OT: Are the Rangers the worst #1 seed ever?

[ChiSportsFan17]

When was the last time a #1 seed got as far in the playoffs as they did and struggled so much to get by?

This Rangers team needed 7 games to win against the 8th seed.
They needed 7 games to win against the 7th seed.
They lost in 6 games to the 6th seed. Had they won the series, they would have needed 7 games to do so.


I can imagine the Kings would have won quite easily. #1 seeds do get bounced in the first round, but when was the last time a #1 seed was six wins away or fewer from the Stanley Cup and they struggled as much as the Rangers did?

 

[DMelt36]

Can't call the Rangers the worst 1 seed ever when the 1 seed from the Western Conference was eliminated in 5 games.

 

[Jntg4]

They did better than Vancouver... or Washington when they were the 1 seed

 

[DewsSox79]

this is such a grey area debate.

Some of the number 1s were just awesome all year and were stacked but got upset.

Some of the number 1s like NY were in the shitty east and IMO werent as deep as some of the real number 1's were. As far as talent depth on the NYR watching them more closely than ever in the playoffs, they just werent deep enough.

 

[TheChicagoFan]

There have been much worse number ones.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

They earned the one seed playing in the toughest division in hockey this year and they made it to the conference finals.

No, they're not even close to being the worst number 1 seed ever.

 

[ChiSportsFan17]

They did go farther than other #1's, yes, but I was trying to imply or ask as if they were the worst #1 to make it this far in the playoffs.

 

[TheChicagoFan]

They did go farther than other #1's, yes, but I was trying to imply or ask as if they were the worst #1 to make it this far in the playoffs.

Vancouver last year had trouble with the Hawks (8 seed) and then lost the cup.

 

[icehogfan08]

Vancouver last year had trouble with the Hawks (8 seed) and then lost the cup.

Like Dewey said its a grey area. Vancouver was a #1 seed because they played in a weak division and they can rack up those points on those weaker teams. The rangers aren't really in that case but it's so hard to judge what #1 seed is better than the other

 

[TheChicagoFan]

Like Dewey said its a grey area. Vancouver was a #1 seed because they played in a weak division and they can rack up those points on those weaker teams. The rangers aren't really in that case but it's so hard to judge what #1 seed is better than the other

I know. I was just trying to show the guy who asked about it how lots of 1 seeds struggle.

Vancouver plays some of the worst teams in the nhl 6 times a year.