Want To Bet Me *Anything* That Ottawa Wins The Stanley Cup?
- Thread starter Michael Griffiths
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
MissVelvetDress_75
Blue Crack Addict
will the two of you just go ahead and make out already.
MissVelvetDress_75
Blue Crack Addict
that is very big of you chiz
Well I've been reading some of the arguments that you guys have posted... and frankly, I don't know why you're arguing. Neither of you have watched the Eastern Conference with much interest in the past few years... so how can you judge this "mythical experience factor"?
Ottawa has had a lot of experience, it's just that they've run into Toronto or New Jersey the past few years... the best 2 Eastern playoff teams (as of the last half decade). So, by playing the best teams you would think they could develop character... maybe even a playoff identity. But, the same thing held true this year... they tanked "when it mattered". That is a reflection of heart, like chizip says, which is only derived through character-building events... like winning a tight series. The OTT/NJ series didn't come down to luck or one play... the fact of the matter remains that it was Ottawa's series to take. They lacked that "killer instinct" that inhibited them from eliminating Toronto last year as well. In my opinion they're afraid to win... because I simply have no better explanation.
If you're wondering why Anaheim is winning without a lot of experience, then you're a fool. The Ducks have a lot of experience in the playoffs individually (Steve Thomas, Adam Oates, etc)... it's just that this is the first time they have won collectively. Plus, the surprise and underdog factor has been on their side from the beginning.
Go Team Double C+AV
Ottawa has had a lot of experience, it's just that they've run into Toronto or New Jersey the past few years... the best 2 Eastern playoff teams (as of the last half decade). So, by playing the best teams you would think they could develop character... maybe even a playoff identity. But, the same thing held true this year... they tanked "when it mattered". That is a reflection of heart, like chizip says, which is only derived through character-building events... like winning a tight series. The OTT/NJ series didn't come down to luck or one play... the fact of the matter remains that it was Ottawa's series to take. They lacked that "killer instinct" that inhibited them from eliminating Toronto last year as well. In my opinion they're afraid to win... because I simply have no better explanation.
If you're wondering why Anaheim is winning without a lot of experience, then you're a fool. The Ducks have a lot of experience in the playoffs individually (Steve Thomas, Adam Oates, etc)... it's just that this is the first time they have won collectively. Plus, the surprise and underdog factor has been on their side from the beginning.
Go Team Double C+AV
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Cujo, I can accept most of what you say here, but just last night you said it could have been anyone's game, but more importantly you said Ottawa played "valiantly" and that it really came down to New Jersey's stingy defence. Did you change your mind since last night?
Last edited:
Michael Griffiths said:
No I didn't... if you notice I said it was Ottawa's series to win. But, when you don't go the extra mile to get to the net, finish your forecheck, and maximize your opportunities... a stingy defense like NJ won't give you second chances. They don't make many mistakes, so you have to force them into bad situations. Ottawa did a decent job of this, but in the last few minutes of game 7 when it counted they folded like a lawnchair. It was anyone's game theoretically, but since Ottawa couldn't tie it up...
then their valiant effort to come back was in vain.
I think I've been pretty consistent with the things I've said... the key being that you create your own luck, and luck is something that winning teams have. A virtue that they often achieve through experience.
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Just to add, I really don't think in such a close game as that, with both teams playing at such a high level, and so tightly, that the game would come down to who was going to "tank". Teams that tank don't come back from a 3-1 deficit and win two games in OT in a series. Teams that tank don't keep the pressure on the entire game, go down by a goal, only to tie it up again in the 3rd period. No, this Ottawa team was a *lot* different than those in past seasons. This team lost not because they tanked, but because of one mental error. Eveyone pretty much knows that, if they watched the entire game and series.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I thought they went that extra mile quite a few times in the last 7 minutes when it counted most, but Brodeur stoned them each time. Those are the breaks, though.cujo said:
They tanked because they lost in the last few minutes... there are various meanings of the word tank.
Being swept in a series, or blowing it in the final minutes is tanking in my book.
And, if you had been watching Ottawa in the past few seasons, YOU would know that this is the same team that has lost every year. Trust me, I watched this series and every single Battle of Ontario... I know this team, that's why I said they would tank... and that's what happened.
PS- I was mostly trying to be nice in my post about Ottawa having a valiant effort... I didn't want to rub in the fact that they lost, but since you persist on the subject I felt it necessary to respond a little more crudely.
Being swept in a series, or blowing it in the final minutes is tanking in my book.
And, if you had been watching Ottawa in the past few seasons, YOU would know that this is the same team that has lost every year. Trust me, I watched this series and every single Battle of Ontario... I know this team, that's why I said they would tank... and that's what happened.
PS- I was mostly trying to be nice in my post about Ottawa having a valiant effort... I didn't want to rub in the fact that they lost, but since you persist on the subject I felt it necessary to respond a little more crudely.
Michael Griffiths said:
Stingy D
Stingy D
Not Brodeur.. can't you see?
He's a good goalie for sure, but the difference in the last few minutes was the inability of Ottawa to get chances down low (a product of NJ's collapsing defensive system). Point shots are a long shot, especially if no one is in front of the net to shake things up.
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Hey, no worries Cujo...although in re: to the "valient" effort comment you made last night, I do prefer honesty over "nice". I like "nice" but only if it's honest. Anyway, I know you probably don't want to hear this, but I think you're a little biased on this one. The Sens didn't tank anymore than NJ would have if they didn't get the break at the end. In the last few minutes of the game, Ottawa was the team pouring on the pressure, not NJ. Ottawa was the team who was causing turnovers and mistakes. They were the team "going that extra mile" as you say. They may have not gotten to Brodeur on every shot, but they were the ones with the pressure. It came down to one split second play, and that hardly defines the word "tank" in my books. Anyway, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Maybe we're both on to something, lol 
Of course I'm biased... I hate New Jersey, and I hate Ottawa. But doesn't that give me the perfect vantage point for analysis? Seeing as I don't favor one over the other...
NJ does have that "it" factor that makes them win... and OTT has that "it" factor that makes them lose. I've seen it develop in both teams... where does bias play a role in it?
PS- I do not agree to disagree... you play for the other team Michael.
NJ does have that "it" factor that makes them win... and OTT has that "it" factor that makes them lose. I've seen it develop in both teams... where does bias play a role in it?
PS- I do not agree to disagree... you play for the other team Michael.
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I guess I don't see the "it" factor of losing which Ottawa has "cultivated", if you will, because I haven't been cheering against them for the past few seasons like you have been. You're a Leafs fan, so really, the inherent bias makes sense. I also don't want to see it that way because my Canucks are very much in the same boat as Ottawa. Vancouver has always had bad luck in the playoffs, and everyone calls them "chokers" just like Ottawa. I prefer to see the Canucks as a young team who are still learning. To give in and say they'll never win 'cause they're chokers is taking the easy way out, IMO.
I agree... it is taking the easy way out. I honestly can't give you a good reason why they lose... they just bloody well do. I think it is safe to call them chokers, if they are expected to win the East almost every season... like Philadelphia. The Choker label is not something that is earned overnight, and I bet it does affect the mentality of the returning players future success.
Here's my challenge to Ottawa... win. Win so that I can't take the "easy" way out and call them chokers... but, by losing aren't they taking the "easy" way out? Maybe I'll gain a little courtesy, and maybe some sympathy for a team that loses to the Devils if they could for once win. Which is probably something you could even say about my namesake... although, I'd give you a royal kick in the ass if you did
Here's my challenge to Ottawa... win. Win so that I can't take the "easy" way out and call them chokers... but, by losing aren't they taking the "easy" way out? Maybe I'll gain a little courtesy, and maybe some sympathy for a team that loses to the Devils if they could for once win. Which is probably something you could even say about my namesake... although, I'd give you a royal kick in the ass if you did
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Or even the Leafs in general for that matter. Oh, I'm sorry, that was too easy.
Fair enough. Let me ask you one thing though... do you base your opinion on watching the games? Or the same old bias Canuck fans have against the Leafs?
Touch?
Case Closed.
I know what your answer will be, so you don't have to reply about how Toronto has no Cups to show for it. Take the OTT defensive breakdown and multiply that by 15... that's an average Leaf game.
Touch?
Case Closed.
I know what your answer will be, so you don't have to reply about how Toronto has no Cups to show for it. Take the OTT defensive breakdown and multiply that by 15... that's an average Leaf game.
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Way too funny. A friend of mine is a Leafs fan, so yeah, I have seen quite a number of their games. And, yes, I am biased against them, I fully admit. They just don't provide the entertainment (for me) that the Canucks do (nor quite the win column). Bias aside, Vancouver is possibly the most exciting team in the league right now -- key word, being "exciting". I honestly think that brand of hockey will get them far in the playoffs and, yes, even to a Cup hopefully. But I digress...
Re: Toronto having no cups to show for it...actually, they do have quite a lot of Cups (which I know you know)...it's just that they haven't had one in, what, 36 years? Since the modern Sens have only been in the NHL for around 10 or 12 years, I'd hardly be all over them, especially since they haven't even had the budget nor the market the Leafs have had. I think what they've done is quite remarkable, when you think about it. Hey, 3 rounds, and 1 goal shy of the Stanley Cup final isn't anything to be ashamed of in my books.
Re: Toronto having no cups to show for it...actually, they do have quite a lot of Cups (which I know you know)...it's just that they haven't had one in, what, 36 years? Since the modern Sens have only been in the NHL for around 10 or 12 years, I'd hardly be all over them, especially since they haven't even had the budget nor the market the Leafs have had. I think what they've done is quite remarkable, when you think about it. Hey, 3 rounds, and 1 goal shy of the Stanley Cup final isn't anything to be ashamed of in my books.
