View Single Post
05-01-2011, 04:43 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,176
vCash: 91
holy ****.

the sides of this argument are:

1. How could you have won in spite of a goalie who allowed so few goals in this series? Obviously, if he didnt give many goals (MTL series), he was playing great. Therefore, he flyers didnt win in spite of the goalie.

2. The flyers won in spite of Michael Leighton, even though Michael didn't allow many pucks into the back of the net, it does not mean he was outstanding, or anything like this. The defense and the skill around him along with the tired small forward group of MTL combined to give the opposing team very few good oppurtunities, thus less goals onto the board. Not saying ML played bad, he didnt but we didnt win because of him. We won in spite of having the bad goaltender, whom didnt have to play well enough to win the series, if he had, he wouldve been terribly exposed. Therefore, the team played well enough to combat the bad goaltender, and we won in spite of the bad goalie, who was made into a decent one by both team's play.

If your on option 2s side, youd be correct (imo)

Jray42 is offline   Reply With Quote