what on earth are you talking about? Elementary school? Underrated is an elementary school term?
The most underrated team? No one was saying that then, and no one is saying that now, that is an argument you introduced. I'll be honest with you, you come across as if you have a few screws loose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
The Blues are not a play off team, 1 playoff year since the lock out. 1, that is all.
You have no idea if St. Louis will make the playoffs. You seem quite ignorant of anything having to do with the Blues. History is filled with teams that didn't make the playoffs... until they made the playoffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
All you are doing is throwing these excuses around about injury.
I'm surprised you would be so critical of someone making excuses. As a Sharks fan it seems like you would be used to hearing excuses by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
Besides they won 3 games after Perron got hurt.
Actually they won 31 games after Perron was injured.
Oshie was on a pace for 56 points, so i dont see how he would have been that good.
Actually Oshie was on pace for 63 points before he was injured. That would have made him the leading scorer on the team at seasons end... but yeah, he would've held no value whatsoever to the Blues last season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
You act as if the other 3 D men are studs, they arent, in fact they arent good at all.
It really doesn't matter how good you think they are. The point is that all of them are much better than Nathan Oystrick and Tyson Strachan, their replacements.
The most underrated team? No one was saying that then, and no one is saying that now, that is an argument you introduced. I'll be honest with you, you come across as if you have a few screws loose.
You keep saying how Great St. Louis is and keep debating with me their playoff hopes. You keep acting like they would have made the playoffs if they had all these "star" players. They didn't make the playoffs in 2010, and did worse in 2011.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grouch
You have no idea if St. Louis will make the playoffs. You seem quite ignorant of anything having to do with the Blues. History is filled with teams that didn't make the playoffs... until they made the playoffs.
Those teams made some pretty significant changes to do so. Your argument is that once the Blues are healthy, they are a playoff threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grouch
I'm surprised you would be so critical of someone making excuses. As a Sharks fan it seems like you would be used to hearing excuses by now.
.....I have no idea what this is implying and how this has to do with the Topic, but since you clearly are changing subjects, probably to avoid argument. Excuses for the Sharks? I don't recall anyone blaming the refs....I don't recall anyone blaming anyone. Our team has not shown up some series, and other series certain players hurt our chances. But i find it funny that your attacking the Sharks, because well, at least we make the playoffs and go far in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grouch
Actually they won 31 games after Perron was injured.
I am simply pointing out that they never had to bounce back from his absence from the line up, they went back to winning/losing games as usual.
Actually Oshie was on pace for 63 points before he was injured. That would have made him the leading scorer on the team at seasons end... but yeah, he would've held no value whatsoever to the Blues last season.
Pretty sure it is 56, but you act as if 63 is so much of a difference. It isnt that big of a difference(In case you couldn't count, its 7 points)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grouch
It really doesn't matter how good you think they are. The point is that all of them are much better than Nathan Oystrick and Tyson Strachan, their replacements.
Still, having those guys play does not scream play offs, they played in 2010, your team didn't make the playoffs, so what is your point?
Those teams made some pretty significant changes to do so. Your argument is that once the Blues are healthy, they are a playoff threat.
Yes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
.....I have no idea what this is implying and how this has to do with the Topic, but since you clearly are changing subjects, probably to avoid argument.
I don't need to avoid any argument with you, it's easy to argue against someone coming from a position of ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
Excuses for the Sharks? I don't recall anyone blaming the refs....I don't recall anyone blaming anyone. Our team has not shown up some series, and other series certain players hurt our chances. But i find it funny that your attacking the Sharks, because well, at least we make the playoffs and go far in them.
Wait, so let me get this straight, you're the only one who can make snap judgements about a team in this thread. I'm sorry, I was just following your lead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
I am simply pointing out that they never had to bounce back from his absence from the line up, they went back to winning/losing games as usual.