Not at all shameful... but wasting an opportunity to win when you have a team that "on paper" is capable of doing it is shameful.
PS- the most exciting games I've ever seen were between Toronto and Vancouver... 6-5 scores quite often. Both teams are offensive in their philosophy, and I don't think you can label Toronto as a boring team. It just so happens that they play in a Conference notorious for trapping and tight defense. Lest you forget, TO was a Western team 6 years ago... and that character hasn't left them yet. That's why I've been lobbying for a TO, DET final for the past 6 years...
Toronto hasn't won a cup since 1967... so when I say "no cups to show for it", I mean in the present day game. 11 cups mean nothing if they all happened 36 years ago (sheesh, Curtis was born the summer they last won... maybe he is the curse?)
I know some hopeless Leaf fan out there will cling to that explanation.
PS- the most exciting games I've ever seen were between Toronto and Vancouver... 6-5 scores quite often. Both teams are offensive in their philosophy, and I don't think you can label Toronto as a boring team. It just so happens that they play in a Conference notorious for trapping and tight defense. Lest you forget, TO was a Western team 6 years ago... and that character hasn't left them yet. That's why I've been lobbying for a TO, DET final for the past 6 years...
Toronto hasn't won a cup since 1967... so when I say "no cups to show for it", I mean in the present day game. 11 cups mean nothing if they all happened 36 years ago (sheesh, Curtis was born the summer they last won... maybe he is the curse?)
I know some hopeless Leaf fan out there will cling to that explanation.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
You know what though, look at the many teams that became powerhouses, and a close look at their histories will show you the Sens are really no different. Even Detroit had to go through many growing pains in the early to mid 90s before they finally won, and they pretty much became the modern dynasty (if there is such a thing) of the NHL. Same with Colorado. As the Nordiques, they finally came together just before they left Quebec...but it took a while. I mean, even go back to the Oilers of the early 80s. They had all the talent, but "choked" each year in the playoffs, despite having stunning regular season success. In '83, they met the Islanders, and having torn through the rest of the league, with Gretzky setting a new playoff scoring point total record in the process, they bow out to the Isles in 4 straight, and Gretzky was totally shut out by Billy Smith and co. They were labelled as "chokers" as well. But then look what happened with these afformentioned teams. They went on to be great. I think it's better to have a team that *almost* makes it but doesn't than a team that doesn't make it far at all. Anyway, just thoughts to ponder.
Pondered I did. I grew up in Edmonton during the dynasty... maybe Ottawa will win one day, but I don't see them winning 5 Cups in a decade.
I see some of the parallels, but the league is too strong to have consumate chokers rise from the ashes to build a franchise. Win now, or you may never win at all... clich?s are fun.
I see some of the parallels, but the league is too strong to have consumate chokers rise from the ashes to build a franchise. Win now, or you may never win at all... clich?s are fun.
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
How old were you when Wayne played in Edmonton? I think I asked you this before.
Michael Griffiths said:
That's classified. But being a premium member I'm sure you'll have ways to determine it...
Actually, I was in Edmonton from '86-'90... but I was little at the time (3-7). I only remember the later years... you know, because of my drinking habits
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Holy crap, Cujo - you're 7 years younger than me! (My math is horrible, but you're 19 by the looks of things.) I'm shocked and ashamed. Don't ask me why. I thought you were like 30 or something (no offense). Anyway, so you don't remember Wayne in his prime? I'd say the last year of his prime was '93, even though his last scoring title was in '94. Any memories?
Last edited:
I remember his "tears" leaving Edmonton. Not much of his playing days though.
Thanks for calling me 30, I get that a lot. Maybe it's a compliment, or maybe I'm the oldest 19 year old in the world. Most likely the latter... I like to keep the illusion that I'm older. Get more respect that way...
haha... respect you say? I know, I don't get much... or deserve it either.
Thanks for calling me 30, I get that a lot. Maybe it's a compliment, or maybe I'm the oldest 19 year old in the world. Most likely the latter... I like to keep the illusion that I'm older. Get more respect that way...
haha... respect you say? I know, I don't get much... or deserve it either.
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
haha, so you never had the pleasure of watching Wayne "in the moment" when he still had the magic? Really, Cuj, I'm not just saying this, as you're such a fan of the sport, but I want you to know it saddens me you missed out on watching him in his prime. I mean, words can't describe the things he could somehow do night in and night out on the ice. It was litterally a different sport when he was on the ice. Magic, I tell you, magic...I want to get some old taped games...that woud be cool. Did you watch the 91 Canada Cup?
Last edited:
OP
OP
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
It's just not the same unless it's live. Trust me on this.
Similar threads
