HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Do we have the talent to win the cup?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2009, 07:27 AM
  #126
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
OK, you and I actually agree more than we disagree, which I'll get to shortly, but first let me address some specific points.

So can Lundqvist carry a team or not? Or can he only carry a team that is at least as good as it's opponents? That's not really carrying a team...
Nope, no goalie can carry a clear underdog to a cup if the team at some point doesn't carry their own weight. Not Lundqvist, not anyone.

Quote:
Sorry, but you do not get to denigrate what a goalie did to win the Stanley Cup. That's not fair. You can revise history all you want, but Ward won the Conn Smythe trophy, so some pretty important people agreed Ward was the best player in the playoffs that year. Period.
Sure, he won the Conn Smythe, but who else were they going to give the award to? Staal was not standing out enough, so then it's usually the goalie. He played great and by all means "carried the team", since he was their most important and best performing player for their success, but then again, his team still performed good enough for him to play great. This is important to remember.

Quote:
Disagree, and you are putting your own spin on history. If Drury does not score that goal with like ten seconds left in game five to tie it for Buffalo, we are coming back to the Garden up 3-2. Did you make this comment at that point in time as well? I didn't think so.

Not deep enough, are you serious? With Avery sparking the team, Nylander, Jagr and Straka forming a dominant line, Shanny, Callahan, Matt Cullen running the power play, Prucha scoring 22 goals, Mara, Tyutin and Rozsival playing solid defense, etc., nobody at the time thought we were a two man team with shoddy defense. You can't change that now. We were pretty good, pretty deep, and we had Lundqvist, so we had a chance...right?
Ok, I admit it was an entertaining series and it was the best chance we had at winning the cup so far. Sure, we could've beat Buffalo, but then it would probably have been a dead end. But I agree it was the best team we've seen since the lockout so far. As for true Stanley Cup depth, I don't know about that. We still probably lacked a franchise player on that team and our defense was still unimpressive.

Quote:
Your point is? Did you say before the playoffs we had no chance to beat the Devils because our leaders were Gomez and Drury? I didn't think so. We could have beaten Pittsburgh, even when we lost Avery. We were very competitive in that series, so with Lundqvist, we had a chance...right?
My point is, that team wasn't Stanley Cup quality, far from it. We were bad offensively and questionable defensively and that's not going to cut it. One franchise players isn't going to cut it.

Quote:
They were pathetic in the third period of game seven, they were not pathetic the first two periods. That is so inaccurate. They outshot the Caps 8-2 in the first period, and were outshooting them 14-11 after two. It was Varlamov who kept the game close at that point.
Yeah, counting shots, we looked pretty good. But I don't see how a number of low scoring shots changes anything. Varlamov did 1-2 great saves, other than that, we had an evening of logo shots and desperation without gas. Caps created the better chances and took the game over when it mattered. We had no energy left from a 1st period which we didn't create much from.

Quote:
Not sure what you are saying, the Rangers DID win game four...

You also left out the fact the Hank let in a softie here and there in those games. He was still the reason there was a game seven, but he did let in softies. It should be mentioned to be fair.
We won game 4? I'm trying to repress that series. Hank let in maybe 2-3 softies in the series, which a goalie should be allowed to do in seven games in net for NYR against the Caps. Those were also very good shots he got beat on.

Quote:
OK, Miller is playing well because the Sabres are good, except when they're not good he's stealing games. Got it.
Pretty much. Sabres and Miller are on a roll and are feeding off eachother. Or what, you think Miller has those numbers because he's a one man team? No goalie can put up those numbers from being a one man team. You need team structure for that. Ilya Bryzgalov hasn't been eating barbed wire during the summer all of a sudden, Phoenix has just realized that they have to play some defense to give him the platform to carry the team.

So yeah, we agree on most things. A goalie "carrying a team" doesn't mean you can put a goalie on a team and he will give them 82 wins. It just means he's the key player for the team being successful.


Last edited by Chimp: 12-30-2009 at 07:37 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2009, 07:35 AM
  #127
FromTheSide
Registered User
 
FromTheSide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 23,487
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FromTheSide Send a message via MSN to FromTheSide
Personally i think this thread should be closed and re-made after the trading deadline.That way we know pretty well whether we can even make it into the playoffs/are in playoff contention.Than we can see if the talent on this team has any chance to win lord stanley(you never know what magician trade sather could pull off)

FromTheSide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2009, 07:44 AM
  #128
Loffen
Wen Kroy
 
Loffen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Soft euro
Posts: 17,547
vCash: 500
We have too many grinders and underachievers and basically one guy lighting the lamp regularly. Lundqvist and Gabs alone can't carry this team.

