Best team to not win the Stanley Cup | Page 3 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Best team to not win the Stanley Cup

  • If you are having issues logging in, we have found opening the log in page in a new tab/window rather than using the pop out should resolve these issues. We are working to get this resolved and thank you for patience.
The 2011 Canucks we're 1st in GF and 1st in GA. 1st in PP% and 1st in PK%. Three HHOFs plus a Selke winning 2nd line centre who could score 30 goals all in their primes.

They were screwed by the league and the referees.

Lol oh my God, still doing this?

Which of the games the Bruins won would the referees have helped? They got demolished in every game they lost.

And for the record, I do agree that the 11 Canucks are a good answer to this question.
 
From what I've heard the 1993 Penguins team was supposed to be even better than the '91 and '92 teams that won the b2b cups. They had significantly better records than each of the previous cup winning seasons (won the only President's trophy in team history) and reportedly much better rosters.

That was way before my time though
And that record was with Lemieux missing 24 games for cancer treatment (meaning beforehand he was likely impaired with symptoms that triggered the diagnosis and afterwards affected by his chemo). Still he put together the most ridiculous regular season performance the league has ever seen.
 
So the 91 and 92 teams were great offensively but poor defensively. The 93 team was great at both. A big part of it was the 92 near deadline trade of Recchi, Benning, and a 1st for Tocchet, Kjell Samuelsson, Wregget, and a 3rd. Also was Paul Coffey being sent to LA to play with Gretzky.

Adding defenceman Kjell Samuelsson and backup goalie Ken Wregget helped solidify the defence. Recchi was great but he was a defensive liability when he was young compared to Tocchet. Samuelsson replaced Paul Coffey in the lineup essentially and while he wasn't the offensive player Coffey was, he certainly didn't allow as many goals on the ice.

So yes, the 93 Penguins were a great team at both ends of the ice unlike the 91 and 92 teams. It felt like a forgone conclusion they were winning the Cup in 93. Then they ran into a New York Islanders without Pierre Turgeon for most of the series. Everyone bet against the Islanders. You will hear more hate than love for Darius Kasparaitis around here I'm sure but in that rookie season he played like every rookie should: fearless and refusing to bow to legends. I loved that series.

But anyway, yes. The Penguins in 93 were better rounded than the 91 and 92 teams.
Thank you for the insight. I've heard ranting and raving from older friends and family members who were around back then and it sounds like everyone was utterly shocked that they didn't 3-peat that year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RSPens
2010 Capitals were better than either the 2009 Sharks or 2011 Canucks.

2009 Sharks - 117 Points +53 goal differential
2010 Capitals - 121 Points +85 goal differential
2011 Canucks - 111 Points +51 goal differential

Both Ovechkin and Backstrom were over 100 points, with Semin breaking 40 goals, and Mike Green over a point/game as a defenseman (and his Norris snubs paved the way for Karlsson's Norris wins later on). Seven different players with 20+ goals (and Green at 19goals).
You're looking at the wrong year for the Canucks. 117 points and +77
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flair Hay
So the 91 and 92 teams were great offensively but poor defensively. The 93 team was great at both. A big part of it was the 92 near deadline trade of Recchi, Benning, and a 1st for Tocchet, Kjell Samuelsson, Wregget, and a 3rd. Also was Paul Coffey being sent to LA to play with Gretzky.

Adding defenceman Kjell Samuelsson and backup goalie Ken Wregget helped solidify the defence. Recchi was great but he was a defensive liability when he was young compared to Tocchet. Samuelsson replaced Paul Coffey in the lineup essentially and while he wasn't the offensive player Coffey was, he certainly didn't allow as many goals on the ice.

So yes, the 93 Penguins were a great team at both ends of the ice unlike the 91 and 92 teams. It felt like a forgone conclusion they were winning the Cup in 93. Then they ran into a New York Islanders without Pierre Turgeon for most of the series. Everyone bet against the Islanders. You will hear more hate than love for Darius Kasparaitis around here I'm sure but in that rookie season he played like every rookie should: fearless and refusing to bow to legends. I loved that series.

But anyway, yes. The Penguins in 93 were better rounded than the 91 and 92 teams.
The trades you referenced were in '92.
 
