(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Gee, what a surprise–Toronto mediot Damien Cox is calling last year’s Cup finalists both flukes because of their travails this season. Oh, he tries not to say it, but please–that’s about as transparent as a piece of Scotch invis-o-tape on a windowpane.
I tell you what, if it’s not some smacktard sore loser with no imagination and a small e-penis trying (and failing) to drop garbage in my commentbox on his employer’s time and nickel, it’s a Leafs columnist who still holds a grudge over the 2002 ECF and the Leafs getting the bulk of their Cup wins knocked off the Cup by the Hurricanes.
Memo to Damien Cox: You CAN get those photos of the last Leafs Cup team colorized by hand, yanno. All you need is a little talent (which you apparently don’t have) and some photo-quality oil paints.
I tell you what, kids–nothing pisses me off more than some clueless know-nothing calling a team’s accomplishment a “fluke” for no real reason other than sheer assy bitterness…except for excuse-making by sore losers with a martyr complex. Memo to “The Troll”: Your comments get trashed without me even seeing them–the only indication I have that you’re trying to post anything is your IP address showing up on my statcounter. You’re the only Sabres fan person that I have on the comment-blacklist.
My favorite bit is this one:
Still, having both the Oilers and Hurricanes miss the playoffs would, to some degree, put a giant asterisk beside last season’s Cup finals. Nobody suggested either team was a powerhouse or a squad rivaling the Canadiens of the late 1970s or the Islanders of the early 1980s. But nobody screamed “FLUKE!” either. Still, right about now, that’s kind of how it looks.
Lemme clue you in to a universal truth, Damien: no team that makes it to a title game/series is a “fluke”–not a one, not ever. The teams that make it deserves to be there, and the team that wins deserves to win. Period. Were the Devils (may they fester in Nastrand) called a fluke in 1996, 2002, and 2004? Were the Red Wings called a fluke in 1996*, 1999, and 2003? Were the Habs called a fluke in 1994 or the Rangers called a fluke in 1995? No–certainly not by anyone with a clue (which, I guess, leaves Mr. Cox out of the equation). Why? Pry cos they’re not in the Southeast Division or a shadow of their once-dynastic selves–but then, that’s just my perspective.
The only flukes are the ones that infest your liver and your lungs–and if you have those, then you might want to see medical attention. As for me, I’m going to go back to cheering for my team and not giving a damn what any of you mooks have to say about them.
Go Canes, and to Nastrand with the rest of you.
*: For the history-impaired, 1996 is the season after the Red Wings got pwnt in the Finals by the Devils.
“no team that makes it to a title game/series is a “fluke”–not a one, not ever.”
And certainly none that had to get through a few best-of-7 series to do it. Any team can have an off night or an off-the-charts night and it’s, IMO, why the NCAA basketball tournament usually has a Cinderella every year. But it doesn’t happen four times against the same team over a two-week period. It might happen one or two games, but the one who pulls off the four wins most often *earned* them. And if they *were* a fluke, then we usually found out in the next round.
You know they’d be saying the exact same drell if we won back to back… oh its just a fluke.. they are just getting lucky… the rest of the league is awful.. ad nasuem… who cares… this years team is a totally different team, what with guys missing half the season to injuries and several late season key players leaving (i guess they were rentals after all.. )… 06 may be the Canes first cup, but it will not be thier last.
I’ll preface this by saying that the Hurricanes are a good team. I’ll also add that the Stanley Cup is the hardest title to win in all of sports–not only do you have to plow through a seemingly endless string of regular-season games, but you have to emerge victorious from four best-of-seven series in which the intensity is ratcheted up tenfold.
That said, the Hurricanes got several MAJOR breaks during last year’s playoffs, most of which their fans don’t acknowledge. To wit:
FIRST ROUND: Carolina goes down 2-0, after which Montreal loses captain Saku Koivu to an eye injury.
SECOND ROUND: No real breaks here, unless you count Martin Brodeur forgetting that he’s Martin Brodeur.
