View Single Post
05-14-2013, 08:21 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,227
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hoogaar23 View Post
Ironically, that is exactly the opposite of the "reason" the writers gave for not giving it to RNH last year - somehow they felt that Landeskog having played 20 more games to get the same amount of points somehow made him better. I remember hearing Damien Cox (idiot) start trumpeting that - Yes RNH had as many points, but he didn't play as many games, so to me that makes Landeskog more worthy....

The rookie scoring leader should at the very least have been a finalist as he has been the last 63 years. As for who should win the Calder, I'm biased and think it should have been Yakupov, but would have understood Gallagher, Huberdeau, or Brodin. But last year? RNH tied for the points lead with almost 20 less GP? It's a travesty that he didn't win last year.
Yup, last year was a complete screw job. It didn't make sense. Even though Landeskog played 20 more games they ended up with the same point totals! It isn't even like Landeskog scored 3 or 4 more points while playing those 20 extra games. It made no sense. It was like they were trying to say durability was a factor, but that has never been a consideration in the past. It was a travesty...

Again, we agree. Yakupov should have been a finalist for the Calder. Thanks for understanding my point that if Gallagher wins he had as much of a case as Yakupov, though. Muchly appreciated!

Drydenwasthebest is offline   Reply With Quote