Look at Chicago, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Detroit, Washington... They have scorers on each line. Hell... they're all getting contribution from their 4th lines too. Alongside with a stellar D-core and goaltending.

So to answer the headline... At this moment: HELL NO.

Loffen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2009, 07:47 AM
  #129
FromTheSide
Registered User
 
FromTheSide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 23,487
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FromTheSide Send a message via MSN to FromTheSide
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoFFeN View Post
We have too many grinders and underachievers and basically one guy lighting the lamp regularly. Lundqvist and Gabs alone can't carry this team.

Look at Chicago, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Detroit, Washington... They have scorers on each line. Hell... they're all getting contribution from their 4th lines too. Alongside with a stellar D-core and goaltending.

So to answer the headline... At this moment: HELL NO.
two 3rd's of their top 6 forwards are out with injury.Just wait till they get healthy

I'm still wondering who's bright idea it was to sign brashear over orr.....for 400k more i might add.

FromTheSide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2009, 09:45 AM
  #130
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
Sure, he won the Conn Smythe, but who else were they going to give the award to? Staal was not standing out enough, so then it's usually the goalie. He played great and by all means "carried the team", since he was their most important and best performing player for their success, but then again, his team still performed good enough for him to play great. This is important to remember.
Bottom line...Cam Ward was the best player in the Stanley Cup playoffs that year, and the Canes were a good but certainly not a great team. Without spectacular goaltending the Canes do not come close to winning the Stanley Cup.

With Martin Gerber in goal for the first two games against Montreal the Canes let in 12 goals and were down two games. Ward came in and the team rode his goaltending to victory...victory in FOUR series that is.

Don't revise it to imply he won the Conn Smythe by default. Not fair.

Quote:
Ok, I admit it was an entertaining series and it was the best chance we had at winning the cup so far. Sure, we could've beat Buffalo, but then it would probably have been a dead end. But I agree it was the best team we've seen since the lockout so far. As for true Stanley Cup depth, I don't know about that. We still probably lacked a franchise player on that team and our defense was still unimpressive.
In 2007 the Rangers were a good but certainly not a great team (sound familiar?). Definitely a far cry from what you described as a team with 'shoddy defense, that was not nearly deep enough. I already explained the depth to you. If they could have beaten Buffalo, you never know after that. They were playing well at the right time of the year.

Quote:
My point is, that team wasn't Stanley Cup quality, far from it. We were bad offensively and questionable defensively and that's not going to cut it. One franchise players isn't going to cut it.
As I already described, we were right there with Pittsburgh in 2008, and once you are into the conference semifinals you never know after that.

Quote:
Yeah, counting shots, we looked pretty good. But I don't see how a number of low scoring shots changes anything. Varlamov did 1-2 great saves, other than that, we had an evening of logo shots and desperation without gas. Caps created the better chances and took the game over when it mattered. We had no energy left from a 1st period which we didn't create much from.
Revising history again. You are good at that. The fact is the Rangers carried play for a majority of the first two periods in game seven this year. A far cry from your 'pathetic' description that made you embarassed to be a Ranger fan. The third period was bad, but not the whole game.

Quote:
We won game 4? I'm trying to repress that series.
Yes, we won game four this year. That was the game Avery took a couple of late penalties in, and even though the Rangers held on those penalties earned Avery a ticket to the press box for game five.

I agree your recollection of the series is a little fuzzy...all the more reason for you not to try to re-create game seven.

Quote:
Hank let in maybe 2-3 softies in the series, which a goalie should be allowed to do in seven games in net for NYR against the Caps. Those were also very good shots he got beat on.
I agree he gets a pass on the softies since he played so well overall, but the softies can be the difference between winning and losing a series. But the softies weren't very good shots, they were softies. Period. Don't revise the softies into lasers into the upper corner where Hank had no chance. He had a chance...that's why they're softies.

Quote:
So yeah, we agree on most things. A goalie "carrying a team" doesn't mean you can put a goalie on a team and he will give them 82 wins. It just means he's the key player for the team being successful.
Exactly. The goalie is the key player.


