I don't think the Canucks are that cut and dried. The AV era's Achilles heel has always been scoring depth, and every team that beat them did it the same way: having the depth to put a strong checking unit against the Sedins, and a legitimate scoring line (IE, not Mike Fisher) against Kesler, while still having superior forwards left over. Those also happen to be the type of teams that actually win Stanley Cups.
Vancouver was incredibly fortunate that Bolland missed the first three games of the Chicago series (each won by the Sedins' offense) in 2011, or else it probably don't get out of the first round.
Last edited by struckbyaparkedcar: 11-26-2012 at 06:02 PM.
Reason: accidentally a word
Kerr was far less important to that team than any of Howe/McCrimmon/Hextall.
Far less? Yeah not sure I agree w that. A 58 goal scorer missing from a team already heavily outgunned makes the Game 7 push vs. the Oilers all the more impressive was my point.
I love those Leaf teams and I feel they overachieved hugely compared to how they looked on paper just because they played so well together. On paper I'm not sure they were a "best team never to win the Cup" unless you count their chemistry and coaching.
i should have been clearer, they arent my "top team" just one i really liked.
Gilmour and Andreychuk in their prime, Potvin, Clark, and one of my all time favorites, Dave Ellet
Interesting looking at final series results. In the 13 finals of the three post expansion dynasties only one went seven games, and most of them were either sweeps or 4 to 1 no contests. Proud of my boys in 87'. There are plenty of great teams on this list, but it will be hard to find one that put up a bigger fight against a better team.
Far less? Yeah not sure I agree w that. A 58 goal scorer missing from a team already heavily outgunned makes the Game 7 push vs. the Oilers all the more impressive was my point.
Howe was the 2nd best defenseman in the league, and McCrimmon was also top-ten. Hextall was the league's best goalie.
If you take one of them out and put Kerr in, the Flyers don't get to Game 7, and might not even make the Finals.
It's the 1996 Red Wings. As for the best team that was good for a long period of time without winning a Cup I'm going with the Flyers of the 90's.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
Just to put a spin on this, the best FRANCHISE to never win the Cup is St. Louis, right?
buffalo has been better than STL.
record
buffalo: 1569-1219-409-83 --- 3630p
STL: 1544-1429-432-101 ----- 3621p
buffalo has more wins and points despite playing 3 fewer seasons.
losing seasons
buffalo: 7
STL: 18
STL made playoffs with a losing record 12 times, once with a record of 25-40-15. in '77, STL won the smythe division, despite being 7 games below .500 and -37. they also won the norris division in '87 despite a losing record and a -12 goal differential.
finals
buffalo: 2
STL: 3
conference finals
buffalo: 6
STL: 6
STL's playoff streak and appearances in finals were based on very weak competition.
STL reached 3 finals by playing only weak expansion teams (all 6 opponents were below .500 with negative goal differentials), whereas buffalo reached 2 finals by beating montreal and chicago in '75 and ottawa and TML in '99. STL was swept in '68, '69 and '70, whereas buffalo was reasonably close in '75 and '99.
Maybe I'm overly picky but I'm a bit confused at many of the teams mentioned for they have indeed won the Stanley Cup at some point in their history. To me, the "Never" in the title means teams that never won the Cup. Coming to mind are the Canucks & Sabres, which had good teams at various times, reaching the final on more than one occasion, but never won the Cup. Senators, Flyers, etc.. don't qualify as they have won the Cup in the past.
I don't want to quote the whole post since it's huge, so @nik jr, I guess you're right.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
I should clarify what I meant by stating "best teams that never won the Cup." I meant as the greatest assembly of talent at any given season that people think should have won the Cup. For all the hype that Lindros had coming in and the significant package of assets Philly gave up, that was a team that was supposed to eventual vie for a Stanley Cup. They did get close at one point, but that was it and I'd consider the Lindros era of the Flyers to be one of the most hyped teams and most disappointing due to their failure to deliver.
The record setting Detroit Red Wings in '96 are another terrific example of a team that was expected to carry over their regular season success into the playoffs, but that didn't end up happening until the Wings added Brendan Shanahan into the fold. Prior to '97, the Wings were considered the best team in the NHL for a number of years but were constantly upset in the post season (courtesy of New Jersey in '95 and San Jose in '94).
Of recent years, the 2007 Senators are a good example considering that they had the hottest line in the NHL with Spezza, Alfredsson and Heatley, but they ran into the brick wall that was the Anaheim Ducks with Pronger and Niedermayer on defense. The Sharks after acquiring Joe Thornton have had terrific regular season success but have in large part been a disappointment in the playoffs.
For teams that never won - the Canucks take the cake - so much talent and so many opportunities. Buffalo is right there as well.
Not mentioned are the two other pre-lockout teams trying to "buy" a Cup - the Rangers and Leafs had astronomical payrolls with huge names, but never really managed much with it.
The Kariya+Selanne Avs was another shocker how that did not amount to more.
The Kariya+Selanne Avs was another shocker how that did not amount to more.
I think injuries played a big part as to why that team didn't enjoy as much success as they should have. Kariya only appeared in 1 playoff game for the Avs and just 55 games, scoring a measly 36 points. Selanne was also pretty banged up at that point in his career despite appearing in 78 games that season. He only scored 32 points in 78 games and that had to be the worst season of his NHL career. Selanne wasn't any better in the playoffs, scoring only 3 points (all assists) in 10 games.
To add to the lackluster performances from that duo, Forsberg was limited to only 39 games that season and missed the rest of the year and the playoffs. That was also the Avs' first year after Patrick Roy retired. Although Aebischer had put up decent numbers, he was no Patrick Roy, and that hurt them immensely.
On paper they looked great, but in reality, that team just had too many holes and that was in large part due to injuries.
lets not forget those great Calgary Flames teams in the mid-late 80's as well. The only reason they did not win more than one cup, was because they had to go through Edmonton just about every year.
I would put the Red Wings of 94-95 and 95-96, on top, with the Calgary Flames of 85-87 right behind.
Of recent years, the 2007 Senators are a good example considering that they had the hottest line in the NHL with Spezza, Alfredsson and Heatley, but they ran into the brick wall that was the Anaheim Ducks with Pronger and Niedermayer on defense. The Sharks after acquiring Joe Thornton have had terrific regular season success but have in large part been a disappointment in the playoffs.
The 2007 Senators were not as good as the 2001, 2003 and 2006 teams.
lets not forget those great Calgary Flames teams in the mid-late 80's as well. The only reason they did not win more than one cup, was because they had to go through Edmonton just about every year.
I would put the Red Wings of 94-95 and 95-96, on top, with the Calgary Flames of 85-87 right behind.
I recall hearing/reading about that as well, that the only reason the Flames didn't want Cups during that time frame was due to them having to face Edmonton in the playoffs. From 1983 to
1983: Lost Division Finals (4-1) versus Edmonton Oilers
1984: Lost Division Finals (4-3) versus Edmonton Oilers
1986: Won Division Finals (4-3) versus Edmonton Oilers (lost to Canadiens in Finals in 5).
1988: Lost Division Finals (4-0) versus Edmonton Oilers
1991: Lost Division Semi-Finals (4-3) versus Edmonton Oilers
They won a Stanley Cup in 1989, where they were spared from playing Edmonton due to LA's upset win in 7 games. The Flames would sweep the Kings, take out the Hawks in 5 games in the Conference Finals and then beat the Habs in 6 to win their first Stanley Cup. In meetings between 1983 and 1991, the Flames were victorious on only one occasion. As you suggested, those Flames certainly could have been Cup contenders had it not been for the dominant Oilers.
I think injuries played a big part as to why that team didn't enjoy as much success as they should have. Kariya only appeared in 1 playoff game for the Avs and just 55 games, scoring a measly 36 points. Selanne was also pretty banged up at that point in his career despite appearing in 78 games that season. He only scored 32 points in 78 games and that had to be the worst season of his NHL career. Selanne wasn't any better in the playoffs, scoring only 3 points (all assists) in 10 games.
To add to the lackluster performances from that duo, Forsberg was limited to only 39 games that season and missed the rest of the year and the playoffs. That was also the Avs' first year after Patrick Roy retired. Although Aebischer had put up decent numbers, he was no Patrick Roy, and that hurt them immensely.
On paper they looked great, but in reality, that team just had too many holes and that was in large part due to injuries.
No arguments - just a rotten luck season - but still just a potentially great team on paper that fell far short of expectations. 2009 Red Wings had similar rotten luck with injuries in the playoffs.
For teams that never won - the Canucks take the cake - so much talent and so many opportunities. Buffalo is right there as well.
Not mentioned are the two other pre-lockout teams trying to "buy" a Cup - the Rangers and Leafs had astronomical payrolls with huge names, but never really managed much with it.
The Kariya+Selanne Avs was another shocker how that did not amount to more.
Considering that the Canucks were a fairly pathetic organization for most of their history, I'd probably put at least the Blues, and possibly the Senators or Sabres, ahead of them. Vancouver has had a grand total of one Hall of Famer in 41 years, not counting those that were in Vancouver before or after their primes, and the only time they were a serious Cup contender in that time was the last three seasons (2010-2012).
...Vancouver before or after their primes, and the only time they were a serious Cup contender in that time was the last three seasons (2010-2012).
... 1982 granted, no chance, swept by the Islanders in the finals. But 94? Pushed
New York to the full 7 games, an excellent team and IMO a "very serious contender".
... 1982 granted, no chance, swept by the Islanders in the finals. But 94? Pushed
New York to the full 7 games, an excellent team and IMO a "very serious contender".
82 was a cinderella run
94 was as well. the Canucks finished one game over .500 that year, and right at .500 the following year. hardly one of the "best teams ever" not to win a cup.
i know they didnt make the playoffs in 96, but what about the 96 Devils?