THIRD ROUND: The already-depleted Sabres lose their top four defensemen, yet still lead the Hurricanes 2-1 heading into the third period. And then the puck gets lost in a crowd before Rod Brind’Amour swoops in to knock in the game-winner.
FOURTH ROUND: The Oilers lose Conn Smythe contender Dwayne Roloson in the first game, yet still extend Carolina to seven games before bowing out.
If any one of those things doesn’t happen, Carolina simply wouldn’t have won the Cup last year. I can’t recall a Cup-winning team getting more breaks in a single post-season–the only team that comes close since 1980 is the 1993 Canadiens, IMO, who won an inordinate amount of overtime games on their way to the title.
So–fluke? Not exactly. But damned lucky? Sure. And it’s no surprise that they’re struggling this year–they simply weren’t “all that” last year so much as they were “nearly all that with several large breaks falling in their laps each round.” Which isn’t a bad place to be as a franchise.
Oh right, and the Sabres weren’t lucky last season either I guess. Had the Flyers not been saddled with key injuries, they’d have finished the Sabres off. Had the Sens not quit, they’d have beaten the Sabres.
You see where I’m going with this?
Do I hear you say the same things about the Oilers? No? Why not–just because they didn’t have the opportunity to beat the Sabres?
Every team has luck. I guess the Hurricanes were lucky the whole season–or did you not see their regular-season record last year?
Or perhaps you’re just conveniently ignoring it because it’ll shoot your argument full of holes.
A ‘fluke’ would be Cox writing an article worth reading.
There is no such thing as luck in sports… hard work and determination make things work out your way. I guess the fact that Carolina lead the league for a majority of the season and fell only a few points short of a presidents trophy (that we didnt want anyway since detroit got WTFPWNED in the first round)…. LOL… Let the haters be haters and we’ll keep celebrating… injuries be damned.. thats part of the game and you have to play through them.. if you dont have depth then you shouldnt be in the playoffs anyway… we won the Cup fair and square and there nothing you can say that will mean our names wont be on that ring for the next 115 years.
AQ, you’re on a tangent. Let me bring you back in line:
1. The Flyers being “saddled with key injuries” is a joke. Philly is the Old NHL; Buffalo is the face of the New NHL. It was obvious last season which team was better; arguing that Philly was better than Buffalo is a waste of time. As for the Sens, they’re simply quitters. It was a good matchup for Buffalo because Ruff has constantly pushed his team to a second gear in the playoffs; Murray has done the opposite.
2. The Hurricanes’ regular-season record was inflated because they played in the Southeast Division. The Northeast was clearly a tougher division; it’s still true this season, with Buffalo and Ottawa about where they finished last year (only reversed), and Montreal and Toronto fighting for playoff berths. But what happened in the Southeast? The Thrashers improved, the Lightning returned to form, the Capitals gained some feistiness courtesy of Alexander Ovechkin, and suddenly the Hurricanes have dropped 20 points in the standings.
Finally, if you see legitimate criticism as “hatin’” and constantly say “we” and “our” when you’re talking about your favorite team, you’ve lost your objectivity. Objectively, the Hurricanes got some massive breaks in every round - and if they’d lost their top four defensemen last season and their best playmaking center, I doubt the Sabres would have let them hang around for 7 games. Make of that what you will.
Let me bring you back in line
If by “bring you back in line” you meant “leave you rolling on the floor laughing”, then you’ve succeeded.
Enjoy your delusions, kiddo–and don’t talk to me about weak divisions until you go troll the Central Division blogs a few times with your crack-addled spew.
Hey Chet….
On point #2,
Last season, Carolina was 14-5-1 versus the “superior” NE division last season.
Buffalo was 11-8-1 versus the “inferior” SE division.
Both teams were 6-3-1 on the road against the opposite division.
Carolina was 8-2-0 at home against the NE division while Buffalo was only 5-5-0 on their home ice against the “weaker” SE division.
Make of that what you will.
Upon further review, AQ, I see exactly where you’re going: Away from the facts, and away from the argument. Typical behavior, based on other posts. You’re making up non-existent injuries for Philadelphia and then shifting the argument to “Central Division blogs,” which have nothing to do with the undisputed gifts the Hurricanes received last year from the injury gods.
