How good were the '93 Cup Champions?

[Habitforming]

You are right. The Habs could be a suprise team this year as long there are no pitfalls and a few earlier then expected surprises. One thing we know for sure is most teams will underestimate the Montreal Canadiens this coming season based on the desire of current UFA's to play for Montreal and on the Ryan Smyth comment. "the habs won't be great anytime soon."

If the habs work hard they could grab a bunch of wins from their unexpecting opponents. I guess we'll see.

Yes that is a possibility, but so is finishing dead last. I'd rather trade for a bonifide 1st liner than sit on my a$$ and hope for the best.

We have problems that need to be fixed, hoping they go away on their own is counter productive.

AGREED. My statement was based on Gainey really trying hard to land a Stand-up UFA, and trying to trade without getting hosed. I believe Gainey is not sitting on his A$$. He is trying. Therefore Im hoping. I've taught myself to hope every year, since 1993. That Stanley cup team was not that great. Great goalie and what? 10 lucky overtimes. We still won. All the kids could surprise with the right confidence instilled and a great ......and I mean GREAT goaltender. Which we could have in our back pocket and not even know it. I'm not talking about Carey Price either.

Lucky?

Do me a favor.

Stop believing in the media BS and check the stats.

The 1993 Canadiens and the 2007 Anaheim Ducks are VERY close in comparison.

I did all this before in another thread, but I lack the effort to find it right now.

[SAKS-AVENUE]

You are right. The Habs could be a suprise team this year as long there are no pitfalls and a few earlier then expected surprises. One thing we know for sure is most teams will underestimate the Montreal Canadiens this coming season based on the desire of current UFA's to play for Montreal and on the Ryan Smyth comment. "the habs won't be great anytime soon."

If the habs work hard they could grab a bunch of wins from their unexpecting opponents. I guess we'll see.

Yes that is a possibility, but so is finishing dead last. I'd rather trade for a bonifide 1st liner than sit on my a$$ and hope for the best.

We have problems that need to be fixed, hoping they go away on their own is counter productive.

AGREED. My statement was based on Gainey really trying hard to land a Stand-up UFA, and trying to trade without getting hosed. I believe Gainey is not sitting on his A$$. He is trying. Therefore Im hoping. I've taught myself to hope every year, since 1993. That Stanley cup team was not that great. Great goalie and what? 10 lucky overtimes. We still won. All the kids could surprise with the right confidence instilled and a great ......and I mean GREAT goaltender. Which we could have in our back pocket and not even know it. I'm not talking about Carey Price either.

Lucky?

Do me a favor.

Stop believing in the media BS and check the stats.

The 1993 Canadiens and the 2007 Anaheim Ducks are VERY close in comparison.

I did all this before in another thread, but I lack the effort to find it right now.

Take it easy. I've never been sucked into media. Not until I moved to the States 10 years ago and my only connection to Montreal news was by getting online which for me started in the late 90's. It got even worse when I found HW because every little fart is twisted backwards, forwards, sideways and backwards again that you have no idea what is true and what isn't.

I still lived in Canada in 93 and was very happy and excited to watch my beloved Habs win the cup yet again. The last time we all got to see it. They were not expected to be there, let alone win it. They were not an elite team that was favored all year.

My POINT in the post you are reffering to was that any hard working team, with a great goalie and a postive attitude has a chance at the cup. Therefore I will hope this year! because Carey Price COULD bring a confidence to the habs dressing room that gives them a chance to win every night. I HOPE!!!!!

In 1993 the NHL had something like 5 or 6 players with over 60 friggin goals....and the top ten players in points ranged from 120 to 170 something. Crazy a$$ numbers and players. None were on the Habs roster.

The favored team was a loaded Pittsburgh squad but unfortunatly Mario was diagnosed with cancer that year and a lousy Islanders club knocked them out, who fortunatly we met next. That left all the good teams out and all the crappy cinderella stories were left to fight it out themselves. A strange year as I remember. Lucky for us.

At that point the city of Montreal was mapping a premature parade route because the only teams left were Montreal, NYI, Toronto and L.A. Out of that group I think the habs were the only team that broke 100 points. We were all dreaming of a Toronto, Montreal final.

All of our games against these WEAK teams were CLOSE. 10 overtime wins. Yes, lucky. Patrick Roy saved us. Those over time wins made the series' look lop-sided with a 4-0 sweep, then 4-1 and 4-1. Not true....all the games were tight, may I remind you against crap opponents.

On the other side L.A, Toronto, Vancouver, and a last place St.louis were in a dog fight. All crap teams fighting it out through all seven games .....they were exhausted teams, While the habs were LUCKY in overtime and got to rest they're broken ribs(Kirk Muller) after what seemed like a dominating climb to the final.

What happens next? We meet an exhausted, beat up , 7th seeded team just coming off a gruelling 7th game overtime win. Welcome to the finals!. WE WIN!!!!!!!!

We were LUCKY. PERIOD.

No media BS to reflect upon, just my memory. I was doing cart wheels I was so happy, and still am. I'm not going to compare our 93 habs to 07 Anahiem. Completely different circumstances.

If there is a small chance at winning the cup this year we would need a lot of LUCK on our side just like in 93, but we would still be missing two important things. Things that" MAKE LUCK" A great goalie and a team that SHOWS UP.

I continue to HOPE. The season hasn't even started yet.

[JoeLassister]

Take it easy. I've never been sucked into media. Not until I moved to the States 10 years ago and my only connection to Montreal news was by getting online which for me started in the late 90's. It got even worse when I found HW because every little fart is twisted backwards, forwards, sideways and backwards again that you have no idea what is true and what isn't.

I still lived in Canada in 93 and was very happy and excited to watch my beloved Habs win the cup yet again. The last time we all got to see it. They were not expected to be there, let alone win it. They were not an elite team that was favored all year.

