Samadelphia 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Oh, and we're old. And slow. And soft. Well they say recognizing the problem is the first step on the road to recovery... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
superstarsingh 23 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 I love posts like this. So a team that finished with less points and didn't make it out of the first rd is a better team than Anaheim? Your division was pathetic. The Sharks played 16 games against the Ducks and Stars. You own our team? Like you owned us by losing 9-4? Like you owned us losing the season series 3-1? Like you owned us in '94? Hasek is a shadow of his former self. 8 goals against in one game was a record. Nabokov will outplay him easily... Just for the record: Detroit went 15-3-5 vs Columbus/Chicago/St. Louis. 35 points in 24 games. San Jose went 12-4-0 vs LA/Phoenix...gaining 24 points in 16 games against the two worst teams in the conference. Detroit went 7-1 vs LA/Phoenix, for 14 points in 8 games vs the two worst. San Jose went 10-2-0 vs Columbus/Chicago/St. Louis to get 20 points in 12 games. So against five of the six worst teams in the Conference, Detroit went 22-4-5 for 49 points in 31 games, while San Jose went 22-6-0 for 44 points in 28 games. That means, excluding head-to-head games, Detroit went 27-12-8 for 62 points in 47 games against Playoff clubs, Edmonton, Colorado, and the East, while San Jose went 26-19-5 for 57 points in 50 games against those same opponents. So in other words...Detroit gained more points and more wins in fewer games against better teams, while San Jose gained points at the same rate against weak teams. Please never try the 'weak division' argument when it's so easily refuted. Thanks, eva. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 (edited) Ahh, I see when the argument starts to go against you, you pulled out the foul language and personal attacks. Sounds about right Spare me. You claimed I was "ignorant" "incapable of comprehension" and was "wasting your time." Just because you beat around the bush with your insults doesn't make them any less insults. Ok, then, let's use your stats. The hits in the Flames series were pretty even, so I guess they must have played you tough. And the Sharks are a much better team than the Flames... 1.) This has nothing to do with stats. 2.) The Wings have proven they are capable of handling physical play. The Sharks may be bigger, but the principle is the same. <sigh> And the reason he was using the Flames is back up his claim that the Wings are not too soft to play against the Sharks. That does not make for a comparison of the Flames and Sharks, as you claimed, now does it? Here, it's really easy: CLAIM: Wings aren't soft. LOGIC: Because they handled the Flames physical game. CONCLUSION: Wings aren't soft. No comparisons between the Flames and Sharks are made. Edited April 25, 2007 by Heroes of Hockeytown Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Covenant 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Clearly you didn't take in any games in our first series? This is as ignorant as it comes. Okay, well.. thanks for sticking up for me LGW'ers. I'm just going to quote myself then. I don't think I mentioned anything in the above quote about Flames vs. Sharks.. but let me reiterate: Saying the Wings are still too soft is ignorant. That is all. No more food for Samdelphia or whatever his name is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 You own our team? Like you owned us by losing 9-4? Like you owned us losing the season series 3-1? Like you owned us in '94? No, no, like we owned you in '95. BTW, season series' don't mean a whole hell of a lot when the postseason comes around. You should know that. Or did you forget that the Sharks split their season series with Nashville 2-2, with one loss being a 5-0 drubbing by the Preds? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tunbo Batman Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Well they say recognizing the problem is the first step on the road to recovery... Why are you acting so clueless? I predict that you will be very frustrated after the next two games at the Joe, and that your trolling/flaming will become even more intense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 I love posts like this. So a team that finished with less points and didn't make it out of the first rd is a better team than Anaheim? Your division was pathetic. The Sharks played 16 games against the Ducks and Stars. You own our team? Like you owned us by losing 9-4? Like you owned us losing the season series 3-1? Like you owned us in '94? Hasek is a shadow of his former self. 8 goals against in one game was a record. Nabokov will outplay him easily... How about when we owned you in 95 ? Bring up 94 and I bring up 95 , oh dont remeber , WE SCORED 6 GOALS A GAME. Nice , you won the season series against Ozzie and Macdonald , thats good. Losing 9-4 , that hurt , but its a regular season game , IT MEANS NOTHING. Hasek is a shadow of his former self ? 38 wins is bad right ? 4 in the playoffs in bad right ? The division thing , do your homework , yu guys have LA and Phoenix in your division , St Louis is bounds ahead of those teams. Nashville in the regualr season was better then aniheim (in points ) Get real dude , get ready to get ******* owned Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samadelphia 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 CLAIM: Wings aren't soft. LOGIC: Because they handled the Flames physical game. CONCLUSION: Wings aren't soft. Ahhh, an excellent use of false logic I applaud you. Let me translate your logic into english. Claim: Wings aren't soft. Logic: Because they managed to squeak by a weak team, Conclusion: The Wings' toughness is still very much in doubt. The only reason to use the Flames as an example of beating a tough team, is if you think it would also apply to the Sharks. So either there is no comparison, in which case nothing has been proven about the Wings toughness because you simply can't compare the Flames and Sharks, or... There was a comparison, and the poster was equating the Flames and Sharks. Which is it...? Why are you acting so clueless? I predict that you will be very frustrated after the next two games at the Joe, and that your trolling/flaming will become even more intense. And when the Sharks walk out of the Joe with at least a split, and maybe a sweep...? what will you do then? Acknowledge that you completely underestimated a vastly superior Sharks team? I know I would, and have, on the rare occasion that it has happened. Like last year against Edmonton. Will you have the balls to do that at least? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Ahhh, an excellent use of false logic I applaud you. Let me translate your logic into english. Claim: Wings aren't soft. Logic: Because they managed to squeak by a weak team, Conclusion: The Wings' toughness is still very much in doubt. The only reason to use the Flames as an example of beating a tough team, is if you think it would also apply to the Sharks. So either there is no comparison, in which case nothing has been proven about the Wings toughness because you simply can't compare the Flames and Sharks, or... There was a comparison, and the poster was equating the Flames and Sharks. Which is it...? And when the Sharks walk out of the Joe with at least a split, and maybe a sweep...? what will you do then? Acknowledge that you completely underestimated a vastly superior Sharks team? I know I would, and have, on the rare occasion that it has happened. Like last year against Edmonton. Will you have the balls to do that at least? This should be a good series , when we embarrase you this series , being civil about it afterwards wouldnt be a terrible thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 I like to drink pinesol. Ok Samadelphia (I know a guy who caught that from a chick last year), here's the thing- you're putting WAY too much into the size difference thing. If your hugest team in the league were actually in possession of this wonderfully omnipotent advantage you tote then they'd be 82-0-0 this season. What's that? They aren't? Well unless their record is better then 82-0-4 I'd say it's possible to beat a team of 7 foot tall, 350 lb monsters. Somehow Datsyuk manages to rack up fantastic goals, set-ups and highlight reel entries galore, but he's a midget compared to your man-beast-gods. And don't get me started on Hudler. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Ahhh, an excellent use of false logic I applaud you. Let me translate your logic into english. Claim: Wings aren't soft. Logic: Because they managed to squeak by a weak team, Conclusion: The Wings' toughness is still very much in doubt. The only reason to use the Flames as an example of beating a tough team, is if you think it would also apply to the Sharks. So either there is no comparison, in which case nothing has been proven about the Wings toughness because you simply can't compare the Flames and Sharks, or... There was a comparison, and the poster was equating the Flames and Sharks. Which is it...? And when the Sharks walk out of the Joe with at least a split, and maybe a sweep...? what will you do then? Acknowledge that you completely underestimated a vastly superior Sharks team? I know I would, and have, on the rare occasion that it has happened. Like last year against Edmonton. Will you have the balls to do that at least? Comparing us to last year ? Do you know anything at all about the wings ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 \Claim: Wings aren't soft. Logic: Because they managed to squeak by a weak team, Conclusion: The Wings' toughness is still very much in doubt. Flames are a very good hitting team. Just don't possess much of anything else (outside of goaltending). The only reason to use the Flames as an example of beating a tough team, is if you think it would also apply to the Sharks. This makes sense. Where is the comparison between the two teams being made? The Wings handled the Flames toughness; they are not soft; even though the Sharks are tougher, the same principle applies. The Flames are an example of the Wings toughness; they have no bearing on what San Jose is or is not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samadelphia 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Just for the record: Detroit went 15-3-5 vs Columbus/Chicago/St. Louis. 35 points in 24 games. San Jose went 12-4-0 vs LA/Phoenix...gaining 24 points in 16 games against the two worst teams in the conference. Detroit went 7-1 vs LA/Phoenix, for 14 points in 8 games vs the two worst. San Jose went 10-2-0 vs Columbus/Chicago/St. Louis to get 20 points in 12 games. So against five of the six worst teams in the Conference, Detroit went 22-4-5 for 49 points in 31 games, while San Jose went 22-6-0 for 44 points in 28 games. That means, excluding head-to-head games, Detroit went 27-12-8 for 62 points in 47 games against Playoff clubs, Edmonton, Colorado, and the East, while San Jose went 26-19-5 for 57 points in 50 games against those same opponents. So in other words...Detroit gained more points and more wins in fewer games against better teams, while San Jose gained points at the same rate against weak teams. Please never try the 'weak division' argument when it's so easily refuted. But wait, I thought the regular season didn't mean anything. Because if it suddenly does, the you must acknowledge these stats. 3-1 season series. 9-4 and 5-1 at home. So does regular season mean something or not...? The Flames are an example of the Wings toughness; they have no bearing on what San Jose is or is not. This only makes sense if you consider the Flames a tough team. And if you do, then you are in for a big surprise, is all I'm saying... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 But wait, I thought the regular season didn't mean anything. Because if it suddenly does, the you must acknowledge these stats. 3-1 season series. 9-4 and 5-1 at home. So does regular season mean something or not...? Go Away Please. You comparing games agaisnt the sharks (which do mean nothing) and then to our division , which is BS anyways. Just stop , Regular season means nothing now. This only makes sense if you consider the Flames a tough team. And if you do, then you are in for a big surprise, is all I'm saying... Since when are the Sharks a tough team anyway , Size doesnt always matter. If it did , Robert Lang would be leading the league in points and Hits Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
superstarsingh 23 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 We are amazing at home and Sj will not be able to handle the JLA atmosphere. We will win at the Joe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tunbo Batman Report post Posted April 25, 2007 i just don't get the "best team in hockey" and "vastly superior" parts. two very good teams will face each other in an exciting and probably long series, but the guy just keeps stirring s*** up. i guess i'll just leave it at that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samadelphia 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Go Away Please. Yep, that's what I thought. Blow the argument all to hell and this is your response... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
superstarsingh 23 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 i just don't get the "best team in hockey" and "vastly superior" parts. two very good teams will face each other in an exciting and probably long series, but the guy just keeps stirring s*** up. i guess i'll just leave it at that. The dude is a dumbass. Leave it. If the Sharks were better than us, they would have won the conference. If they were the best team in hockey, the Sabres would not be the President's Trophy champs. If they were vastly superior they would have swept the Preds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Yep, that's what I thought. Blow the argument all to hell and this is your response... That's like a screaming child at the mall gloating and implying having wittily won a verbal joust with their cheap mother at Toys R Us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 Yep, that's what I thought. Blow the argument all to hell and this is your response... Can you not read , my argument was under that part , But I did mean it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bringback91 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 I vote Spamadelphia gets his own little topic. You know, one he can wallow around in. He's already apparently in his own little world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
superstarsingh 23 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 I vote Spamadelphia gets his own little topic. You know, one he can wallow around in. He's already apparently in his own little world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Rule_1010 4 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 I just think that a player, especially during the playoffs, should be smarter than what Guiren did. A player should never say or do anything that would even remotely give the opposing team the idea that you are taking them lightly or over confident. It just motivates the team more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 (edited) *** Majority of Posts *** You know whats funny to me? It's fans that talk like they're a part of the team. Like we're all of a sudden going to see "Samadelphia" on the back of a Sharks jersey centering a line of Cheechoo and Bell. Edited April 25, 2007 by Never Forget Mac #25 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Rule_1010 4 Report post Posted April 25, 2007 (edited) I vote Spamadelphia gets his own little topic. You know, one he can wallow around in. He's already apparently in his own little world. LMAO I can honestly say that every one of Spamadelphia's posts made me laugh because they were so ignorant and untrue. Edited April 25, 2007 by Wings_Rule_1010 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