The 1993 Leafs would have gotten demolished by Montreal.

I don't know, the '93 Habs had their hands full with an undermanned, injury-riddled Sabres team in the 2nd round. Three games went to OT in the series. The only one that didn't was tied with under 10 left in the third. I'm not sure they were as good as you are making them out to be.
 
Either the 2014 or 2015 Rangers. Those teams were loaded, and Hank was playing out of his damn mind. Unfortunately, they ran into the inferno that was the LA Kings in '14, and just ran out of gas in the Final. The 2015 team should have beaten Tampa in the ECF, but crapped the bed in games 6 & 7. I'm convinced they would have beaten Chicago for the Cup that year had they advanced.
As a long time Rangers fan born and raised in Vancouver, the 2011 Canucks was a waaaaaayyyy better team than either of those Rangers teams outside of goaltending. Rangers offense was putrid and never Stanley Cup worthy, yet they almost pulled it off anyways.
 
The 1993 Leafs would have gotten demolished by Montreal.

I dunno about getting demolished; they still lose IMO but the 93 Habs were not exactly a powerhouse. They got extremely lucky and avoided every single good team in the playoffs once they got past Quebec.

They didn't face a single 90 point team in the playoffs past round 2. The fact they avoided the division champs (Boston), the president trophy winners in Pittsburgh and any remotely good team from the Campbell conference played a large role in getting their Cup. And I fully acknowledge the Leafs themselves got lucky to draw the Blues and Kings that year.
 
A team people often overlook are the early 2000s Stars. They went to back to back finals and then in 99 and 2000 and then would run into the precap Avs or Wings every year and get murked by a team made up of 10 future Hall of Famers.
 
A team people often overlook are the early 2000s Stars. They went to back to back finals and then in 99 and 2000 and then would run into the precap Avs or Wings every year and get murked by a team made up of 10 future Hall of Famers.

Those Dallas teams were a defensive juggernaut. Some of those years they were a little top heavy with their forwards. When Jamie Langenbrunner went down late in the 2000 WCF, their 2nd line was Scott Thornton - Joe Nieuwendyk - Mike Keane.

They had a great 2002-03 club but they ran into some injuries. Bill Guerin missed the last chunk of the regular season with a thigh injury. He only played 4 playoff games and played under ten minutes in three of those.

Similarly Pierre Turgeon had ankle surgery late in the regular season and wasn't up to full speed when he came back for the playoffs.


 
I'm throwing a team out there that only won two playoff games:

LWCRW
ZetterbergDatsyukHolmstrom
ShanahanLangWilliams
SamuelssonDraperYzerman
FranzenClearyMaltby

LDRD
LidstromChelios
SchneiderKronwall
LiljaLebda

G
Legace
Osgood

2005-2006 Detroit Red Wings.

58-16-8 record in the regular season; nine 45+ point scorers (not counting Yzerman who missed time), President's Trophy, 2nd in goals for and 3rd fewest goals again.

Then the first round happened. Though Dwayne Roloson was great for Edmonton, Detroit lost because of its own goaltending.

The Red Wings severely outshot the Oilers (238-155), and Manny Legacy struggled to the tune of an .884 SV%. Unfortunately, Chris Osgood was hurt, so Detroit was stuck riding Legacy despite his struggles. He was clearly in his own head too, telling reporters "I don’t feel too good, to be honest with you. I feel sick" in regards to his post-season struggles.

If Osgood was available and Detroit made it past Edmonton, I think their chances of winning the cup would've been extremely high.
 
2011 canucks are right up there. Leading the league in the majority of categories. That was one powerhouse of a team
 
As a long time Rangers fan born and raised in Vancouver, the 2011 Canucks was a waaaaaayyyy better team than either of those Rangers teams outside of goaltending. Rangers offense was putrid and never Stanley Cup worthy, yet they almost pulled it off anyways.
I stand corrected. My homerism/nostalgia clouded my memories. Lundqvist did play out of his mind those years though, and dragged those teams to the ECF/Finals those years on his back. Same with the 2012 team, now that I think of it.

But yes, the 2011 Canucks should have won that year, really was pulling for them, because screw Boston. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad