Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonMeans
Nonsensical argument. That is, it does not follow. Nice try though. Maybe if you actually watched the Canucks you'd understand that the Canucks didn't lose in the playoffs 'cause of their D. If you do watch the Canucks then maybe you should pick up a new sport to engage in; obviously hockey isn't "sinking" in.
|
Maybe your reading comprehension needs some help, I said ONE of the reasons. I know scoring was also a problem, but you're in denial if you think your D core was set to take on the West in the playoffs (Edler had a bad playoff series, Bieksa was very average to poor, Hamhuis was a non-factor). Why else were people so open to the idea of getting Garrison in the first place?