The Biggest Goat: Bernier, Leighton, others
View Single Post
07-07-2012, 09:24 AM
Grave Before Shave
Join Date: Sep 2009
Originally Posted by
Oh look, you've found a kindred spirit.
I don't recall anyone saying that the shutouts were nothing, but while Leighton was good, he was also helped out by his defense.
Absolutely he was helped out, but three shutouts in the ECF is three shutouts in the ECF. You should definitely go back and read the threads because I got in multi-page arguments with people who said that Montreal sucked, the shots were all perimeter shots, the defense was amazing, etc. and would not even give him the slightest credit on doing something extremely impressive.
I also find it interesting that it is perfectly fine to take away from his shutouts because of good defense, but unacceptable to use poor defense as an excuse in the Cup finals.
The problem was that he eventually started playing like Leighton and that was his and the Flyers' downfall. If he had been able to continue to channel a good goalie and not play like himself, the Flyers have a Cup in 2010.
I agree. If Leighton played better they would have won. But if Gagne, Richards, or Carter put some points (Combined Stats: 4G, 2A, -21) on the board they also would have won. If their third pairing played more than fifty seconds per game they would have had a much better chance too. But those other things don't count. Leighton was the real reason, right?
It was a team effort to lose. Leighton was part of it, no doubt. But how is you saying Leighton playing better any different from me saying that Gagne, Carter, or Richards should have played better? And once again, why can't the lack of a third pairing on defense be factored in to the losing effort but good play can be factored into a winning effort? Oh, right. It's Michael Leighton. That's why.
EDIT: Here's just one example of the three ECF shutouts not being a big deal:
Last edited by DrinkFightFlyers: 07-07-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DrinkFightFlyers