HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Best Rangers team to not win the Cup? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1452497)

Crease 06-24-2013 11:07 AM

Best Rangers team to not win the Cup?
 
Since I'm a bit of a history junkie, I figure this would be a fun thread.

I'm going with the 1971-72 Rangers. Career years for Ratelle, Gilbert and Hadfield. Prime Brad Park. And the excellent goaltending duo of Giacomin and Villemure.

HM: 1991-92 Rangers.

I Eat Crow 06-24-2013 11:21 AM

71-72 are close, but it's really tough to compare teams between eras. For me, the 91-92 team edges out the GAG line and Eddie G.

Messier was a monster. Leetch was just coming into his own and had a 100 point season. Gartner was scoring. The team as a whole had 5 guys that scored at least 30. Graves, Nemchinov, Turcotte. Goalie duo of Beezer and Richter. I was just a baby when they played, but I think they had a real chance at winning the Cup if they didn't run into the buzzsaw that was the Pittsburgh Penguins.

KreiMeARiver* 06-24-2013 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Eat Crow (Post 67894917)
71-72 are close, but it's really tough to compare teams between eras. For me, the 91-92 team edges out the GAG line and Eddie G.

Messier was a monster. Leetch was just coming into his own and had a 100 point season. Gartner was scoring. The team as a whole had 5 guys that scored at least 30. Graves, Nemchinov, Turcotte. Goalie duo of Beezer and Richter. I was just a baby when they played, but I think they had a real chance at winning the Cup if they didn't run into the buzzsaw that was the Pittsburgh Penguins.

This....

The 91-92 team would have murdered the 71-72 team.

Crease 06-24-2013 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KreiMeARiver (Post 67895765)
This....

The 91-92 team would have murdered the 71-72 team.

Murdered? The 1971 team managed to win 2 games in the finals against prime Orr and Esposito. Do you think the 1991 team could have done better?

nyranger61494 06-24-2013 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crease (Post 67897451)
Murdered? The 1971 team managed to win 2 games in the finals against prime Orr and Esposito. Do you think the 1991 team could have done better?

And an injured Ratelle correct?

It's always hard to gauge how teams from other eras would fare. I would choose to look at this question based on their contemporary competition. The 72 Rangers lost to that supremely talented Orr team without Ratelle. From what I have read/heard, the 92 team was extremely good but fell apart after the Ron Francis goal vs Richter in Game 4 from the neutral zone. Messier was also banged up during that series and had to sit out Game 2. Maybe some of the older posters can speak to how Rangers would have matched up vs Bruins and Blackhawks had they beaten the Pens.

The 72 and 92 teams seem to be the two that most Rangers fans speak about with respect to this question though. Would be interested to hear if there are any other teams that fans feel were in that discussion.

Crease 06-24-2013 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyranger61494 (Post 67897861)
The 72 and 92 teams seem to be the two that most Rangers fans speak about with respect to this question though. Would be interested to hear if there are any other teams that fans feel were in that discussion.

The 1970-71 and 1972-73 teams were also considered up there, based on what I've read. Steamrolled through the regular season but cut down by Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita in the playoffs.

bernmeister 06-24-2013 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crease (Post 67897451)
Murdered? The 1971 team managed to win 2 games in the finals against prime Orr and Esposito. Do you think the 1991 team could have done better?

My vote is here with Crease on this one.

They have computer simulations, like Marciano v. Ali.

Would be interesting to have common era foes (like 80s) and/or adjusted simulations 70s team v. 90s team and vice versa. Best 2 of 3 results.

My money, again, the 70s Rangers.
I pity those of you who weren't there to see it.

Brian Boyle 06-24-2013 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crease (Post 67898447)
The 1970-71 and 1972-73 teams were also considered up there, based on what I've read. Steamrolled through the regular season but cut down by Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita in the playoffs.

They also did so WITHOUT Jean Ratelle, who, from what I've read, was arguably the best player on the team.

The 91-92 team couldn't even get past round two.

Brooklyn Ranger 06-24-2013 05:39 PM

The Rangers lost to the team that was on its way to a 2nd straight Stanley Cup in 1992. The Rangers were a very good team then. The teams from the early 1970s really played well together and came oh so close....

Both were great to watch.

Clowes Line 06-24-2013 06:08 PM

I say we poll it.

1971-1972 vs 1991-1992

ThisYearsModel 06-24-2013 06:10 PM

1971-1972. Easily.

Greg02 06-24-2013 06:14 PM

I know some people felt that the pre-WWII Rangers should have won more cups. Not sure if there's any year in particular where they should have gone further, though.

Brooklyn Ranger 06-24-2013 06:17 PM

Having seen both: two completely different teams, two completely different times. Can't really compare the two and it doesn't really make sense to have a poll, since most people here are not old enough to have seen both eras.

I will say one thing though--the teams from the early 1970s didn't have the spector of 1940 and the fact that the franchise hadn't won a Stanley Cup in over 50 years hanging over its head.

KreiMeARiver* 06-24-2013 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crease (Post 67897451)
Murdered? The 1971 team managed to win 2 games in the finals against prime Orr and Esposito. Do you think the 1991 team could have done better?

And we won 2 against young Jagr/ prime Lemieux.

That Pitt team has how many HOF on it?

