it to the finals both years. It's unfortunate the Sedins took so long to become the players they did, since by all rights we had the other pieces in the early 2000's that we very possibly would have won the cup if they had - minus perhaps good goaltending. (Let's face it - Cloutier was just not very good, and by the time we got Luongo [for Bertuzzi] the WCE has lost their spark.)

 

Can you all imagine the Sedins and Luongo in their prime, along with the WCE in their prime? We missed that combination by a couple of years, unfortunately. So very close.

 

I don't think that's very fair to the early 90s Canucks.  They had three consecutive great years from 91-92 to 93-94.  The first two as division champions with great regular seasons and the second round of the playoffs before running into Gretzky and the Kings, and then everybody knows what happened in 1994.  This era can also be extended back to 1989 for the series against Calgary and forward a year or two for at least the victory against St. Louis (Shanaha, Hull, MacInnis, Joseph).

 

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by Kevin Biestra