LastPommerFan Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) See here for background. Simple question, which team was closer to winning the cup: 1975 Sabres who lost the Stanley Cup Finals in 6 games or 2006 Sabres who lost the Eastern Conference Finals in 7 games Edited August 8, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 simple, the 1999 sabres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 simple, the 1999 sabres. Ding ding ding, lol. I'll abstain from voting since I wasn't following the Sabres until '98-99 and know very little about the '75 team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 The 2006 teams wins it all without a run of injuries that can be called extraordinary. In 1975, the better team won. I was at the 1975 final game. I lost my 8th grade "Perfect Attendance" certificate because I lined up all night for SRO seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Since a team can only win the cup if they are playing in the finals, I voted for the 1975 Sabres. That was our most talented team ever and our best ever, IMO. We ran up against a very intimidating team, had to win at least one game in the Spectrum and an all-world goalie. Kate Smith and BP were the biggest differences in that series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) Hands down 2006. Without the freak injuries, that team cruises through Carolina and Edmonton. They simply were outmatched in 1975. Even in 1999, the better team was awarded the Cup (but never won it, dammit!). Edited August 8, 2014 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Let's see. Which team was :wallbash: I'm really sour today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted August 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Hands down 2006. Without the freak injuries, that team cruises through Carolina and Edmonton. They simply were outmatched in 1975. Even in 1999, the better team was awarded the Cup (but never won it, dammit!). But the injuries happened, didn't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 But the injuries happened, didn't they? Yes, and before they happened, the team was closer to winning the Cup than the 1975 team was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted August 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Yes, and before they happened, the team was closer to winning the Cup than the 1975 team was. Gotcha. they were closer in game six of the ECF than the 75 team was in game 6 of the SCF. You'd make a good lawyer. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Gotcha. they were closer in game six of the ECF than the 75 team was in game 6 of the SCF. You'd make a good lawyer. :) :w00t: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 Gotcha. they were closer in game six of the ECF than the 75 team was in game 6 of the SCF. You'd make a good lawyer. :) Yes and yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 1999 was closer than 1975 was closer than 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHawerchuk10 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 1999. Even without the injuries, its difficult to say whether we would have beaten the Canes. I think people assumed that based on the hope generated from the Ottawa series. Based on legitimate hope, I would vote for 2006, but I don't agree we would have walked through the Canes or Oilers. That is a false assumption that gets worse over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastajoe Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 The 1975 game 6 final was on NHL Network this week. That Sabres team had the Flyers on the ropes the whole game, but Bernie Parent stoned them, as he did throughout the series. A couple of lucky bounces would have been the difference in winning the 2 games they needed. That team was closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 I posted this in the other thread, but figure it's worth repeating here. The '75 team needed at least 3 goals and a win in a frozen over hell in late May. Wasn't gonna happen. Had the Isles managed to take game 7 from Filly, that '75 team would have won and there wouldn't even be a discussion about '75 vs '06; but the Sabres had nearly as little chance of winning that last series as the '68-'70 Blues had. The '06 Sabres were less than 20 minutes away from the Eulers and w/ any returning D matched up very well against the Eulers. That '75 Sabres team was not realistically going to get a "couple of bounces" against Parent in the Spectrum. And finding 4 more goals against Parent wasn't some easy feat to pull off for anyone. He was better than 0.2 ga/g than anyone in the regular season w/ a 2.02 and dropped that to 1.89 in the playoffs. (And that 1.89 INCLUDED the 9 goals scored in the fog in games 3&4.) Heck, the Sabres had a grand total of 3 goals in 3 games in Filly and were shutout when their backs were against the wall at home. Counting regular season, they had 4 goals in 5 games in Filly. They never held the Phlyers to less than 2 goals in any of the 11 games they played and gave up 4 or more 8 times. And, if not for the fog, the Sabres likely don't come close to 4 goals in reguation in either game 3 or 4. Parent was a friggin' wall during their SC days. No one played angles like he did and his D didn't let you get to the few rebounds (especially in the Spectrum). That Sabres team realistically pushed the Phlyers as far as they were going to. They weren't winning that year, unfortunately. The Spectrum was literally the Sabres' personal house of horrors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) 1999. Even without the injuries, its difficult