My POINT in the post you are reffering to was that any hard working team, with a great goalie and a postive attitude has a chance at the cup. Therefore I will hope this year! because Carey Price COULD bring a confidence to the habs dressing room that gives them a chance to win every night. I HOPE!!!!!

In 1993 the NHL had something like 5 or 6 players with over 60 friggin goals....and the top ten players in points ranged from 120 to 170 something. Crazy a$$ numbers and players. None were on the Habs roster.

The favored team was a loaded Pittsburgh squad but unfortunatly Mario was diagnosed with cancer that year and a lousy Islanders club knocked them out, who fortunatly we met next. That left all the good teams out and all the crappy cinderella stories were left to fight it out themselves. A strange year as I remember. Lucky for us.

At that point the city of Montreal was mapping a premature parade route because the only teams left were Montreal, NYI, Toronto and L.A. Out of that group I think the habs were the only team that broke 100 points. We were all dreaming of a Toronto, Montreal final.

All of our games against these WEAK teams were CLOSE. 10 overtime wins. Yes, lucky. Patrick Roy saved us. Those over time wins made the series' look lop-sided with a 4-0 sweep, then 4-1 and 4-1. Not true....all the games were tight, may I remind you against crap opponents.

On the other side L.A, Toronto, Vancouver, and a last place St.louis were in a dog fight. All crap teams fighting it out through all seven games .....they were exhausted teams, While the habs were LUCKY in overtime and got to rest they're broken ribs(Kirk Muller) after what seemed like a dominating climb to the final.

What happens next? We meet an exhausted, beat up , 7th seeded team just coming off a gruelling 7th game overtime win. Welcome to the finals!. WE WIN!!!!!!!!

We were LUCKY. PERIOD.

No media BS to reflect upon, just my memory. I was doing cart wheels I was so happy, and still am. I'm not going to compare our 93 habs to 07 Anahiem. Completely different circumstances.

If there is a small chance at winning the cup this year we would need a lot of LUCK on our side just like in 93, but we would still be missing two important things. Things that" MAKE LUCK" A great goalie and a team that SHOWS UP.

I continue to HOPE. The season hasn't even started yet.

well, if we faced crap oppenents it's because they won over nice oppenents, so they might not has been so crappy hein?? The only "lucky" thing was the dirty Dale Hunter hit on Turgeon.

10 overtimes wins means more 10 hard fights for that big goal than a lucky thing.

It might be the worst post i ever read on this board.

[SAKS-AVENUE]

well, if we faced crap oppenents it's because they won over nice oppenents, so they might not has been so crappy hein?? The only "lucky" thing was the dirty Dale Hunter hit on Turgeon.

10 overtimes wins means more 10 hard fights for that big goal than a lucky thing.

It might be the worst post i ever read on this board.

Ya ...I take the same stance when I'm talking to my friends who lost out that year, them being Leaf fans or Bruin fans. I figured among habs fans we could be at least be a little realistic and admit we caught a lot of breaks in '93. We were not this powerhouse wrecking crew of a hockey team. Luck was on our side. I guess opinions will vary. As far as it being the worst post you ever read? Get over yourself dude!

Edited July 12, 2007 by SAKS-AVENUE

[titanfan]

You are right. The Habs could be a suprise team this year as long there are no pitfalls and a few earlier then expected surprises. One thing we know for sure is most teams will underestimate the Montreal Canadiens this coming season based on the desire of current UFA's to play for Montreal and on the Ryan Smyth comment. "the habs won't be great anytime soon."

If the habs work hard they could grab a bunch of wins from their unexpecting opponents. I guess we'll see.

Yes that is a possibility, but so is finishing dead last. I'd rather trade for a bonifide 1st liner than sit on my a$$ and hope for the best.

We have problems that need to be fixed, hoping they go away on their own is counter productive.

AGREED. My statement was based on Gainey really trying hard to land a Stand-up UFA, and trying to trade without getting hosed. I believe Gainey is not sitting on his A$$. He is trying. Therefore Im hoping. I've taught myself to hope every year, since 1993. That Stanley cup team was not that great. Great goalie and what? 10 lucky overtimes. We still won. All the kids could surprise with the right confidence instilled and a great ......and I mean GREAT goaltender. Which we could have in our back pocket and not even know it. I'm not talking about Carey Price either.

Lucky?

Do me a favor.

Stop believing in the media BS and check the stats.

The 1993 Canadiens and the 2007 Anaheim Ducks are VERY close in comparison.

I did all this before in another thread, but I lack the effort to find it right now.

Take it easy. I've never been sucked into media. Not until I moved to the States 10 years ago and my only connection to Montreal news was by getting online which for me started in the late 90's. It got even worse when I found HW because every little fart is twisted backwards, forwards, sideways and backwards again that you have no idea what is true and what isn't.

I still lived in Canada in 93 and was very happy and excited to watch my beloved Habs win the cup yet again. The last time we all got to see it. They were not expected to be there, let alone win it. They were not an elite team that was favored all year.

My POINT in the post you are reffering to was that any hard working team, with a great goalie and a postive attitude has a chance at the cup. Therefore I will hope this year! because Carey Price COULD bring a confidence to the habs dressing room that gives them a chance to win every night. I HOPE!!!!!

In 1993 the NHL had something like 5 or 6 players with over 60 friggin goals....and the top ten players in points ranged from 120 to 170 something. Crazy a$$ numbers and players. None were on the Habs roster.

The favored team was a loaded Pittsburgh squad but unfortunatly Mario was diagnosed with cancer that year and a lousy Islanders club knocked them out, who fortunatly we met next. That left all the good teams out and all the crappy cinderella stories were left to fight it out themselves. A strange year as I remember. Lucky for us.