Umm, no they didn't. They had a point percentage of .800 with Perron in the lineup. They finished the season with a .530 point percentage. I'm sorry if the facts don't mesh with your over the top assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
I've already won this argument. It's clear to anyone remotely familiar with the Blues you have no idea what your talking about. I just don't understand why you can't use coherent sentences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
Pretty sure it is 56, but you act as if 63 is so much of a difference. It isnt that big of a difference(In case you couldn't count, its 7 points)?
Actually it is 63. The reason it's a big difference is because 63 points would have lead the Blues in scoring. I'm curious if you think a team that loses its leading scorer for 33 games is "making excuses about injuries".
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
Still, having those guys play does not scream play offs, they played in 2010, your team didn't make the playoffs, so what is your point?
They also played in 2009, and the Blues made the playoffs, so what is your point?
I don't need to avoid any argument with you, it's easy to argue against someone coming from a position of ignorance.
Wait, so let me get this straight, you're the only one who can make snap judgements about a team in this thread. I'm sorry, I was just following your lead.
Umm, no they didn't. They had a point percentage of .800 with Perron in the lineup. They finished the season with a .530 point percentage. I'm sorry if the facts don't mesh with your over the top assertions.
I've already won this argument. It's clear to anyone remotely familiar with the Blues you have no idea what your talking about. I just don't understand why you can't use coherent sentences.
Actually it is 63. The reason it's a big difference is because 63 points would have lead the Blues in scoring. I'm curious if you think a team that loses its leading scorer for 33 games is "making excuses about injuries".
They also played in 2009, and the Blues made the playoffs, so what is your point?
1. They aren't a playoff team, sorry
2. You basically just avoided an argument with a statement about me being ignorant, instead why dont you show me how im being ignorant by saying the Blues will not make the playoffs.
3. I cant say a team wont make the playoffs after not making the playoffs the last 2 years, yet you can randomly bring up the sharks and excuses for not winning? What do those two have in common? Just stop talking.
4. You just said they won 31 games without him.... and they won the next 3 games in a row right after he got hurt.
5. You already won? You have corrected my grammar, called me ignorant, and said i had no right to judge your team. All opinions on your part that dont back up anything you say. Btw, going out of your way and the argument to correct my grammar shows you have nothing better to say.
6. Again, i am pretty sure 56 is the number. Besides if 63 points was that vital to your team, when your D and goal tending werent that good, You wouldn't have made the playoffs anyway.
7. Ok 2009 you made the playoffs, that was the one year you did, congrats. 2 years later, still no playoffs . You have pratically the same team the past 2 seasons with the exception of goal tending and brad boyles.
In your opinion... I suspect your ability to tell the future is about as proficient as your reasoning skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
2. You basically just avoided an argument with a statement about me being ignorant, instead why dont you show me how im being ignorant by saying the Blues will not make the playoffs.
I have been showing you. I've been supplying you with statistics and articles along with solid arguments. Unfortunately you just keep regurgitating some BS about me avoiding an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
3. I cant say a team wont make the playoffs after not making the playoffs the last 2 years, yet you can randomly bring up the sharks and excuses for not winning? What do those two have in common? Just stop talking.
You can say whatever you want, no matter how irrational. I brought up the Sharks are chokers angle to make you see how ridiculous it is to levy judgements from an uninformed position. I was feigning ignorance, unfortunately you are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
4. You just said they won 31 games without him.... and they won the next 3 games in a row right after he got hurt.
Actually they won the next two games, and then lost five in a row. I showed you the points percentage, I'm not sure why you are still arguing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
5. You already won? You have corrected my grammar, called me ignorant, and said i had no right to judge your team. All opinions on your part that dont back up anything you say. Btw, going out of your way and the argument to correct my grammar shows you have nothing better to say.
Actually it says if I am going to wade through your BS, I would like it to be legible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
6. Again, i am pretty sure 56 is the number. Besides if 63 points was that vital to your team, when your D and goal tending werent that good, You wouldn't have made the playoffs anyway.
