Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25
I just don't believe that the Kings core is as "young" people are making them out to be, most of them joined the NHL as teenagers and have hundreds of games played. Age is just a number, NHL games played is a better indication of experience.
|
See, this post I agree with. Why? Because now you're not talking about age, you are talking about experience. Are the Kings experienced, regular season wise? Yes they are. That's different than going on about age. Age wise, they are still young.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP
The original premise was that the Kings' young core was still young enough to do something - not including 3 players who were well over 30 in a discussion of the "young core" totally makes sense.
Apparently you don't remember who the Kings barely beat in Game 7 of the 1993 Conference Championships to give them their only Cup Finals appearance...
Unbelievable  |
No it doesn't make sense. If it did make sense you wouldn't have included Willie Mitchell on the Kings side since he's 35. You can't have it both ways PSP.
And I don't forget the Leafs, I was watching that whole series. Don't give me your 'unbelieveable' crap. The Leafs and Kings were evenly matched, but the Wings were by far the better team and were widely favored to beat the Leafs in the playoffs. They were expected to take that next step, instead they got bounced by the Leafs and it cost Bryan Murray his job. Scotty came in after that and even he failed to lift the Wings anywhere in his first year, losing to the Sharks in seven games in their first ever playoff appearance.
Bottom line is the Red Wings are viewed as the model franchise, and the roots of that start in the late 80's, something that was discussed at leangth before on this message board. The Wings didn't take a significant step forward inthe playoffs until 1995. I'm notsaying LA will follow in their footsteps or if they should follow the same path, but to say that the Kings are a failure or whatever it is your trying to prove, and doing a dowright brutal job at it I might add, is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP
How many NHL games has the average 27.3 year old NHL player played?
Young normally means inexperienced, but the Kings players aren't inexperienced. They have played a ton of games for their age.
|
Age is not experience. No one is debating the Kings have a lot of regular season experience.
My question for you though is how many playoff games does the average 27.3 year old NHL player have? I'd believe it's more than 12, which is what the core of this team, outside of Richards and Carter, have. Look around, I'm sure you'll find hundreds of quotes from players saying the playoffs are a whole nother beast. Our little discussion on the Red Wings proves that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP
Chicago and Detroit might have been stacked, but calling Toronto an "easy opponent" is flat out wrong
|
Maybe calling them 'easy" was wrong, so I'll retract that. But I'll stand by saying that Detroit was favored and expected to win and didn't. In hindsight, no one will call the Red Wings path a 'failure', yet that's what we're discussing here in this thread, if the Kings are a failure for not winning a playoff round. The Wings didn't win anything for 4 straight seasons, several of which they were the favorite. Which of the past three playoff series (counting the current one) was LA the favorite in?
