View Single Post
Old
03-22-2012, 11:53 AM
  #15
007
Olympic nut
 
007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
Just to give my $0.02 on several points in this thread, in no particular order, I'm not going to try to quote everyone.

-1994 was the year the Rangers were way more talented than any other team in the league. We sacrificed a lot of speed and talent to get grittier for the playoff run, but I disagree that the trade deadline deals made the Rangers easier to play against. I don't like all the trades we made: losing Tony Amonte stung, and I think it's at best arguable that the Rangers were made better by this trade, despite Matteau's heroics (I think it was a trade for Keenan's sake more than anything); Gartner was one of my favourite players at the time, but Anderson played a big part in shadowing Bure in the finals; MacTavish really helped with defensive-zone draws and, as great a career as Todd Marchant had later, that one was a perfect example of how to tinker with a winning team to improve it immediately.

-1994 was the year the Rangers won the Cup, but it was also the coming-out party for those great Devils teams of the 1990's. Brodeur's emergence, Lemaire showing the league what the future was going to look like, Stevens entering the phase of his career where he really built his reputation, etc. The Devils were way better than the Bruins by that point in the season, and although the Canucks played out of their skins in the Finals, I think the Devils were better than them, too -- though less entertaining.

-The Penguins were a very good team, but it wasn't their year. Barrasso was one of those goalies who could stand on his head at times, but for all the scary talent they had, the Rangers had, in a way, been designed to beat them in the playoffs. I don't think they would have played the Rangers as close as the Devils, either.

007 is offline   Reply With Quote