A 63(is the correct number - .769 points per game before his injury) point scorer would be vital to every single team. I can't imagine any team official in the league saying a 63 point forward who always hustles and plays plus defense wasn't vital to their team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharkLoc91
7. Ok 2009 you made the playoffs, that was the one year you did, congrats. 2 years later, still no playoffs . You have pratically the same team the past 2 seasons with the exception of goal tending and brad boyles.
Yep! The Blues are the exact same team they were 2 seasons ago. Well, with the exception of 26 of the 39 players who played a game with the Blues that season who are no longer part of the franchise. See, that's what happens when you actually look up facts, but I'll go back to "avoiding the argument" now.
In your opinion... I suspect your ability to tell the future is about as proficient as your reasoning skills.
I have been showing you. I've been supplying you with statistics and articles along with solid arguments. Unfortunately you just keep regurgitating some BS about me avoiding an argument.
You can say whatever you want, no matter how irrational. I brought up the Sharks are chokers angle to make you see how ridiculous it is to levy judgements from an uninformed position. I was feigning ignorance, unfortunately you are not.
Actually they won the next two games, and then lost five in a row. I showed you the points percentage, I'm not sure why you are still arguing this.
Actually it says if I am going to wade through your BS, I would like it to be legible.
A 63(is the correct number - .769 points per game before his injury) point scorer would be vital to every single team. I can't imagine any team official in the league saying a 63 point forward who always hustles and plays plus defense wasn't vital to their team.
Yep! The Blues are the exact same team they were 2 seasons ago. Well, with the exception of 26 of the 39 players who played a game with the Blues that season who are no longer part of the franchise. See, that's what happens when you actually look up facts, but I'll go back to "avoiding the argument" now.
"brad boyles"... is that Dan Boyles(sic) brother?
1. Again, their last couple of seasons paint a different picture
2. You showed me TSN articles....2 of them. Show me something else that says that
3. Again, what is so ignorant about saying a team wont make the playoffs? I see, the Sharks "choked" last year against the best team in the West with the best record in the league . The sharks have nothing to do with this conversation.
4. You said it was November 8th, and it was 4 days from that day that he got hurt. they played 3 games and won all 3.
5. Grammar Nazis=bad debaters.
6. i think the math is 82x34/49 which equals 56.
7. They have nearly the same top lines and D, so i guess the other 16 were scrubs. Obviously didn't help them since they have yet to make the playoffs
8. Obviously accidentally put the L in there, but i knew your grammar Nazi sense would have picked up on that and jump all over it
Last edited by GreatGonzo: 10-09-2011 at 01:57 PM.
Grammar Nazis = bad debaters... People who use an = sign, equals a great debater. Your arguments are just too sound. I can't compete with that. I shall abdicate.
Grammar Nazis = bad debaters... People who use an = sign, equals a great debater. Your arguments are just too sound. I can't compete with that. I shall abdicate.
Detroit and Chicago are just a TINY, VERY marginal bit worse than SJ and LA. SJ is certainly the best, by a small amount, but then EITHER Detroit or Chicago could possibly be better than LA. It's incredibly close between all 4 though.
Anaheim is a little bit better than Nashville, Columbus and St. Louis
Nashville, Columbus and St. Louis are all head and shoulders above Dallas or Phoenix.
LA has to be better than Chicago. <Rolls Eyes>
In the last 3 seasons, the Kings have went a combine 3-8-1 against the hawks.
Plus the only reason the Coyotes made the playoffs is because they had a great regular season goalie. That is how they made the playoffs with a marginal or negative goal differential.
Other than the sharks, there aren't even any contenders in the Pacific at all. This poll is laughable.
bumping this. 10+ games into the season and so far the results are in Pacific favors. Personally I'm not surprised that the Pacific teams are having more success, I never understood why people were saying "Central AINEC".
Hawks
Stars
Kings
Sharks
Coyotes
Preds
Ducks
Blues
Jackets
Still very early .. but there are some surprises. Hawks are doing great, I know some had Hawks being the best team out of the two divisions. Stars are right behind them with a strong start. Jackets 2-9-1 ... no one saw this coming. While the Yotes are doing good up to date.
bumping this. 10+ games into the season and so far the results are in Pacific favors. Personally I'm not surprised that the Pacific teams are having more success, I never understood why people were saying "Central AINEC".
Hawks
Stars
Kings
Sharks
Coyotes
Preds
Ducks
Blues
Jackets
Still very early .. but there are some surprises. Hawks are doing great, I know some had Hawks being the best team out of the two divisions. Stars are right behind them with a strong start. Jackets 2-9-1 ... no one saw this coming. While the Yotes are doing good up to date.
Discuss.
is there a reason you left out detroit? not that it changes anything, it actually makes it worse especially now after losing for the 5th time in a row. just wondering.
1st - dallas, chicago (16 points)
2nd - kings (14 points)
3rd - sharks, phoenix, nashville, anaheim (12 points)
4th - detroit (11 points)
5th - st louis (10 points)
6th - columbus (5 points)
Central Division
1. Chicago Blackhawks 38 points (29 games)
2. Detroit Red Wings 37 points (28 games)
3. St. Louis Blues 37 points (29 games)
6. Nashville Predators 32 points (29 games)
10. Columbus Blue Jackets 20 points (29 games)
TOTAL POINTS: 164 in 144 games
Pacific Division
4. Dallas Stars 33 points (28 games)
5. Phoenix Coyotes 33 points (29 games)
7. San Jose Sharks 31 points (26 games)
8. Los Angeles Kings 30 points (29 games)
9. Anaheim Ducks 21 points (29 games)
The Central, as of right now, is clearly superior. Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis are all great teams. The Pacific has San Jose, the Yotes.... and then the dropoff. A massively underachieving Kings team, a Stars group that has fallen off badly since the hot start and now is hovering just inside the playoff window (they're leading their division but are in third only by virtue of playing more games than San Jose), and... well, Anaheim.
Central's best teams are better, and they have more of them. Nashville is about on par with Phoenix, I would say. Columbus and Anaheim cancel out (although the Jackets have been better than the Ducks for a little while now in terms of point percentage and wins).
We'll get a nice game tonight between the two divisions, with San Jose coming into Chicago.
Last edited by Chris Hansen: 12-11-2011 at 11:41 AM.
The Central, as of right now, is clearly superior. Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis are all great teams. The Pacific has San Jose, the Yotes.... and then the dropoff. A massively underachieving Kings team, a Stars group that has fallen off badly since the hot start and now is hovering just inside the playoff window (they're leading their division but are in third only by virtue of playing more games than San Jose), and... well, Anaheim.
Central's best teams are better, and they have more of them. Nashville is about on par with Phoenix, I would say. Columbus and Anaheim cancel out (although the Jackets have been better than the Ducks for a little while now in terms of point percentage and wins).
We'll get a nice game tonight between the two divisions, with San Jose coming into Chicago.
Was referring mainly to teams' play as of late. In which case the consistently good Sharks and Coyotes are clearly the best two in the Pacific.
Dallas has been consistently mediocre since the hot start ended.
After a season's worth of perspective, what's the consensus? Seven of eight Western Conference playoff teams were from these two divisions. Two central teams(STL & CHI) are paired directly against two pacific teams(SJS & PHX), and with the possibility of LAK winning against VAN there could potentially be an all Central vs. Pacific Semifinals.
There were 3 Central teams better than the best Pacific team in the standings - so despite Columbus being by far the worst team in the league, Central wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grouch
After a season's worth of perspective, what's the consensus? Seven of eight Western Conference playoff teams were from these two divisions. Two central teams(STL & CHI) are paired directly against two pacific teams(SJS & PHX), and with the possibility of LAK winning against VAN there could potentially be an all Central vs. Pacific Semifinals.
There were 3 Central teams better than the best Pacific team in the standings - so despite Columbus being by far the worst team in the league, Central wins.
. You have pratically the same team the past 2 seasons with the exception of goal tending and brad boyles.
. The sharks have nothing to do with this conversation.