I stand by my words that we would win. I like using hyperbole to elicit a response.

mike14 06-24-2013 06:35 PM

49-50? Losing in double OT of game seven after hitting the post in OT sounds pretty deserving to me. Unfortunately after that we didn't qualify for the playoffs for the next 5 years and didn't have another real shot at the cup until 71-72

Brooklyn Ranger 06-24-2013 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike14 (Post 67915365)
49-50? Losing in double OT of game seven after hitting the post in OT sounds pretty deserving to me. Unfortunately after that we didn't qualify for the playoffs for the next 5 years and didn't have another real shot at the cup until 71-72

And let's not forget that the Rangers got kicked out of the Garden because the circus was in town. I never saw the circus until the new Garden was built because of it.

Quote:

In 1950, the vagabond Rangers surprisingly made it to the final round, but never played any of the seven games against the Red Wings at home. Five games were held in Detroit, where the Rangers won twice (both in overtime), and Games 2 and 3 were played in Toronto, where the neutral arena was far more suitable geographically for Detroit fans than for New Yorkers. The teams split the two games there; the Rangers lost the series, 4 games to 3.

Don't know if anyone without a Times subscription will be able to access the full article--it talks about every year the Rangers were forced to relocate because of the circus. In 1928 (the first championship year) they didn't even play a single game of the finals at the Garden.
Quote:

Besides their 1933 championship year and their 1937 runner-up year, the Rangers were affected by conflicts with the circus in six other years: 1928, 1932, 1940, 1950, 1957 and 1958. When the Rangers won their first Stanley Cup in 1928 - the second season of the franchise - few hometown fans saw the final round. That's because, thanks to the circus, the entire series against the Montreal Maroons was played at the Forum, after the Rangers spurned ''home-ice'' offers from Boston and Detroit. New York won Games 2, 4 and 5, and the series, 3 games to 2.

The arrangement was more absurd four years later as the Rangers resembled a three-ring circus in losing the 1932 final to the Leafs in three straight games: 6-4 at Madison Square Garden; 6-2 at neutral Boston Garden, and 6-4 at Maple Leaf Gardens. When the Rangers captured their last cup in 1940, they did so after winning the first two games at home and two of the next four in Toronto, taking Games 5 and 6 in overtime
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/16/sp...stion-box.html

Crease 06-24-2013 07:49 PM

Yep, those pre-war teams were at a real disadvantage because of the circus.

During the 1928 finals against the Montreal Maroons, the circus was booked at MSG. The owners wanted Rangers home games to be played in Boston but the players opted against that. Instead all five games were played in Montreal and Canadien fans rooted for the Rangers.

Zamboner 06-24-2013 08:06 PM

91-92 was the best one I saw. My pops, who isn't generally an optimistic guy, wasn't just confident they'd win that year, he was borderline cocky. That was a beastly team.

drewcon40 06-24-2013 08:39 PM

91-92 immediately came to mind. I hope I am not hijacking the thread because I am not sure this falls under the "best team not to win the cup" but I always look back at the 95-96 team with interest. A lot of "what-ifs" come to mind. The Zubov/Nedved for Ulf/Luc trade was already done and the latter were Rangers. I just remember that season being really fun. Pat Verbeek and Messier were both on pace for 50 goals but they missed some games due to injuries. What could have been if the Rangers do not make the Kurri, McSorely, Churla trade.

Brooklyn Ranger 06-24-2013 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewcon40 (Post 67924219)
91-92 immediately came to mind. I hope I am not hijacking the thread because I am not sure this falls under the "best team not to win the cup" but I always look back at the 95-96 team with interest. A lot of "what-ifs" come to mind. The Zubov/Nedved for Ulf/Luc trade was already done and the latter were Rangers. I just remember that season being really fun. Pat Verbeek and Messier were both on pace for 50 goals but they missed some games due to injuries. What could have been if the Rangers do not make the Kurri, McSorely, Churla trade.

I've completely wiped that trade out of my memory (thanks for reminding me:shakehead).

I still remember the impossible goal that went off of Samuelson's face in the playoffs against Pittsburgh. Up until that point I was optimistic, but lost all hope when it happened.

Kris Chreider 06-24-2013 09:10 PM

No, AINEC. 91-92, 95-96, 71-72, 49-50 all come to mind.

Even last year's team doesn't come close. The Devils played better than us, and they got curbstomped by the Kings.

Greg02 06-24-2013 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris Chreider (Post 67926617)
No, AINEC. 91-92, 95-96, 71-72, 49-50 all come to mind.

Even last year's team doesn't come close. The Devils played better than us, and they got curbstomped by the Kings.

I don't think anyone proposed this year's team, did they?

WhipNash27 06-24-2013 10:57 PM

In my lifetime 91-92.

Giacomin 06-25-2013 12:06 AM

I just started following the Rangers in 1971-72 and if I remember once Ratelle went down they were given no chance. The 91-92 team was loaded but just lost to another great team.
The 1979 team did not have near the talent of the other 2 teams but had the heart of a champion and almost pulled it off. They were by far my favorite Rangers team ahead of the the 94 team .

White Plains Batman 06-25-2013 12:16 AM

Times the Rangers could have won;

49-50; hit a post in OT

71-72: Injured Ratealle

78-79: Injured Nilsson and if they didn't make that Middleton deal....

80-81: Injured Maloney and lack of goaltending...

81-82: Injured Hedberg and lack of goaltending

89-90: Injured Leetch and a rusty Carey Wilson

91-92: So much talent, had so many young guys who hadn't been through the wars yet.....

96-97; if Kovalev was healthy, and Zubov and Norstrom were still around....


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.