At that point the city of Montreal was mapping a premature parade route because the only teams left were Montreal, NYI, Toronto and L.A. Out of that group I think the habs were the only team that broke 100 points. We were all dreaming of a Toronto, Montreal final.

All of our games against these WEAK teams were CLOSE. 10 overtime wins. Yes, lucky. Patrick Roy saved us. Those over time wins made the series' look lop-sided with a 4-0 sweep, then 4-1 and 4-1. Not true....all the games were tight, may I remind you against crap opponents.

On the other side L.A, Toronto, Vancouver, and a last place St.louis were in a dog fight. All crap teams fighting it out through all seven games .....they were exhausted teams, While the habs were LUCKY in overtime and got to rest they're broken ribs(Kirk Muller) after what seemed like a dominating climb to the final.

What happens next? We meet an exhausted, beat up , 7th seeded team just coming off a gruelling 7th game overtime win. Welcome to the finals!. WE WIN!!!!!!!!

We were LUCKY. PERIOD.

No media BS to reflect upon, just my memory. I was doing cart wheels I was so happy, and still am. I'm not going to compare our 93 habs to 07 Anahiem. Completely different circumstances.

If there is a small chance at winning the cup this year we would need a lot of LUCK on our side just like in 93, but we would still be missing two important things. Things that" MAKE LUCK" A great goalie and a team that SHOWS UP.

I continue to HOPE. The season hasn't even started yet.

Me thinks you've been listening to too many anti-Montreal people.

Let's stop and seriously think about this for a minute:

Basically three 40 goal scorers. Brain Bellows, 40; Vincent Damphousse, 39; Kirk Muller, 37. In other words the offence could come from a lot of different places - not just one guy or even one line. Sure the Habs didn't have a Mario Lemieux but they didn't need him. (I said NEED, everybody wanted him!)

Oh did I forget, the lineup also included Denis Savard - who helped a great deal before he limped into the final.

What about maybe the best defensive forward in the game in Guy Carbonneau?

Mike Keane - how many Stanley Cups did he win?

John LeClair - emerging as one of the best power forwards in the league and who used the 93 playoffs as his coming out party.

Hmm, Stephane Lebeau only added 31 goals that season.

Gilbert Dionne - 20 (I know he never did it again but every champion has a surprise or two)

Which leads us to Paul Dipietro - twice as many playoff goals than regular season goals. (yeah he was a surprise, or maybe even a fluke)

Eric Desjardins and Mathieu Schneider on defence and a veteran Rob Ramage. (I won't mention Brisebois or Haller or Daigneault or Odelein)

Finally some kid named Roy in net.

Yeah the team sucked!

The problem is you seem to think that it takes a superstar to win a championship. I like it when a TEAM wins.

Of course if you are under the influence of a Toronto fan I could understand - they haven't had a TEAM for 40 years!

Edited July 12, 2007 by titanfan

[SAKS-AVENUE]

Me thinks you've been listening to too many anti-Montreal people.

Let's stop and seriously think about this for a minute:

Basically three 40 goal scorers. Brain Bellows, 40; Vincent Damphousse, 39; Kirk Muller, 37. In other words the offence could come from a lot of different places - not just one guy or even one line. Sure the Habs didn't have a Mario Lemieux but they didn't need him. (I said NEED, everybody wanted him!)

Oh did I forget, the lineup also included Denis Savard - who helped a great deal before he limped into the final.

What about maybe the best defensive forward in the game in Guy Carbonneau?

Mike Keane - how many Stanley Cups did he win?

John LeClair - emerging as one of the best power forwards in the league and who used the 93 playoffs as his coming out party.

Hmm, Stephane Lebeau only added 31 goals that season.

Gilbert Dionne - 20 (I know he never did it again but every champion has a surprise or two)

Which leads us to Paul Dipietro - twice as many playoff goals than regular season goals. (yeah he was a surprise, or maybe even a fluke)

Eric Desjardins and Mathieu Schneider on defence and a veteran Rob Ramage. (I won't mention Brisebois or Haller or Daigneault or Odelein)

Finally some kid named Roy in net.

Yeah the team sucked!

The problem is you seem to think that it takes a superstar to win a championship. I like it when a TEAM wins.

Of course if you are under the influence of a Toronto fan I could understand - they haven't had a TEAM for 40 years!

Me thinks your not reading my post. Not once did I say the habs sucked. I would never say that even when they have. A superstar is needed? What gave you that idea. . I'm perfectly aware of the 93 line-up ,but thanks for posting it. 40 goal scorers, that's nice when in that particular season there were guys scoring 60-70 goals. Patrick Roys average was well over three that year.

I said they were lucky in 93 because when all the dust settled in the 93 play-offs all the top teams were out. We had home ice advantage in every series I think, including the finals.

I'm not bashing them. I'm saying we could always get lucky this coming season like we did in 93. What don't you get? That's a good thing.

Also I want to add.....I might be wrong but I doubt it. Denis Savard was not helping the team at that point. Out of respect Demers let him say he was injured. The only reason I think that is because he did let him play again at a certain point so he would have enough play-off games to allow his name on the cup. Kudos to demers. For all the people that bash Carbs, He was the one who sat Demers down during those play-offs and offered some coaching advice that ended up working. He's always been a smart hockey man and will excell behind the Montreal bench for years to come.

Edited July 12, 2007 by SAKS-AVENUE

[sbhatt]

We had luck in 1993....but we also had the best goaltender to ever play the game round back into his best form at precisely the right time. We have some good goaltenders, but I haven't seen anything yet that leads me to believe any of them can perform at the same level of 'St. Patrick' at his best, and that's what leads me to conclude that this year's team doesn't have the potential to go all the way.