to say whether we would have beaten the Canes. I think people assumed that based on the hope generated from the Ottawa series. Based on legitimate hope, I would vote for 2006, but I don't agree we would have walked through the Canes or Oilers. That is a false assumption that gets worse over time. It is rare that somebody posts that the '06 team "would have walked through the (candy) Canes or Oilers (sp)." Though often times, when someone states that that Sabres team had an excellent chance of winning that year, it seems somebody ends up interpreting it that way. It is extremely reasonable to believe the Sabres, had they been healthy, would have beaten the Canes. Even down 4 D & the Tin Man, they were in the lead in game 7 with less than 20 to play. And that, after 'Captain Clutch' sent a bad angle shot at an empty net seriously wide in the 1st. W/ 1 or 2 D back healthy, the Eulers should have been beatable. (& there was reason to believe they'd've had some of the missing D back for the Finals.) They'd've finally had home ice again and would have been very difficult to beat; especially w/ the momentum that would have come from beating the 2 best teams (not wearing Shatanic goat heads) in the league that year in consecutive series. No reason to expect either series would have been a sweep, but even w/ the injuries, the Sabres came close to winning in 6 in the semis - they couldn't hold the lead in game 5. A win in 5-6 was realistic if healthy. And, if healthy, 5-6 should have gotten the finals won as well. Now, w/ that aside stated, back to the '75 vs '06 debate. As Emily Lutella used to say, nevermind. :oops: Edited August 8, 2014 by Taro T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 It is rare that somebody posts that the '06 team "would have walked through the (candy) Canes or Oilers (sp)." Though often times, when someone states that that Sabres team had an excellent chance of winning that year, it seems somebody ends up interpreting it that way. It is extremely reasonable to believe the Sabres, had they been healthy, would have beaten the Canes. Even down 4 D & the Tin Man, they were in the lead in game 7 with less than 20 to play. And that, after 'Captain Clutch' sent a bad angle shot at an empty net seriously wide in the 1st. W/ 1 or 2 D back healthy, the Eulers should have been beatable. (& there was reason to believe they'd've had some of the missing D back for the Finals.) They'd've finally had home ice again and would have been very difficult to beat; especially w/ the momentum that would have come from beating the 2 best teams (not wearing Shatanic goat heads) in the league that year in consecutive series. No reason to expect either series would have been a sweep, but even w/ the injuries, the Sabres came close to winning in 6 in the semis - they couldn't hold the lead in game 5. A win in 5-6 was realistic if healthy. And, if healthy, 5-6 should have gotten the finals won as well. Now, w/ that aside stated, back to the '75 vs '06 debate. I said it--I used the verb "cruise" rather than "walk," but DHawerchuk wasn't misinterpreting me. And I stand by it. They would have beat the Canes in 5 or 6 and swept the Oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 I said it--I used the verb "cruise" rather than "walk," but DHawerchuk wasn't misinterpreting me. And I stand by it. They would have beat the Canes in 5 or 6 and swept the Oil. My bad. Apologies to DH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 If you believe legend, Scotty Bowman thought it was the 1979/1980 team and their failure led directly to Rick Martin getting the boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 8, 2014 Report Share Posted August 8, 2014 If you believe legend, Scotty Bowman thought it was the 1979/1980 team and their failure led directly to Rick Martin getting the boot. Darn Hawks and No Stars. If only they'd have given Buffalo a challenge and not given Moe-ray-all one, respectively. Then the Sabres wouldn't have had to wait over a week to play the Isles. Personally, I blame it on the remake of the song. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Good summertime thread. 1975 was the best Sabre team ever, but it wasn't better than Philly. 2006 was the best team in the league. So 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 I like how no one remembers how good the Hurricanes really were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 I like how no one remembers how good the Hurricanes really were. Granted I'd x'ed it out above due to the reason for the entire post, but I' pretty sure that they were the 3rd best team in the league that year. And they SHOULD have been vanquished by the best team (aka the guys wearing Shatanic goat heads). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Granted I'd x'ed it out above due to the reason for the entire post, but I' pretty sure that they were the 3rd best team in the league that year. And they SHOULD have been vanquished by the best team (aka the guys wearing Shatanic goat heads). They made it to the Cup Finals in 2002 and lost to a very good Redwings team, retooled quickly, and came out of the lockout with a really good team. Let's also remember that their divisional opponent the Lightning won a Cup in 2004, so it's not like they didn't have to work to escape that division in 2006. Our division, although consistently in the playoff mix, really wasn't noteworthy. Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto? Not to mention Boston was busy tanking in 2006 (look where that got em). The Canes were easily as good, if not better than us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.