Last edited by Jersey Girl: 12-30-2009 at 10:31 AM.
Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2009, 10:35 AM
  #131
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Text
We're getting nowhere further, last post. If you're trying to discredit me like I'm some 80 year old Abe Simpson, we're done. This "goalie carrying his team for four series" point is so pointless I'm not even sure why it's in the discussion. It's completely irrelevant to take everything that's important (like, the actual team and the teams they face) out of its context and say "Hank hasn't carried the Rangers through four series". So what? That means jack and implies nothing. Ward was Carolina's best player, Hank was our best player. One won the Cup once and is currently stuck on the worst team in the league, one is stuck with $ather behind the steering wheel.

Secondly, I simply don't agree with the good Rangers depth as you described. Why can't you leave it at that? Cullen was a dumped failure for a reason and was barely used as a PP pointman, Shanahan did his job, Avery was and is invisible in the playoffs every time when the opponents simply ignore him, Prucha was completely invisible. We had frigging Thomas Pck and Karel Rachunek playing for us, not to mention Marek Malik. Rozsival was fortunately solid back then. Our team was flawed, because not everyone carried their load. Had they, we would've beat Buffalo, but they didn't. We were a one line team (Shanny got his goals on the PP), as much as we are a two man team today.

Quote:
Revising history again. You are good at that. The fact is the Rangers carried play for a majority of the first two periods. A far cry from your 'pathetic' description that made you embarassed to be a Ranger fan. The third period was bad, but not the whole game.
Revising history? That's a strong word and I'm insulted. We had the pressure on Washington for one period but couldn't create much, it was even in the 2nd and we were pathetic in the 3rd. It was embarrassing to see us crumble like that the further game went on and to see how little we could do to win. 15 shots on net against Washington is never going to win a game 7, not with our shot percentage. What good is pressure if you can barely create anything from it? Varlamov was solid, but not tested much in the series (and when he was tested he was able to stand up), as our offense was one of the worst in the league and continued being so in the playoffs. We were outshot 231 - 166, or an average of 33 - 23, which is a big deal, since they were also better at creating quality scoring chances on their shots.

Quote:
Yes, we won game four. That was the game Avery took a couple of late penalties in, and even though the Rangers held on those penalties earned Avery a ticket to the press box for game five.

I agree your recollection of the series is a little fuzzy...do don't try to re-create game seven either.
So what, I remembered it as we won three straight, but it was 3-1? Dare I ask if you from memory, can you remember what types of penalties Avery took in game 4 or what kind of skate protectors Jagr used? It's completely ridiculous of you to try to discredit everything I write, just because I don't remember all the details in the middle of a playoff series. Who cares if we won three straight or won three out of four, it's the big picture and the end result that mattered. It's game 7 that sticks, not game 4. So excuse me if I'm not a complete hockey freak.
Quote:
I agree he gets a pass on the softies since he played so well overall, but the softies can be the difference between winning and losing a series. But the softies weren't very good shots, they were softies. Period. Don't revise the softies into lasers into the upper corner where Hank had no chance. He had a chance...that's why they're softies.
Your definition of softies is different from mine, that's all. A softie for me is a shot a goalie absolutely should've had, not a shot a goalie had a chance on. And those softies were very hard shots at the top corner, I especially remember one from Green (the weak part from Hank was that they were unscreened), so I don't know what you're getting at. It's not like it was a flubber from middle ice. Had Hank not been the loneliest Ranger on ice in that series, I would've been him more disappointed at the blowouts in the middle of the series, but now when Washington was such a better team than us? Not so much.

Bottom point: We had no business in the playoffs the last two years, will have no business in the playoffs this year and won't have any business in the playoffs until earliest 2012.


Last edited by Chimp: 12-30-2009 at 11:02 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2009, 11:26 AM
  #132
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
We're getting nowhere further, last post. If you're trying to discredit me like I'm some 80 year old Abe Simpson, we're done.
I am sorry if disagreeing with you means you think I'm trying to discredit you. But yes, while we agree in principle I disagree with some things you said. I didn't realize people are not allowed to disagree with you. Happy New Year.

Quote:
This "goalie carrying his team for four series" point is so pointless I'm not even sure why it's in the discussion.
It's in the discussion because that's exactly what's being said by some people in this thread, that with Lundqvist all we have to do is make the playoffs and anything is possible. You and I both agree that's not true.

Quote:
It's completely irrelevant to take everything that's important (like, the actual team and the teams they face) out of its context and say "Hank hasn't carried the Rangers through four series". So what? That means jack and implies nothing. Ward was Carolina's best player, Hank was our best player. One won the Cup once and is currently stuck on the worst team in the league, one is stuck with $ather behind the steering wheel.
It's relevant because someone brought up Ward and implied he's not good enough to carry a team to the Stanley Cup and Lundqvist is. Surely we can see the irony in that statement.

Quote:
Secondly, I simply don't agree with the good Rangers depth as you described. Why can't you leave it at that? Cullen was a dumped failure for a reason and was barely used as a PP pointman, Shanahan did his job, Avery was and is invisible in the playoffs every time when the opponents simply ignore him, Prucha was completely invisible.
Yes, we can agree to disagree and leave it at that. Cullen had a strong playoff that year in 2007, one year removed from winning the Stanley Cup with the Canes. Teams were still letting Avery bug them. That memo did not go out until the following year, in the Pittsburgh series, where he lacerated his spleen anyway.

But the bottom line is, at the time, after we beat Atlanta and were thisclose to beating Buffalo, nobody thought we didn't have enough depth to advance. You can look it up on this website.

Quote:
So what, I remembered it as we won three straight, but it was 3-1? Dare I ask if you from memory, can you remember what types of penalties Avery took in game 4?
Actually I do remember one of the bad penalties, and I'm sure a lot of people remember this one as well. He and a Cap were chasing the puck on an icing, and he managed to swing his glove at the Cap in the process and connect with his jaw.

Quote:
So excuse me if I'm not a complete hockey freak.
It's OK, some of us definitely pay closer attention than others.

Quote:
Your definition of softies is different from mine, that's all. A softie for me is a shot a goalie absolutely should've had, not a shot a goalie had a chance on. And those softies were very hard shots at the top corner, I especially remember one from Green (the weak part from Hank was that they were unscreened), so I don't know what you're getting at.
I think our definition is pretty much the same, actually. A shot the goalie should have had being a softie sounds fair. An unscreened shot to the top corner from far out definitely qualifies.

Quote:
Bottom point: We had no business in the playoffs the last two years, will have no business in the playoffs this year and won't have any business in the playoffs until earliest 2012.
OK, so you came around on the 2007 playoffs and the Buffalo series! Well done.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2009, 02:10 PM
  #133
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
I am sorry if disagreeing with you means you think I'm trying to discredit you. But yes, while we agree in principle I disagree with some things you said. I didn't realize people are not allowed to disagree with you. Happy New Year.
Calling me a historical revisionist and "someone who shouldn't even bother trying to recall what happened in game 7", is quite commonly taken as insults, I think. That shouldn't come as a surprise. We'll leave it at that.

Quote:
It's in the discussion because that's exactly what's being said by some people in this thread, that with Lundqvist all we have to do is make the playoffs and anything is possible. You and I both agree that's not true.
Yep, these people are delusional.

Quote:
It's relevant because someone brought up Ward and implied he's not good enough to carry a team to the Stanley Cup and Lundqvist is. Surely we can see the irony in that statement.
Yep.

Quote:
... But the bottom line is, at the time, after we beat Atlanta and were thisclose to beating Buffalo, nobody thought we didn't have enough depth to advance. You can look it up on this website.
I'm sure we did. Buffalo was not that intimidating and we very well could have ended on the top, it was basically a coin flip. Winning the cup however... I don't see in any stretch of the imagination how we could've beaten Ottawa (perhaps doable, but they were alot better than Buffalo) and then beating the 2007 Wings... no way. But sure, I agree it was absolutely the team we had our best shot with so far after the lockout.

Quote:
OK, so you came around on the 2007 playoffs and the Buffalo series! Well done.
Not exactly came around, but at least we had a 2007 team worthy of being there.

Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2009, 02:30 PM
  #134
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
I'm sure we did. Buffalo was not that intimidating and we very well could have ended on the top, it was basically a coin flip. Winning the cup however... I don't see in any stretch of the imagination how we could've beaten Ottawa (perhaps doable, but they were alot better than Buffalo) and then beating the 2007 Wings... no way. But sure, I agree it was absolutely the team we had our best shot with so far after the lockout.
OK, so we agree that 2007 team was playing hard and playing well in front of Henrik. You can also make that argument for the 2008 team, but let's stick with that 2007 team for a second.

You've also established that a team 'carrying it's own weight' in front of an excellent goalie has a chance to advance throught the Stanley Cup playoffs. They definitely had that chance in 2007 (and I think also in 2008 after they beat the Devils, but not in 2009)...but it didn't happen.

No disrespect to Hank for that, but you can't argue it didn't happen.

At the very least we've established THIS statement you made:

Quote:
Give me a break, NYR in the playoffs after the lockout has been a lost cause. It was not fun to watch, even the games we won, we were clearly outplayed and the games we lost, we were slaughtered
is just wrong.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2009, 11:12 AM
  #135
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingWantsCup View Post
I was talking to one of my teachers yesterday who is also a big Rangers fan. I asked him what he thought about the Rangers season and so on and blah blah blah, then I spoke my view on the team. I said that we have 2 elite players and a bunch of third liners and we're best off tanking this season because I find it difficult to believe we'd even make it to the second round, if we even make the playoffs.

He then told me that that's not the direction the team should go and that he thinks the team has enough talent to win it all. What do you think?
Never knew Joe Micheletti taught on the side.

Hope this thread stays front and center for the remainder of the season. It should be shown like a badge of dishonor.

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2009, 11:16 AM
  #136
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOWRanger View Post
two 3rd's of their top 6 forwards are out with injury.Just wait till they get healthy

I'm still wondering who's bright idea it was to sign brashear over orr.....for 400k more i might add.
Orr's contract is just as bad as Brashear's considering it's for four years. And he's just as bad if not worse of a hockey player as Brashear.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2010, 08:29 PM
  #137
Ice Hockey
Registered User
 
Ice Hockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CT
Country: United States
Posts: 760
vCash: 500
in a word, no.

my heart still cheers for this team while my brain wants them to lose. if we want a cup run, we need to tank in the hopes for a #1 in order to rebuild around gaborik, henrik, callahan, del z and maybe staal-- we need to do this while gabby is in the twilight of his career or we probably won't get a serious shot for a good while.

Ice Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2010, 02:49 PM
  #138
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
we don't have enough talent to beat the Hurricanes at home, much less win the cup. This thread is laughable.

KreiMeARiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2010, 03:02 PM
  #139
Axe Man
Brooklyn Bound
 
Axe Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Islander Country
Country: United States
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
I have a question. Which is more probable, the Rangers winning the cup or the Rangers missing the playoffs altogether?

Axe Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2010, 12:52 AM
  #140
Declan
HFB Partner
 
Declan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 964
vCash: 500
Even if you thought they had the skill, they certainly don't have the heart

Declan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2010, 02:58 AM
  #141
topcat986*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,028
vCash: 500
The rangers finally have it right! Going forward with the $$$ put into scouting and coaching this pathetic try to buy players to win cup mode will end. I truly can state the the Rangers future is far more full of hope than in the past 15 years,

topcat986* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2010, 07:22 PM
  #142
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,394
vCash: 50
The question should be do they have the talent to make the playoffs, because they are barely in 8th right now by just 1 point.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 02:10 PM
  #143
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
The question should be do they have the talent to make the playoffs, because they are barely in 8th right now by just 1 point.
Half the teams in the league make the playoffs. It's no sign of achievement, but the answer is still "yes."

A single really good goalie and a single superstar is sufficient for an 8 seed in this watered down league.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 03:13 PM
  #144
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Epic Thread. This...

The Rangers are The Little Red Train That Can't,Won't, and Doesn't Feel Like It.

But..Can this team make the playoffs?? Yep. This Little Red Train can make it to the station.

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 04:34 PM
  #145
Ranger Angst
Registered User
 
Ranger Angst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 472
vCash: 500
Lol.

Ranger Angst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 04:39 PM
  #146
Nick00
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,876
vCash: 500
Oh cup contender thread, how I've missed your baseless idealism...


Nick00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 04:42 PM
  #147
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick00 View Post
Oh cup contender thread, how I've missed your baseless idealism...

Hey, man! ANYTHING can happen in the playoffs! ANYTHING!

Just look at the Rangers last year!

And the year before!

And the year before!

AAAAAAANNND the year before THAT!

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 04:59 PM
  #148
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,749
vCash: 500
the answer is still no. the tooth hurts.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 09:58 PM
  #149
blue2noise
Registered User
 
blue2noise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
This is the cup we have the talent for


blue2noise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2010, 10:02 PM
  #150
BroadwayBlues
oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxo
 
BroadwayBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 8,187
vCash: 500
@ this thread.

BroadwayBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.