Edited July 12, 2007 by sbhatt

[Habitforming]

We had luck in 1993....but we also had the best goaltender to ever play the game round back into his best form at precisely the right time. We have some good goaltenders, but I haven't seen anything yet that leads me to believe any of them can perform at the same level of 'St. Patrick' at his best, and that's what leads me to conclude that this year's team doesn't have the potential to go all the way.

I disagree.

Khabibulin, Ward, Giggy, Kiprusoff etc etc etc

None of them will ever be labeled as the best goalie to play the game. Fact of the matter is that they were hot at the right time and the team pulled together.

When was the last time the cup finals ended up being the top seeds in each conference?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

We had luck in 1993....but we also had the best goaltender to ever play the game round back into his best form at precisely the right time. We have some good goaltenders, but I haven't seen anything yet that leads me to believe any of them can perform at the same level of 'St. Patrick' at his best, and that's what leads me to conclude that this year's team doesn't have the potential to go all the way.

Yeah, how people forget. Going into the 1993 playoff, the QUEBEC NORDIQUES were considered a Cup-contending powerhouse that would demolish the Habs because of their 'superstars' Sakic and Sundin and all the surrounding talent. After the Habs KICKED THEIR ASSES, suddenly they became no good. Similarly, the BUFFALO SABRES, hoo boy, they were a really fearsome club, because they had offensive *superstars* Alex Mogilny (76 goals!) and Pat Lafontaine (148 points!). After the Habs KICKED THEIR ASSES, oops! suddenly they became no good.

Notice the logic here? Working from the unshakeable premise that the 93 Habs were a middling team, it follows that any team we beat MUST, by definition, be mediocre. God forbid we should use the evidence staring us in the face that the 1993 Habs were a terrific team and a worthy champion.

What people really mean when they say that the Habs had a lucky draw that year is that they didn't play the mighty defending champs, the Pittsburgh Penguins. Oooo. Well, if the Penguins were so unbeatable, why the hell did they lose to the NY Islanders? - who we went to demolish, of course.

And we only clobbered some guy named Gretzky in the Finals. Too bad we didn't have any offensive superstars, huh?

The 1993 Habs team finished 6th overall after a late-season skid. They were fighting for FIRST OVERALL for most of the season. (For that matter, being 6th overall isn't exactly garbage, ya know?) But that doesn't count. We didn't have any offensive superstars...

And I have to laugh when people say that the 10 straight overtime victories was 'luck.' For God's sake. How many times to you have to do something before it stops being 'lucky' and starts being proof that you have more character, discipline, balanced scoring, better goaltending, and sheer desire than anyone else? If I beat you by an 11th-round knockout 10 times am I still just a 'lucky' boxer?

Here's what explains this bizarre and continuing myth that the 1993 Cup was 'luck.' In 1993, the NHL was still operating on the post-1980s, Gretzky-Lemieux assumption that you had to have a big offensive superstar or superstars to win. Since the Habs lacked these it was taken as self-evident that the Habs weren't Cup material (despite having remained around the top echelons of the league since 1986). But the 1990s (for better or worse) proved that you don't need that at all - that balanced scoring, team play, good defence, and superb goaltending will beat a couple of offensive superstars any day. But people hadn't figured that out yet. Therefore, people to this day suffer from the delusion that the 1993 Habs were inferior to other teams out there but somehow won. In fact, the 1993 Habs match up favourable against any subsequent Stanley Cup champ.

Go :hlogo: go!

[SAKS-AVENUE]

We had luck in 1993....but we also had the best goaltender to ever play the game round back into his best form at precisely the right time. We have some good goaltenders, but I haven't seen anything yet that leads me to believe any of them can perform at the same level of 'St. Patrick' at his best, and that's what leads me to conclude that this year's team doesn't have the potential to go all the way.

Yeah, how people forget. Going into the 1993 playoff, the QUEBEC NORDIQUES were considered a Cup-contending powerhouse that would demolish the Habs because of their 'superstars' Sakic and Sundin and all the surrounding talent. After the Habs KICKED THEIR ASSES, suddenly they became no good. Similarly, the BUFFALO SABRES, hoo boy, they were a really fearsome club, because they had offensive *superstars* Alex Mogilny (76 goals!) and Pat Lafontaine (148 points!). After the Habs KICKED THEIR ASSES, oops! suddenly they became no good.

Notice the logic here? Working from the unshakeable premise that the 93 Habs were a middling team, it follows that any team we beat MUST, by definition, be mediocre. God forbid we should use the evidence staring us in the face that the 1993 Habs were a terrific team and a worthy champion.

What people really mean when they say that the Habs had a lucky draw that year is that they didn't play the mighty defending champs, the Pittsburgh Penguins. Oooo. Well, if the Penguins were so unbeatable, why the hell did they lose to the NY Islanders? - who we went to demolish, of course.

And we only clobbered some guy named Gretzky in the Finals. Too bad we didn't have any offensive superstars, huh?

The 1993 Habs team finished 6th overall after a late-season skid. They were fighting for FIRST OVERALL for most of the season. (For that matter, being 6th overall isn't exactly garbage, ya know?) But that doesn't count. We didn't have any offensive superstars...

And I have to laugh when people say that the 10 straight overtime victories was 'luck.' For God's sake. How many times to you have to do something before it stops being 'lucky' and starts being proof that you have more character, discipline, balanced scoring, better goaltending, and sheer desire than anyone else? If I beat you by an 11th-round knockout 10 times am I still just a 'lucky' boxer?

