View Single Post
Old
09-27-2012, 05:41 PM
  #27
tigermask48
Maniacal Laugh
 
tigermask48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: R'Lyeh, Antarctica
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
Wow, way to twist facts around there Jay...

Ok, the 2005 Kings weren't as you put it a "playoff team" because well, they didn't make the playoffs. Plus you had a terrible locker room with distractions like Roenick and his skates, Avery being Avery, etc. Plus it was the first time Garon had ever played more than 20 games at the NHL level in one year, he was very much sill a young goalie trying to become a starter.

You also still fail to acknowledge the fact that Garon played head and shoulders, without a doubt better than Cloutier behind the same team. But then use the excuse of bad system and ad team to defend Cloutier...

Lastly take a look at his numbers in Manchester. He couldn't even out play those guys for a job. He put up worse numbers than all of Ersberg, Quick and Danny Taylor in a similar number of games. Cloutier wasn't fully the product of a bad team with a bad system. He stunk. He was bad, BAD, BAD at two different levels with two different teams. It may have been the injuries or whatever excuse he could come up with, but he was still bad to the point that he played himself out of an NHL career and then turnd around and tried to blame the Kings for mishandling him.

One thing that has always bugged me about those mid 2000's Kings teams is how people can say this:

Visnovsky-Norstrom
Corvo-Gleason
Dempsey-Miller
Weaver/Sopel

is some how a better defense than this:

Blake-Norstrom/Modry
Visnovsky-Miller
Sopel-Dallman/Tverdovsky
Weaver/Heward/Harrold

As if Blake isn't a clear upgrade over either Corvo or Gleason, and Sopel isn't at least a wash when compared to the other... Dempsey is maybe slightly better than most of the other options and the rest is really a wash because it's the same players.


Last edited by tigermask48: 09-27-2012 at 06:10 PM.
tigermask48 is offline   Reply With Quote