View Single Post
01-26-2006, 03:40 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,533
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kearney
I don't think he disproved me. You can parse the statistics a thousand different ways. PSP took the worst case scenario. I could also say they won the next 2 out of 3 after the homework assignment, or that they went 37-17-10.
Ok, regardless, I'm just going to go back to my point. The team tanked the very next game after the assignment. You feel that one game means nothing, but I think that it means far more than anything else. When you're reprimanded and given a one-time assignment, you either absorb it and immediately try harder or you don't. There's no gray area, IMO. I don't subscribe to the theory that the enlightment found through the essay suddenly "clicked on" weeks later in the players' heads. I think that citing more games after the first one, especially the entire season, is simply reaching further and further to prove one's point. It either works immediately or it doesn't; that's my stand.
Originally Posted by Kearny
It just absolutely floors me that every time the Murray-bashing starts up, people start talking about the 2001-02 season! He clearly did a great job that year.
He did? We've already more or less agreed (I hope) that it was the Allison acquisition that turned around the team in October. The Kings then manged to only squeak into the playoffs at 7th in the conference, even with the likes of Allison, Deadmarsh, Palffy and Schneider (and a decent, at worst, goalie), not to mention with very few injuries. That's not my definition of a "great job." Many apologists have been saying that when the Kings have talent and are healthy, that they're a power. Obviously not, if 01-02 is a guide.

Last edited by Osprey: 01-26-2006 at 03:48 PM.
Osprey is offline