The only caveat to that is that it would be nice to have a little variety.
in the first round i would argue the opposite is necessary. i think its preferable to dispatch a team for a change. first round adversity is too much like the failed past
in the first round i would argue the opposite is necessary. i think its preferable to dispatch a team for a change. first round adversity is too much like the failed past
in the first round i would argue the opposite is necessary. i think its preferable to dispatch a team for a change. first round adversity is too much like the failed past
Since it appears the Caps will face the Rangers, in your opinion, how best can the Caps dispatch the Rangers quickly? Play their game and grind them out?
in the first round i would argue the opposite is necessary. i think its preferable to dispatch a team for a change. first round adversity is too much like the failed past
I may not have been clear, although dispatching a team early would also constitute variety for this Caps bunch that seems to play seven-game series all the time.
I meant that it would be nice to see some different teams once in a while. Divisional rivalries involving the Caps are overdue. The TB-FLA, TB-CAR, CAR-ATL rivalries are already somewhat rich. The Caps need some rivalries with divisional foes.
Since it appears the Caps will face the Rangers, in your opinion, how best can the Caps dispatch the Rangers quickly? Play their game and grind them out?
i would take 4 2-1/3-1 w/eng in a row. but the caps have rocked ludqvist in the past.
I may not have been clear, although dispatching a team early would also constitute variety for this Caps bunch that seems to play seven-game series all the time.
I meant that it would be nice to see some different teams once in a while. Divisional rivalries involving the Caps are overdue. The TB-FLA, TB-CAR, CAR-ATL rivalries are already somewhat rich. The Caps need some rivalries with divisional foes.