Here's what explains this bizarre and continuing myth that the 1993 Cup was 'luck.' In 1993, the NHL was still operating on the post-1980s, Gretzky-Lemieux assumption that you had to have a big offensive superstar or superstars to win. Since the Habs lacked these it was taken as self-evident that the Habs weren't Cup material (despite having remained around the top echelons of the league since 1986). But the 1990s (for better or worse) proved that you don't need that at all - that balanced scoring, team play, good defence, and superb goaltending will beat a couple of offensive superstars any day. But people hadn't figured that out yet. Therefore, people to this day suffer from the delusion that the 1993 Habs were inferior to other teams out there but somehow won. In fact, the 1993 Habs match up favourable against any subsequent Stanley Cup champ.

Go :hlogo: go!

Quebec was not a cup contending powerhouse. 93 was the 1st year they made the play-offs in 6 friggin years. They didn't even make the play-offs the following year. They became a power house in Denver.

Buffalo had lafontaine and Mogilny and ????????????? Ummmmmmmmmmmmm ya lafontaine and Mogilny. Enough said.

Islanders were a weaker lower seeded team and took Power house Pittsburgh to a seventh game OT. Mario was just back from a bout with cancer. Lucky break for the Habs. You don't need to argue with that. I'd rather face the 93 NYI then a young Mario and Jagr.

Gretzky? His back was screwed that year, he only played 40 regular season games.Mind you he had a great play-off run but they were still a 88 point team compared to Montreal's 102 points. Montreal was a better overall club then L.A.

The lucky part about the final was we played L.A and avoided the powerhouse teams that year such as Chicago, Detroit, vancouver and even Calgary.

Once again not saying the HABS didn't deserve the cup that year. Just saying they played real well caught a bunch, a BUNCH of lucky breaks. They worked hard though and won fair and square....it was not given to them that's for sure.

[simonus]

*breaking out of Permanent Rumor Thread*

[Chips]

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading this thread and followed each of your arguments. They all have merits. The only comment I have is that you all try to keep this non-personal and argue your points of view with full force but stop short of insulting each other.

Finally I'd like to add that for me any team that wins the cup in any year; has the right to be called Champions and I for one will not argue their merits of being called the winners! Afterall, they won fair and square and this should be their victory to enjoy.

93' Stanley Cup Champions! This is a fact and this will never change nor should it be tarnished in any way by anyone.

GO HABS GO!

[Wamsley01]

That coming off cancer Lemieux scored 56 points in his last 20 games and scored 18 points in 10 playoff games. The return from cancer hardly factored into the loss. Was it a break...sure it was. But Montreal was in 1st overall with about 15 games to go and went into a tailspin. They played Pittsburgh in the midst of the tailspin and took them to OT in Pittsburgh before losing a tough one. They were an elite team. I think they were winless in their last 12 yet they still finished 4 points out of being 3rd overall in the league. They had leftovers from the 86 championship team and they had leftovers from the 115 point powerhouse team that lost in the Finals in 1989.

The Toronto media has long called Montreal's last 2 cups flukes. And everybody discredit's the win because Pittsburgh lost. But what if they beat Pittsburgh? Would it be legit then? They had 102 points and They won 11 STRAIGHT GAMES in the playoffs. A playoff record. They destroyed the team that beat Pittsburgh, they handily defeated the team that defeated the Leafs in 7 hard fought games. Has any team in the last 20 years gone through the playoffs with an .800 Winning %? They never played a game where they could be eliminated.

That Quebec team was a really good team that was on the verge but did not really know how to win. Look at the talent on that team. It was so talented that they would win a Cup 3 years later. And Quebec has Home Ice advantage in that series. Buffalo was not a great team but they had just smoked a Bruins team that had finished in second overall with 109 points in 4 straight. They were very dangerous.

Everybody says the Kings series could have gone either way. BS. The Habs no showed game 1 and were dominating LA in game 2 but still found themselves down by a goal. I believe they were outshooting them 35-18 and losing. Then in game 3-4 in LA the Habs blew 2-0 and 3-0 leads and in game 5 they totally dominated them. IT was not fluke. Hrudey was unbelievable.

As far as the 10 OT wins go, that was the style the Habs played. They played a tight defensive game and they capitalzed on their opportunities. Their best player was their goalie. They had a Lemieux...but he was in the net. And in almost all of those OT wins they blew late game leads.

Look back at the careers of Gretzky and Lemieux and check their Stanley Cup haul. Patrick Roy matches Gretzky and has 2 more than Lemieux. HE WAS THE SUPERSTAR. He dominated the playoffs like Lemiuex did the 2 seasons before. Goaltending is like Pitching in baseball. You cannot win without it.

It amazes me that a team can go 16-4 on the road to the Cup and be seen as a lucky. Every team that wins a cup gets breaks. This year Anaheim was about to go down 3-2 heading to Detroit and Niedermayers shot hit a stick and went in over Hasek in the last minute, a game they would go on to win in OT. If that does not go in they might not have won the Cup.

It is not often a team just plows through the playoffs.

Carolina lost 9 games in their Cup run

Tampa Bay lost 7 games

Anaheim lost 5 games

Jersey lost 8 games/7 games/4 games

Red Wings lost 7 games/6 games/4 games

Colorado lost 7 games/6 games

Dallas lost 7 games

Rangers lost 7 games

So since the Habs won the Cup in 93 only 2 teams have matched what they accomplished.

And they were both multiple Cup winners in Jersey and Detroit.

I think it is about time people start respecting how good that team was.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Wamsley01

[ShortHanded]

I agree that they weren't *JUST* lucky and that every winning team catches breaks. They were an amazing team, but I wasn't following hockey very closely at the time (and was just a little kid) so I'll stay out of the deeper levels of the argument...

