View Single Post
06-13-2006, 07:36 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mike8
Right there, in plain english, Brind'Amour states his team did not play well enough. The author decides to contradict Brind'Amour and claim Edmonton played better; that it was not Carolina who played worse (which is what both Brind'Amour and Adams claimed).
It would have been easy for Brindy to acknowledge that the Oilers played better in game 3 than in the first two games, *especially* game 2 -- the results were quite obvious, right in front of his face. It's not like going from a 5-0 loss to a 2-1 win isn't a marked improvement, but Brindy decided not to acknowledge that. Instead, he blamed the loss on the Hurricanes letting up. Maybe there had been some of that, but to say the Oilers didn't play better at all? If it had been a small difference in score I could've understood, but we're talking about a game where the Oilers didn't show up versus one which they won.

It sends the message that it doesn't matter how the other guys play or even if they show up, because the Hurricanes are so much better they will beat them anyway and if they lose, well, the other guys don't deserve credit, it was just the Hurricanes who let up. You could chalk it up to being confident or being competitive, but really, it makes him look arrogant.

That's why I wasn't too impressed with him there.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote