Cool, we won last year!!! But we have seen the affects of his cap mismanagement already and this will only increase over the coming years. But lets wait for 3 years then be like " oo ****" we should have gotten rid of that guy!!!
Way I look at is this -- the players aren't content with it, so neither am I (plus I always hated coming in second. Horrible feeling).
I strongly disagree with these statements. Are you going to ignore the three rounds of success – including a historic come-from-behind win against Boston – and the joy this brought the fanbase because they fell a goal and a game short of the Stanley Cup? Yeah, I was immensely disappointed that the Flyers didn’t win it all, but I was still able to savour all they did right in the post-season.
“Second place is the first loser”, or something along those lines, was about the worst element of the Atlanta Olympics, thanks to Nike. Is that what you tell your kids, or would if you had any? This is where I think we collectively dissect the team and the game beyond the pure entertainment and excitement of watching them play and win.
It is not the goal of this organization to be Eastern Conference Champions.
Of course not, but are you saying that, given how close they came to their actual goal, that the organization cannot take some measure of pride? Sure, they will say that they are not satisfied with 14 post-season wins, but there's a necessary distinction between being disappointed at falling short by so slim a margin and casting aside the entire post-season.
I strongly disagree with these statements. Are you going to ignore the three rounds of success – including a historic come-from-behind win against Boston – and the joy this brought the fanbase because they fell a goal and a game short of the Stanley Cup? Yeah, I was immensely disappointed that the Flyers didn’t win it all, but I was still able to savour all they did right in the post-season.
“Second place is the first loser”, or something along those lines, was about the worst element of the Atlanta Olympics, thanks to Nike. Is that what you tell your kids, or would if you had any? This is where I think we collectively dissect the team and the game beyond the pure entertainment and excitement of watching them play and win.
I agree 100% with your second paragraph. If you're a player, why bother continuing to play hockey if you have a 96.6666666666666% chance of being a loser (first or otherwise) every year? Why bother being a fan? Because the "fans" that like to ***** about things such as "first loser" and what not usually have nothing positive to say about anything. Toxicity runs deep in this fanbase and it has more to do with the bitter outlook chosen by its members rather than the team they supposedly support.
It is as if people revel in being "fans" of losers every year because if the team got its 3.33333333333333333% chance and won it all, they wouldn't have a reason to complain and pine for attention. Or, perhaps, the script of 1776 says it better:
"You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you'll still remain afloat!" - John Adams, 1776
Or, maybe The Simpsons had it right:
"The lesson is 'never try'." - Homer Simpson
Of course not, but are you saying that, given how close they came to their actual goal, that the organization cannot take some measure of pride? Sure, they will say that they are not satisfied with 14 post-season wins, but there's a necessary distinction between being disappointed at falling short by so slim a margin and casting aside the entire post-season.
I love this discussion. Apparently, I should have enjoyed the 2006-07 season as much as this past season.
I agree 100% with your second paragraph. If you're a player, why bother continuing to play hockey if you have a 96.6666666666666% chance of being a loser (first or otherwise) every year? Why bother being a fan? Because the "fans" that like to ***** about things such as "first loser" and what not usually have nothing positive to say about anything. Toxicity runs deep in this fanbase and it has more to do with the bitter outlook chosen by its members rather than the team they supposedly support.
It is as if people revel in being "fans" of losers every year because if the team got its 3.33333333333333333% chance and won it all, they wouldn't have a reason to complain and pine for attention. Or, perhaps, the script of 1776 says it better:
"You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you'll still remain afloat!" - John Adams, 1776
Or, maybe The Simpsons had it right:
"The lesson is 'never try'." - Homer Simpson
You're 100% correct.
The idea of only one winner and the rest is meaningless is what creates bandwagon fans.
Welcome to the wonderful world of existential nihilism.
I want no part of it.
I'll enjoy this team win or lose. I want to see wins, but there's no reason to complain about 2nd place out of 30.
Sure, sitting through 2006-07 wasn't fun, but the hope that one day we could win is basically the point of hockey. Unless you do win, it's one unfulfilled hope after another. Even if you win, the next year you probably won't, but in that sense, watching hockey in and of itself is a pointless endeavor if you really do believe winning is everything.
Hell, the tradition of sport is meaningless completely without the acknowledgement of winner and loser.
I strongly disagree with these statements. Are you going to ignore the three rounds of success – including a historic come-from-behind win against Boston – and the joy this brought the fanbase because they fell a goal and a game short of the Stanley Cup? Yeah, I was immensely disappointed that the Flyers didn’t win it all, but I was still able to savour all they did right in the post-season.
“Second place is the first loser”, or something along those lines, was about the worst element of the Atlanta Olympics, thanks to Nike. Is that what you tell your kids, or would if you had any? This is where I think we collectively dissect the team and the game beyond the pure entertainment and excitement of watching them play and win.
No, because kids aren't playing winner-take-all professional sports. Little kids shouldn't be playing anything like professional athletes... they shouldn't be throwing at batters, sliding into bags with their cleats up... they shouldn't be getting chippy with their sticks... they shouldn't be tackling like professional football players (no one should).
Conflating little league, youth soccer, you name it with what these guys are doing is the problem, not the "first loser" sentiment.
That being said, moral victories and all that type of **** goes out the window at about the varsity level... no one gives a ***** about finishing 2nd and having a nice season.
Sure, getting to the Cup Finals was fun, but it isn't a big deal. They lost. The year ended in disappointment like every other team in the league outside of Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy
I agree 100% with your second paragraph. If you're a player, why bother continuing to play hockey if you have a 96.6666666666666% chance of being a loser (first or otherwise) every year? Why bother being a fan? Because the "fans" that like to ***** about things such as "first loser" and what not usually have nothing positive to say about anything. Toxicity runs deep in this fanbase and it has more to do with the bitter outlook chosen by its members rather than the team they supposedly support.
It is as if people revel in being "fans" of losers every year because if the team got its 3.33333333333333333% chance and won it all, they wouldn't have a reason to complain and pine for attention. Or, perhaps, the script of 1776 says it better:
"You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you'll still remain afloat!" - John Adams, 1776
Or, maybe The Simpsons had it right:
"The lesson is 'never try'." - Homer Simpson
Erm, because that's why you are a competitive person and you go out and compete? You don't do it because it's easy.
To quote the immortal Jimmy Dugan (cuz apparently quoting is the thing to do):
"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard is what makes it great."
Erm, because that's why you are a competitive person and you go out and compete? You don't do it because it's easy.
To quote the immortal Jimmy Dugan (cuz apparently quoting is the thing to do):
"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard is what makes it great."
The question was rhetorical, more to make people think. The hard *is* what makes it great, but it doesn't invalidate the efforts of those who came close and fell short.
The idea of only one winner and the rest is meaningless is what creates bandwagon fans.
Welcome to the wonderful world of existential nihilism.
I want no part of it.
I'll enjoy this team win or lose. I want to see wins, but there's no reason to complain about 2nd place out of 30.
Sure, sitting through 2006-07 wasn't fun, but the hope that one day we could win is basically the point of hockey. Unless you do win, it's one unfulfilled hope after another. Even if you win, the next year you probably won't, but in that sense, watching hockey in and of itself is a pointless endeavor if you really do believe winning is everything.
Hell, the tradition of sport is meaningless completely without the acknowledgement of winner and loser.
I had folks asking me during that season why I was still wearing (amongst my other shirts) Flyers polo shirts. I said, "I am a fan of the team, not of their record."
It's ridiculous that's the exception more than the norm. Never thought that *I* would be old-fashioned.
The idea of only one winner and the rest is meaningless is what creates bandwagon fans.
Welcome to the wonderful world of existential nihilism.
I want no part of it.
I'll enjoy this team win or lose. I want to see wins, but there's no reason to complain about 2nd place out of 30.
Sure, sitting through 2006-07 wasn't fun, but the hope that one day we could win is basically the point of hockey. Unless you do win, it's one unfulfilled hope after another. Even if you win, the next year you probably won't, but in that sense, watching hockey in and of itself is a pointless endeavor if you really do believe winning is everything.
Hell, the tradition of sport is meaningless completely without the acknowledgement of winner and loser.
Erm, this final statement seems to contradict the rest of the post.
Not to mention, refuting the belief that winning the ECF is some "big deal" is not a direct statement that "winning is everything." It was an enjoyable run, and more fun than losing in the first round.
But you don't follow a team with the hope of losing in the SCF, do you? The goal isn't to reach the finals... the goal is to win the Cup.
Erm, this final statement seems to contradict the rest of the post.
Not to mention, refuting the belief that winning the ECF is some "big deal" is not a direct statement that "winning is everything." It was an enjoyable run, and more fun than losing in the first round.
But you don't follow a team with the hope of losing in the SCF, do you? The goal isn't to reach the finals... the goal is to win the Cup.
Yes, the goal is to win the cup.
Have you ever had a goal you didn't reach? Well, you're a loser and every accomplishment you ever had outside of that means nothing because you didn't reach that goal. Isn't that awesome?
The question was rhetorical, more to make people think. The hard *is* what makes it great, but it doesn't invalidate the efforts of those who came close and fell short.
Who is invalidating their efforts? I'm just not celebrating losing in the Stanley Cup Finals... cuz it's not worthy of celebration. It's nice that they got to hang another banner, but we didn't have a parade last June for a reason.
Who is invalidating their efforts? I'm just not celebrating losing in the Stanley Cup Finals... cuz it's not worthy of celebration. It's nice that they got to hang another banner, but we didn't have a parade last June for a reason.
It ain't a big deal.
This is opinion, not fact. It's all in the eye of the beholder. It's pathetic that those of us that enjoyed the run despite the fact that we were also disappointed by its result take heat because we still took pleasure in the run. 1987 was still relished by Flyers fans or else Game 6 of the Final would not have made the Flyers DVD set.
It's not like I celebrated either, but most of the folks who would show up for a Flyers Stanley Cup win nowadays are looking for an excuse to miss school or work. It ain't about the team.
Have you ever had a goal you didn't reach? Well, you're a loser and every accomplishment you ever had outside of that means nothing because you didn't reach that goal. Isn't that awesome?
Literally nothing is dumber than conflating professional sports to real life.
Nothing.
Professional athletes are paid millions of dollars to play a sport. Professional teams take in massive swathes of money for fans to watch their teams compete. It's a high stakes, winner-take-all game going on out there... it ain't little league.
These guys are so far beyond getting a pat on the butt and told "good job" after a game it's a joke.
Have you ever had a goal you didn't reach? Well, you're a loser and every accomplishment you ever had outside of that means nothing because you didn't reach that goal. Isn't that awesome?
I graduated with a 3.8 GPA. I suck because I didn't get the 4.0.
Literally nothing is dumber than conflating professional sports to real life.
Nothing.
Professional athletes are paid millions of dollars to play a sport. Professional teams take in massive swathes of money for fans to watch their teams compete. It's a high stakes, winner-take-all game going on out there... it ain't little league.
Compete, not win. Only the WWE is truthful by calling itself "Sports Entertainment". Even the four major sports are that. It's theatre.
Quote:
These guys are so far beyond getting a pat on the butt and told "good job" after a game it's a joke.
So, lofty expectations are justified because of their salary. Got it.
This is opinion, not fact. It's all in the eye of the beholder. It's pathetic that those of us that enjoyed the run despite the fact that we were also disappointed by its result take heat because we still took pleasure in the run. 1987 was still relished by Flyers fans or else Game 6 of the Final would not have made the Flyers DVD set.
Who is taking heat for enjoying the run. I enjoyed the run. Everyone enjoyed the run.
That doesn't mean losing in 6 was a big deal. Think Edmonton thinks back fondly to Pronger leading 'em to a Game 7 loss? Nah, they boo his ass for asking out of town the next year. What's that SCF appearance doing for Ottawa?
Shafer opined that it was a "big deal" to win the ECF... it's not. That tournament isn't about winning the ECF or WCF, which is why you have that whole tradition of showing disdain for the relevant trophy.
Quote:
It's not like I celebrated either, but most of the folks who would show up for a Flyers Stanley Cup win nowadays are looking for an excuse to miss school or work. It ain't about the team.
A completely irrelevant point to any discussion you are going to have with folks on this board.
Literally nothing is dumber than conflating professional sports to real life.
Nothing.
Professional athletes are paid millions of dollars to play a sport. Professional teams take in massive swathes of money for fans to watch their teams compete. It's a high stakes, winner-take-all game going on out there... it ain't little league.
These guys are so far beyond getting a pat on the butt and told "good job" after a game it's a joke.
Your boss tells you and your co-workers that the goal for a fundraiser is $3,000 each.
You raise $2,950 and finish second among your 30 co-workers.
He's going to fire you because you didn't meet the goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Shafer opined that it was a "big deal" to win the ECF... it's not. That tournament isn't about winning the ECF or WCF, which is why you have that whole tradition of showing disdain for the relevant trophy.
It is a big deal. How often does it happen?
You are probably the dad who is over-obsessed about his son being the best and the star-player on the team right? If he isn't the best, then it isn't worth his time.
You clearly didn't have the son who just worked his butt off just to be a starter, even though he didn't have as much talent as everyone else.
Which one is more important? Is the champion better because he's the champion, or is it the kid who finally reached the NHL?
It's disappointing to not win a championship, but how you can you possibly negate an Eastern Conference Championship as an accomplishment?
Last edited by Chris Shafer: 10-18-2010 at 10:46 AM.