To start anohter potential controversy, I think the 2002 Canadian Olympic Men's team was lucky. They had a HORRIBLE round robin part of that tournament and got to play Belarus in the Semis (Belarus had beeten Sweden on that Fluke goal that is the bane of Tomy Salo's career) and they finally pulled it together against belarus. If they'd played a tougher opponent in the Semis, I think they would have lost. Still glad they won though :DD

[Wamsley01]

I agree that they weren't *JUST* lucky and that every winning team catches breaks. They were an amazing team, but I wasn't following hockey very closely at the time (and was just a little kid) so I'll stay out of the deeper levels of the argument...

To start anohter potential controversy, I think the 2002 Canadian Olympic Men's team was lucky. They had a HORRIBLE round robin part of that tournament and got to play Belarus in the Semis (Belarus had beeten Sweden on that Fluke goal that is the bane of Tomy Salo's career) and they finally pulled it together against belarus. If they'd played a tougher opponent in the Semis, I think they would have lost. Still glad they won though :DD

They were lucky to play Belarus for sure. But that team got better every game and did not resemble the team that Sweden destroyed in the first game by the Semis. Plus I like the upgrade of Brodeur from the shell shocked Cujo.

But in short tourneys like the Olympics you cannot let down for a second. Sweden did, BYE BYE

[ShortHanded]

I agree that they weren't *JUST* lucky and that every winning team catches breaks. They were an amazing team, but I wasn't following hockey very closely at the time (and was just a little kid) so I'll stay out of the deeper levels of the argument...

To start anohter potential controversy, I think the 2002 Canadian Olympic Men's team was lucky. They had a HORRIBLE round robin part of that tournament and got to play Belarus in the Semis (Belarus had beeten Sweden on that Fluke goal that is the bane of Tomy Salo's career) and they finally pulled it together against belarus. If they'd played a tougher opponent in the Semis, I think they would have lost. Still glad they won though :DD

They were lucky to play Belarus for sure. But that team got better every game and did not resemble the team that Sweden destroyed in the first game by the Semis. Plus I like the upgrade of Brodeur from the shell shocked Cujo.

But in short tourneys like the Olympics you cannot let down for a second. Sweden did, BYE BYE

you're right, they did get better and by the end they deserved to win. but I think they definitely saved their best for the last game, and against a stronger opponent, their performance in the semis would not have won the game, so they WERE very lucky to be facing Belarus. And Brodeur over Cujo made an enormous difference too.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

That coming off cancer Lemieux scored 56 points in his last 20 games and scored 18 points in 10 playoff games. The return from cancer hardly factored into the loss. Was it a break...sure it was. But Montreal was in 1st overall with about 15 games to go and went into a tailspin. They played Pittsburgh in the midst of the tailspin and took them to OT in Pittsburgh before losing a tough one. They were an elite team. I think they were winless in their last 12 yet they still finished 4 points out of being 3rd overall in the league. They had leftovers from the 86 championship team and they had leftovers from the 115 point powerhouse team that lost in the Finals in 1989.

The Toronto media has long called Montreal's last 2 cups flukes. And everybody discredit's the win because Pittsburgh lost. But what if they beat Pittsburgh? Would it be legit then? They had 102 points and They won 11 STRAIGHT GAMES in the playoffs. A playoff record. They destroyed the team that beat Pittsburgh, they handily defeated the team that defeated the Leafs in 7 hard fought games. Has any team in the last 20 years gone through the playoffs with an .800 Winning %? They never played a game where they could be eliminated.

That Quebec team was a really good team that was on the verge but did not really know how to win. Look at the talent on that team. It was so talented that they would win a Cup 3 years later. And Quebec has Home Ice advantage in that series. Buffalo was not a great team but they had just smoked a Bruins team that had finished in second overall with 109 points in 4 straight. They were very dangerous.

Everybody says the Kings series could have gone either way. BS. The Habs no showed game 1 and were dominating LA in game 2 but still found themselves down by a goal. I believe they were outshooting them 35-18 and losing. Then in game 3-4 in LA the Habs blew 2-0 and 3-0 leads and in game 5 they totally dominated them. IT was not fluke. Hrudey was unbelievable.

As far as the 10 OT wins go, that was the style the Habs played. They played a tight defensive game and they capitalzed on their opportunities. Their best player was their goalie. They had a Lemieux...but he was in the net. And in almost all of those OT wins they blew late game leads.

Look back at the careers of Gretzky and Lemieux and check their Stanley Cup haul. Patrick Roy matches Gretzky and has 2 more than Lemieux. HE WAS THE SUPERSTAR. He dominated the playoffs like Lemiuex did the 2 seasons before. Goaltending is like Pitching in baseball. You cannot win without it.

It amazes me that a team can go 16-4 on the road to the Cup and be seen as a lucky. Every team that wins a cup gets breaks. This year Anaheim was about to go down 3-2 heading to Detroit and Niedermayers shot hit a stick and went in over Hasek in the last minute, a game they would go on to win in OT. If that does not go in they might not have won the Cup.

It is not often a team just plows through the playoffs.

Carolina lost 9 games in their Cup run

Tampa Bay lost 7 games

Anaheim lost 5 games

Jersey lost 8 games/7 games/4 games

Red Wings lost 7 games/6 games/4 games

Colorado lost 7 games/6 games

Dallas lost 7 games

Rangers lost 7 games

So since the Habs won the Cup in 93 only 2 teams have matched what they accomplished.

And they were both multiple Cup winners in Jersey and Detroit.

I think it is about time people start respecting how good that team was.

Wamsley01, I'm so copacetic with your posts these days it's scary. You're bang on about this and make a superb case to boot. Well done

[lazy26]

That coming off cancer Lemieux scored 56 points in his last 20 games and scored 18 points in 10 playoff games. The return from cancer hardly factored into the loss. Was it a break...sure it was. But Montreal was in 1st overall with about 15 games to go and went into a tailspin. They played Pittsburgh in the midst of the tailspin and took them to OT in Pittsburgh before losing a tough one. They were an elite team. I think they were winless in their last 12 yet they still finished 4 points out of being 3rd overall in the league. They had leftovers from the 86 championship team and they had leftovers from the 115 point powerhouse team that lost in the Finals in 1989.

The Toronto media has long called Montreal's last 2 cups flukes. And everybody discredit's the win because Pittsburgh lost. But what if they beat Pittsburgh? Would it be legit then? They had 102 points and They won 11 STRAIGHT GAMES in the playoffs. A playoff record. They destroyed the team that beat Pittsburgh, they handily defeated the team that defeated the Leafs in 7 hard fought games. Has any team in the last 20 years gone through the playoffs with an .800 Winning %? They never played a game where they could be eliminated.

That Quebec team was a really good team that was on the verge but did not really know how to win. Look at the talent on that team. It was so talented that they would win a Cup 3 years later. And Quebec has Home Ice advantage in that series. Buffalo was not a great team but they had just smoked a Bruins team that had finished in second overall with 109 points in 4 straight. They were very dangerous.

Everybody says the Kings series could have gone either way. BS. The Habs no showed game 1 and were dominating LA in game 2 but still found themselves down by a goal. I believe they were outshooting them 35-18 and losing. Then in game 3-4 in LA the Habs blew 2-0 and 3-0 leads and in game 5 they totally dominated them. IT was not fluke. Hrudey was unbelievable.

As far as the 10 OT wins go, that was the style the Habs played. They played a tight defensive game and they capitalzed on their opportunities. Their best player was their goalie. They had a Lemieux...but he was in the net. And in almost all of those OT wins they blew late game leads.

Look back at the careers of Gretzky and Lemieux and check their Stanley Cup haul. Patrick Roy matches Gretzky and has 2 more than Lemieux. HE WAS THE SUPERSTAR. He dominated the playoffs like Lemiuex did the 2 seasons before. Goaltending is like Pitching in baseball. You cannot win without it.

It amazes me that a team can go 16-4 on the road to the Cup and be seen as a lucky. Every team that wins a cup gets breaks. This year Anaheim was about to go down 3-2 heading to Detroit and Niedermayers shot hit a stick and went in over Hasek in the last minute, a game they would go on to win in OT. If that does not go in they might not have won the Cup.

It is not often a team just plows through the playoffs.

Carolina lost 9 games in their Cup run

Tampa Bay lost 7 games

Anaheim lost 5 games

Jersey lost 8 games/7 games/4 games

Red Wings lost 7 games/6 games/4 games

Colorado lost 7 games/6 games

Dallas lost 7 games

Rangers lost 7 games

So since the Habs won the Cup in 93 only 2 teams have matched what they accomplished.

And they were both multiple Cup winners in Jersey and Detroit.

I think it is about time people start respecting how good that team was.

Wamsley01, I'm so copacetic with your posts these days it's scary. You're bang on about this and make a superb case to boot. Well done

I must agree. You tell it like it is.

[KoZed]

The 93 Habs could have contented with any other Cup winners before or after. They could have match the 91-& 92 Pens, the 94 NYR or the 95 NJD.

Yeah, Roy was the difference maker. But the Habs also had an very underrated D. Schneider, Desjardins, Daigneault, Haller, Hill. A mobile D who was great in the transition game. They still had the prime shut-down center in the league in Carbo (who went through Sakic, LaFontaine and Gretzky!) and they had one of the most complete 1st line in the league with Damphousse-Muller-Bellows.

The rest was filled with guys who agreed to play within the system and everybody was on the same page. That's Demers' credit, to have got these guys to gel.

But the real wildcard was in the shadows all along. Jacques Lemaire was officialy "GM assistant" but he was really taking care of the Habs tactics on the ice. Then 2 years later he repeated it all again with a NJ team built much like the 93 Habs.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

The 93 Habs could have contented with any other Cup winners before or after. They could have match the 91-& 92 Pens, the 94 NYR or the 95 NJD.

Yeah, Roy was the difference maker. But the Habs also had an very underrated D. Schneider, Desjardins, Daigneault, Haller, Hill. A mobile D who was great in the transition game. They still had the prime shut-down center in the league in Carbo (who went through Sakic, LaFontaine and Gretzky!) and they had one of the most complete 1st line in the league with Damphousse-Muller-Bellows.

The rest was filled with guys who agreed to play within the system and everybody was on the same page. That's Demers' credit, to have got these guys to gel.

But the real wildcard was in the shadows all along. Jacques Lemaire was officialy "GM assistant" but he was really taking care of the Habs tactics on the ice. Then 2 years later he repeated it all again with a NJ team built much like the 93 Habs.

Well, I'm not sure the 93 Habs could have taken on the old Habs dynasties or Islanders or Oilers dynasties...but good point about genius Lemaire. If only he hadn't been such a pansy about the Montreal 'pressure,' he'd have surely run the Habs for the 90s - likely to glory.

Also a good point about Demers. I will always respect him for the go-for-broke balls he displayed in that all-important Game 2 of the Finals, pulling Roy with well over a minute left on a PP (!). (I was there that night in standing room, and let me tell you it was nirvana). The right coach for the right team at the right time.

Edited July 14, 2007 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[InsaneHABSfan]

For anyone that thinks Montreals cup win in "93 was mostly luck, then I suggest rewatching the series as that is just pure LIES. Toronto media completely refuses to believe any team other than the Leafs are contenders for anything. Already the newest loser Leaf Blake-One-Year-Wonder-Kid says the Leafs are the Yankees of Hockey. He will only score 21 goals, which means Toronto will pay him $190,476 per goal, not bad huh and still not make the playoffs?

