View Single Post
Old
11-02-2012, 11:01 AM
  #47
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post

So we can make assumptions based on a teams history? I could agree with you if you're talking say the last 3-5 years maximum, but if you're talking overall history that has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard. For example, St. Louis had a great season last year and no reason to think they couldn't do just as well next year. Is it 'un-risky' to say they won't win the cup, simply because they've generally sucked for much of the history?

No. Every team at some point sucked. Look at Detroit, took them 42 years before they won the cup again in 1997. New Jersey was labelled a Mickey Mouse organization by the Great One himself. Both of those clubs have had a great run over the past 18 years, accounting for I seven Stanley Cups and 11 Finals appearances. Coming into 1995, would you have said that would happen for the next 18 .
Ummm yah, you can make assumptions based on teams history.....in fact if you assumed the Kings would suck, you would have been correct 44 out of 45 years based on their history. If you predict the Red Wings would make the playoffs, you'd of been correct for like the last twenty years, no? Those predictions are easy, that's what hockey analysts do...every year they predict the team who won the previous year will win it again, or at least choose a team who was very successful the year prior. Christ, how many experts have picked SJ to win the cup over the last ten years?

Predicting St. Louis would win a cup is a hell of a lot LESS risky than the Kings. St Louis may have never won a cup but has had WAY more playoff success and has been considered 'elite' many times over the last twenty years.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline