Has any team ever came back from 0-3 deficit in NHL history?

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

PRetty sure the Leafs did it in 42 and 45, Coming back from 0-3 and holding on to 3-0.
So...will the Oilers or Panthers emulate the Leafs?

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

Yeah, if you perform an activity for pay then you're a professional.

I don't understand why people want to warp the definition to some higher measure.

There are valid distinctions between those who don't earn enough from their activity to survive without another job and those who make more than enough to feel secure and focus solely on that activity.

 

[kilowatt]

Kings were down 1-0 in their game 7 against San Jose in 2014 when Matt Irwin scored 28 seconds into the game. LA ultimately won the game 5-1 though.

Interestingly, the only team of the four that have completed reverse sweeps and won the Cup that wasn't losing in game 7 is the Islanders, who won their game 7 1-0. The Kings, Flyers, and Leafs were all down by at least a goal to start the game.

 

[weastern bias]

The Kings were in their heads after Game 5, and then there was the Justin Williams goal in game 6 that was controversial, and at that point they deny there was nothing they could do. The Kings did hold a big territorial advantage in Game 7

I'll give you one thing, Stoll definitely got into Vlasic's head, that's for sure

But that paints the picture of how thin that Sharks team really was, an injury to a defense only D man, no matter how good he was at the time, shouldn't sink you to the degree you never win another game for the rest of the season

Burns was still playing wing in thet series and Boyle was on his last legs, so they really didn't have a single reliable puck moving defenseman on the roster, that team shouldn't have choked on that lead but they weren't going to beat Chicago that year anyway

 

[Leaf Fans]

Yes, most players worked summer jobs or even side jobs throughout the year. If you want to distinguish between a time when players could dedicate their entire lives to hockey and when they needed another job to make ends meet, that's understandable. It's likely that fringe players in the 1930s and 1940s felt they had to leave the NHL to get a 'real' job, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. Some people here are getting overly defensive about the semantics of the word "professional" when it was clear what the poster meant.

Yes, the poster was trying to dimish the accomplishments of the league at that time calling the league unprofessional. He was completely incorrect. There is no sematictical issue. The league was then and still is professional. Besides, people still leave the league to get what they believe is a real job. ( Chad Kilger as a fireman for 1) it doesn't make the league more or less professional - they get paid (overtly) that is the difference, between professional and amateur hockey.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

Yes, the poster was trying to dimish the accomplishments of the league at that time calling the league unprofessional. He was completely incorrect.

It was a completely different league, with different rules, different playoff format, and the cup wasn't even officially deeded to the league until 1947. There is nothing wrong with separating the accomplishments of people who helped grow the game and people who played a modern representation of the game.

There is no sematictical issue. The league was then and still is professional. Besides, people still leave the league to get what they believe is a real job. ( Chad Kilger as a fireman for 1) it doesn't make the league more or less professional - they get paid (overtly) that is the difference, between professional and amateur hockey.

There is a semantical issue. You are caught up on the word 'professional' and its all about pointing out that the accomplishments are certainly completely different from winning the cup during the time the league was growing and finding its footing and what it looks like in the modern era from the 50s and onward.

Your average bloke working a laborer job made just as much money as a middling level player, and it was also more reliable. Call it whatever you want, but when NHL players no longer had to worry about their fireman duties and could workout and train to be a better hockey player, it increased the skill of the game astronomically, and changed the way the profession is viewed.

 

[Leaf Fans]

It was a completely different league, with different rules, different playoff format, and the cup wasn't even officially deeded to the league until 1947. There is nothing wrong with separating the accomplishments of people who helped grow the game and people who played a modern representation of the game.

There is a semantical issue. You are caught up on the word 'professional' and its all about pointing out that the accomplishments are certainly completely different from winning the cup during the time the league was growing and finding its footing and what it looks like in the modern era from the 50s and onward.

Your average bloke working a laborer job made just as much money as a middling level player, and it was also more reliable. Call it whatever you want, but when NHL players no longer had to worry about their fireman duties and could workout and train to be a better hockey player, it increased the skill of the game astronomically, and changed the way the profession is viewed.

It was then and still is now a professional league. That is all. As it turned out, still only one team has ever Come back from down 0-3 to win the Cup.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

It was then and still is now a professional league. That is all. As it turned out, still only one team has ever Come back from down 0-3 to win the Cup.

Now you have reduced the conversation to semantics again because you can't wrap your head around the nuance of what is being discussed for whatever reason. Not going to talk in circles with you. If you don't have a proper counter for what is being said, then that is fine.

 

[CowMix]

View attachment 885891

Thats insane that the Islanders almost did it twice in the same playoff run

 

[Leaf Fans]

Now you have reduced the conversation to semantics again because you can't wrap your head around the nuance of what is being discussed for whatever reason. Not going to talk in circles with you. If you don't have a proper counter for what is being said, then that is fine.

I haven't reduced anything. I have stayed on topic. You however, have lost the plot.
I do wish you would stop talking in circles and perhaps add a little substance to your ramblings·

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

I haven't reduced anything. I have stayed on topic. You however, have lost the plot.
I do wish you would stop talking in circles and perhaps add a little substance to your ramblings·

I appreciate your attempt at engagement, but it's clear you're just recycling my points. Maybe try contributing something original next time—it's more rewarding than playing echo.

 

[Leaf Fans]

I appreciate your attempt at engagement, but it's clear you're just recycling my points. Maybe try contributing something original next time—it's more rewarding than playing echo.

You should have quoted yourself with this post. It doesn't apply to me.
Keep trying.