Montreal in '93 performed a defensive Gem when many other teams took more to the offensive side of hockey. By basing the team on defence first, the Habs went on to win some impressive overtime victories and win a cup. If anyone thinks the odds of pure luck is the only force to enable consecutive wins in overtime, you are mistaken. You have to have guys that want to keep the puck out of the net as much as a goaltender that stands on his head. Montreal was very good at that during the cup year. Was there luck, yes in the part that nobody had much luck beating the Habs in the overtime, however it was Montreal's defensive play that got them to the overtime in the first place, NOT LUCK! All I can say is that Canada's sports media is slanted to the worst sports franchise(LEAFS) in the history of mankind and will never admit Montreal is their superior in every way.

Just my 2cents.........

[tokyohabs]

Tbh, I feel that anyone who says the Habs were lucky that year is either

1) basing this on the opponents we missed

2) have not actually seen those games

3) works for the Leafs (includes CBC, TSN, etc)

We were excellent. We deserved it. If we hadn't blown it all up, we would have won more.

Oh well...tiocfaidh ár lá arís

[Athlétique.Canadien]

It always good to gauge someone who watched it. Like me

Anyway, How good were the '93 Cup Champions? Good enough to win the CUP! We can go on all day about OT's and luck and Gretzky's non call against Toronto. The fact is we won. After a while in the '93 playoffs, when we went to OT the feeling wasn't one of "just hang in there guys". That was prevalent. But, with each game the feeling of confidence that we would win just grew GREW GREW AND GREW.

We won. We won because we were the best. Pittsburgh was eliminated by the Isles. Many say they would have had us for lunch but I watched the Isles / Penguins series. Pittsburgh were dragging their butts. Jagr looked lost. The 2 peat hangover was evident and I believed we would beat them. When Turgeon scored to take the series I admit I was pleased we didn't have to play the Pens. One part of me wishes we did play the Pens so there would be no, "You're lucky to get that cup and for the Isles to win that series because the Pens would have destroyed you".

BULL___ TO THOSE WHO SAY IT WAS LUCK ONLY! WE WERE UNSTOPPABLE :hlogo:

PS. For 1/3 or 40% of the season, it was not the Pens who were in 1st overall - It was us. Too bad we had a bummer closing to the season or people might have more sympathy in their memory.

Edited July 14, 2007 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN

[Wamsley01]

It always good to gauge someone who watched it. Like me

Anyway, How good were the '93 Cup Champions? Good enough to win the CUP! We can go on all day about OT's and luck and Gretzky's non call against Toronto. The fact is we won. After a while in the '93 playoffs, when we went to OT the feeling wasn't one of "just hang in there guys". That was prevalent. But, with each game the feeling of confidence that we would win just grew GREW GREW AND GREW.

We won. We won because we were the best. Pittsburgh was eliminated by the Isles. Many say they would have had us for lunch but I watched the Isles / Penguins series. Pittsburgh were dragging their butts. Jagr looked lost. The 2 peat hangover was evident and I believed we would beat them. When Turgeon scored to take the series I admit I was pleased we didn't have to play the Pens. One part of me wishes we did play the Pens so there would be no, "You're lucky to get that cup and for the Isles to win that series because the Pens would have destroyed you".

BULL___ TO THOSE WHO SAY IT WAS LUCK ONLY! WE WERE UNSTOPPABLE :hlogo:

PS. For 1/3 or 40% of the season, it was not the Pens who were in 1st overall - It was us. Too bad we had a bummer closing to the season or people might have more sympathy in their memory.

David Volek my friend....David Volek

I wanted to go through Pittsburgh as well, but the second Volek scored I knew the Habs would win the Cup.

Living in Toronto I hear every time I mention the 93 Habs "you know we would have beat you if Fraser did not screw us right"?

Blah Blah Blah. Leaf fans complain about how Montreal had an easy route to the Finals and the Leafs did not.

But on closer inspection they had the exact same route.

Quebec (104 PTS)

Detroit (103 PTS)

Buffalo (86 PTS)

St. Louis (85 PTS)

NYI (87 PTS)

LA KINGS (88 PTS)

The big difference being that Montreal only needed 15 games to defeat those teams while the Leafs needed 21 games to lose.

The Leafs struggled with the Blues and Kings while Montreal wiped out Buff,NYI in 9 games.

The Yankees of Hockey...LOL. What an idiot. I think the Toronto media thinks if they repeat something enough it is true.

The Yankees have won 6 Championships since 1967. The Habs have won 10, the Yankees of hockey or God's team...ZERO!

Laughable. If the Leafs won 10 straight OT games to win the Cup it would be described as a gritty team who dug down deep to overcome all the obstacles in their way to bring destiny home. Montreal....lucky year where the favourite was eliminated.

They have parades, books, ceremonies, endless news stories about a bunch of 75 year old men who won the Cup 40 years AGO!

The 93 Habs were a great team that was built from within. A great TEAM!

Edited July 14, 2007 by Wamsley01

[Athlétique.Canadien]

The big difference being that Montreal only needed 15 games to defeat those teams while the Leafs needed 21 games to lose.

Yeah, I HATE IT WHEN THEY MAKE THAT CLAIM. Another sorry example of EXCUSES EXCUSES LEEFNATION!

Toronto was leading the Kings 3 games to 2 and could have closed it out in game 6. I remember watching that game and saying, "C'mon Toronto, get yer butts in gear for the love of money, stop dragging your collective butts".

They could have won game 6 - they didn't. They could have won game 7 - THEY DIDN'T!

But we understand Toronto. It had nothing to do with lousy game 6 or 7 effort. It was one missed call. Missed calls usually happen in every series. Did Crosby say the Sens should have lost becasue of his disallowed goal this year? NO!

THEM'S THE BREAKS - IDIOTS! What is so hard to understnad about that? It beats me.