View Single Post
Old
09-01-2013, 05:19 PM
  #357
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Missed about 55 minutes of the game where he separated his shoulder too. Great performance though, but I think sometimes you look at Sakic in 1996 and 2001 and stretch it out as if he was playing at that same level in 1999, 2000, and 2002 when he wasn't. In every way that he was consistent in the regular season, he was inconsistent in the playoffs.
No, he wasn't. He has his flaws in those years too. The issue I have is that neither Forsberg or Sakic were ever both dominant in the postseason for whatever reason. But when the Avs won the Cup, it was Sakic who was the dominant one while Forsberg played a much lesser role. The Avs never won when Forsberg was dominant and Sakic wasn't. Just a little side fact.


Quote:
So what you're saying is that Malkin in 2009 had four more points than the #2 and #3 scorers on 2002 Colorado combined?
No, no. What I am saying is that if there is a team that was lacking support it was Pittsburgh in those years. They had less depth than Colorado.




Quote:
They were a high seed! And not even from winning the yet-to-exist SE Division! Hell, they were a high seed the next year too!

1994, 1995, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2012 all had Finalists who opened up on the road. So, no, Florida was not a weak team. Weak teams don't beat the 1996 Pittsburgh Penguins.
The 1993 Islanders beat the Penguins. I still don't think they were a great team. Florida had a team that relied on everything that was wrong with hockey at that time. Trap, wait, clutch, grab, dump, chase, pray to God your goalie stands on his head and wait...........wait........wait, hope. Play not to lose, rather than play to win. Yeah, sorry, Florida was a weak team that reached the final. Not one that gets brought up much.

Quote:
San Jose in 2002 had the same amount of points as Colorado.

Look at GA. GA tells you who is hard to score on.

Washington (2009): 245 GA
San Jose (2002): 199 GA

See? So can we go a little bit easier on his 13 points against Washington (so much better than Ovechkin's 14 points against Pittsburgh in that same series)?
Do you really think San Jose was a Cup contender that year? Everyone and their mother would have picked Colorado over them. 99 points each doesn't tell the whole story. Was Vancouver better than their "one game above .500" record indicated in 1994? I think so.

I don't care if Washington trapped themselves silly or played pond hockey. The point is Crosby beat an elite team seemingly on the cusp of something special. He played their game and beat them in their own home barn in Game 7. Had a fantastic game too. When we are dissecting these playoff runs this closely, it is of utmost importance not only how many points a player got but WHEN he got those points. Crosby produced when it counted and when it didn't count (if that exists in playoff hockey?) But certainly when it did count. Yes his 2009 final wasn't spectacular, but he already did something that a 2002 Forsberg couldn't at that time, and that was elevate his team TO the Cup final.

2008 is another example. He didn't really have a lull in that playoff year. He was producing consistently throughout. In the semis against Philly, in the final against Detroit. This helped his team and he was directly responsible for that. It is just hard for me to see how you don't integrate winning into whether or not someone had a great playoff run. That's half the battle right there, especially if you are directly involved.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote