Doggy 130 Report post Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) I leave with 5 mins to go pretty sure the Hawks can put a bow on this little number and SJ instantly scores two goals?? WTF??? I hope the Preds can stitch up the Sharks in reg. tomorrow and give Detroit top spot. Sharks. Lol. Damn, you're pigheaded. Fine, Sharks have it easy. Edited March 26, 2009 by Doggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MrSandMan Report post Posted March 26, 2009 They lost because they weren't up to the challenge? Are you joking? They did compete, but just didn't happen to win. It doesn't mean they weren't up for the challenge. So let me guess, the Wings weren't up for the challenge in 2007, 2006, or 2004? No matter what happens, you have to realize this is a sport, and there are two competing teams in a game. Anything can happen. And you shouldn't be criticizing the Sharks about the shootouts, the Wings have been in plenty of shootouts this season. The Wings have been involved in 9 shootouts, just one shy of the Shark's 10. So I don't see where you get off starting to criticize them for being involved in shootouts. We're talking about different things, I think (I hope). I am talking about winning the series, you are talking about a 1 game loss in a possible 7-game playoff series. The way I see it, it is the best-of-7. If a team can't win in the best of 7, then the winning team is... well, the winner. This means the losing team obviously wasn't up to the challenge. Wings lost on 04, 06 and 07 because they couldn't get it done. I can't make excuses for them and say... "well, they [the Wings] only lost because the ice had a skate gouge where the puck happened to snag, then a bad draft from the crowd screaming so loud caused the puck to slide into our net due to the physics of Murphy's law, we should have won that game, thus won the series". That sounds kind of.... like bad excuses, ey? Also, I think (I hope) you missed my point about the Sharks playing in overtime. My point is (and I hope you agree with me on this - I know you are a smart cookie) [so I'll make an example] a team that plays 7-periods (140 minutes) per game, in each game for the 7-game series would be more tired than a team that only played 5-games @ 60 minutes per game. You would agree with this, wouldn't you? If you say "yes". Then would you agree that SJ playing like crap for 45 minutes per night to force OT down to the wire, may not be in their best interest for the grueling journey to the cup? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aflac9262 211 Report post Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) We're talking about different things, I think (I hope). I am talking about winning the series, you are talking about a 1 game loss in a possible 7-game playoff series. The way I see it, it is the best-of-7. If a team can't win in the best of 7, then the winning team is... well, the winner. This means the losing team obviously wasn't up to the challenge. Wings lost on 04, 06 and 07 because they couldn't get it done. I can't make excuses for them and say... "well, they [the Wings] only lost because the ice had a skate gouge where the puck happened to snag, then a bad draft from the crowd screaming so loud caused the puck to slide into our net due to the physics of Murphy's law, we should have won that game, thus won the series". That sounds kind of.... like bad excuses, ey? Also, I think (I hope) you missed my point about the Sharks playing in overtime. My point is (and I hope you agree with me on this - I know you are a smart cookie) [so I'll make an example] a team that plays 7-periods (140 minutes) per game, in each game for the 7-game series would be more tired than a team that only played 5-games @ 60 minutes per game. You would agree with this, wouldn't you? If you say "yes". Then would you agree that SJ playing like crap for 45 minutes per night to force OT down to the wire, may not be in their best interest for the grueling journey to the cup? I guess we just define it differently. Like if a team refused to play the game, or forfeited, then that would mean they weren't up for the challenge. I guess it can have extended meanings though. The Sharks do not play crappy hockey for 45 minutes every night. Last night's game was a very competitive game between two good hockey clubs. Even before Chicago established their substantial lead, San Jose was competing. As for the playoffs, they didn't win, it still doesn't mean that they weren't up for the challenge. They competed, but just didn't happen to be successful. It doesn't mean they weren't up and attempting the challenge though. I don't know if I really buy into the argument that number of OT sessions during the season, predict much of what will happen in the playoffs. For instance, our lovely Detroit Red Wings last season were involved in 14 OT sessions (Even more times than the Sharks have this season!). During the playoffs, they obviously only had to go to OT 2 times (NSH, PIT)! Of course, they ended up winning the Stanley Cup. So really, I guess you'd have to take that with a grain of salt. Edited March 26, 2009 by aflac9262 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holiday 0 Report post Posted March 26, 2009 *she There are no women on the internet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MidMichSteve 1,115 Report post Posted March 26, 2009 There are no women on the internet. Boy, you better hide! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vladifan 680 Report post Posted March 26, 2009 Boy, you better hide! HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYAAAAAAAAAAAAA - HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! ...small, but wiry..... heh heh...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
