Thread: Speculation: Theodore, a possible choice?
View Single Post
10-02-2010, 08:48 PM
Grave Before Shave
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,844
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
didnt the hawks top line also not have a great series, yet they won. Their entire team didnt play great yet they won. so that theory goes out the window.You are blind.
Their entire to line didn't have a great series, but one of the main guys they look to for production did. Patrick Kane had 10 points. Gagne-Richards-Carter combined for 6 points and -21. There is a huge difference between your top three guys all being pretty much nonexistent and having your best player play like your best player. But yeah good point.

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
No, you are missing the point.

If Lukas Krajicek and Oskars Bartulis scored 10 goals a piece in the series, they win also.

You make too excuses for a team who had to win with an AHL goaltender in the Stanley Cup Finals. Go back and look at how many points Toews had. Clue: don't bother starting with goals because he didn't have any.
The problem with your Karjicek and Bartulis example is that the team doesn't look for them to score ten goals. The team looks to Richards, Gagne, and Carter for production. As far as your Toews point, see the above post about Patrick Kane.

Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
i dont understand how if the team was scoring enough goals, and they lost, it isn't the goaltender's fault.

is it the top lines's fault because they should have been aware of how bad leighton was, and thus should have stepped up their game further?
Ok maybe I misspoke a little bit. What I should have said was that they would have had no problem scoring enough goals since the secondary scoring was putting up that many goals. But with the primary scoring is not there so it wasn't enough.

Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Wow. That just kind of proves that you'll make any excuse for Leighton (for whatever insane reason(s)). You just said yourself that the offense scored enough to win...and then you go on to complain that some players didn't score enough.

You seriously don't see the contradiction there?
I am not making excuses for Leighton. I have said he didn't play well. I have said he let in soft goals. But you can't just say Leighton lost the series for the team because he didn't. THIS IS A TEAM GAME. If one of Gagne/Richards/Carter (our three best players) had half as many points as Patrick Kane (their best player, at least offensively) this could have easily been a different outcome. But everyone on this board just wants to rip Michael Leighton a new one because his name is Michael Leighton and not Partick Roy and any bad thing that happens to the Flyers is always the goalie's fault no matter what. Mike Richards is blameless. Simon Gagne is blameless. Jeff Carter is blameless. The third pairing is blameless. Of course this is true because in hockey the team doesn't have to play well, only the goalie does and nothing else matters. That is why the Rangers and Canucks have won so many Stanley Cups lately. If the Flyers lost in 7 games all 1-0 games (wins and losses) everyone would still be saying how Michael Leighton is to blame because he is an AHL goaltender. This is a team sport. You win as a team. You lose as a team. If this were tennis and Michael Leighton lost to Patrick Kane, ok then it is Michael Leighton's fault. But this is hockey. I am once again going to back out of this discussion because like I said two or three months ago, you aren't going to change my mind I am not going to change yours.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline