View Single Post
01-13-2014, 06:00 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,232
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
This is an easy answer. Yes. Why wouldn't we be?

You're looking at this with the gift of hindsight and comparing the team the next year to the 2011-2012 team. Something that is incredibly naive. It's plain to see that that is what you're doing, too. Because the team sucked the next year it had to have sucked the Cup run year, too.

But you know what? You're just simply wrong. We wont he East. We were two games away from reaching the Cup finals. If you honestly think the 2011-2012 team didn't stack up (AS A TEAM -- from the net out) to the rest of the top teams, you obviously have some trouble understanding the fact that we won our conference.

Teams that win their conferences do not suck. Teams that win their conferences are contenders. You continue to miss the fact that we were a defensive based team that won close games all year. Surprise surprise -- we did the same in the playoffs. WHAT A SHOCKER. Just because the team wasn't blowing other teams out every night does not diminish their contender-ness. What an utter crock of crap.

I don't know why you wasted your time writing that incorrect, lengthy response before, either.
Agree to disagree than. I respect your opinion. And no, I'm not laughably ignorant. Teams that win the Stanley Cup can excel in every facet of the game, and we had a glaring weakness in putting the puck in the net.

Perhaps the above poster is right, that they were a "contender" but their style of play simply wasn't conducive to going all the way.

And I never said they sucked. I said they were a good team with great work ethic, character, solid defense and goaltending.

I just didn't think they had all of the tools to go the distance. And that's not in hindsight. I thought that as soon as the playoffs started.

Fataldogg is offline