I stand by my statement: “The Hurricanes got several MAJOR breaks during last year’s playoffs, most of which their fans don’t acknowledge.” The facts of the breaks aren’t in dispute; the evidence that their fans won’t acknowledge these facts is strengthened by the responses in this thread.
I see exactly where you’re going: Away from the facts, and away from the argument.
Translation: Waaaaaah! Nobody agrees with me!
I have a challenge for you: Pretend I’m a Kings fan and made the same assertions. Come up with a rational counter that doesn’t hinge on team affiliation.
BTW, two of you don’t agree with me? Of course you don’t - you’re Hurricane fans. (See where I’m going with this?)
Come up with a rational counter that doesn’t hinge on team affiliation.
I’m still waiting for you to explain the Central Division to me. In any other division, Nashville and Detroit aren’t any better than 90 points, but in the Central they can feast on their three weak sisters in St. Louis, Chicago, and Columbus.
So what gives? Why is the super-competitive (except for Florida and–for now–Washington) Southeast a “weak” division, yet the Central is not? How does playing in a “soft” division explain the last two Cup champs being from the Southeast Division? Does Detroit get a pass for some reason, because they’re O6?
You’re on the clock, Chester–start ’splainin’.
The Central Division is similarly weak, and was even weaker last year (which helped bolster Detroit). When people went scurrying for reasons Detroit got bumped by Edmonton in the first round last year, this factor was universally pointed to: The Red Wings built their gaudy points record by beating weaker teams, so they weren’t really as good as they looked. Whether Nashville and Detroit “aren’t any better than 90 points” is conjecture on your part; I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that Carolina would have no chance at the playoffs if they played in the Atlantic or Northeast this year. (By your logic, though, it would be true.)
So Detroit doesn’t get a “free pass,” and they really have nothing to do with this thread (which is about the dreaded “f-bomb” coming up regarding last year’s Hurricanes squad). Again, this comes back to what I said about last year: Saying that Carolina put up a better record than Buffalo doesn’t mean much, given that Carolina played in a weaker division. (Check the overall records of the teams in each division.) Detroit is peripheral to the conversation.
Tell you what: Give me your opinion on why Edmonton and Carolina are likely to both miss the playoffs. My opinion goes like this:
1. Carolina was a good team last year, but they weren’t as good as the championship banner made them look.
2. Atlanta improved, which cost them points they usually take for granted (and quickly gobbled up at the beginning of the season).
3. Tampa Bay got its groove back.
4. The goaltending situation just isn’t the same this year, and it’s probably harder for Cam Ward to be The Man than “The Other Half of the Tandem,” as he was last year.
Any of this “waah” comentary is worthless. I could just as easily reply, “Waaah - the haters think we’re a fluke!” I think the Hurricanes were a good team who played really hard and got three major breaks; take away the breaks in the conference finals or the Stanley Cup, and Carolina probably wouldn’t have won the whole enchilada. But again, some fans (especially the two partisans in this thread) refuse to acknowledge that these breaks played any role in their team’s march to the Cup, so they don’t understand how someone could look at their team and think, “Wow, what a fluke.” I understand it entirely, even if I think the sentiment carries the truth too far sideways.
Also, keep in mind that the “fluke” label comes about only because the team won the Cup. If Carolina had lost Game Seven to Buffalo, for example, they’d be on the list of “teams that struggled or disappointed but should bounce back next year.” The word “fluke” only comes up because they won - again, not a bad place to be as a franchise, but a predictable argument in the sports media when the defending champion struggles to make the playoffs.
The Central Division is similarly weak, and was even weaker last year (which helped
bolster Detroit).
Thank you, I accept your surrender.
Go to Hell Buffalo
So let’s see: You contended the Central Division was weak, I agreed, and you decided to ignore everything. How very typical of you. Why does this site get any pub as a “good” blog? I’m at a loss to understand it - but I certainly understand the paltry number of coments on most subjects. After all, you sidestep any critique of your beloved Hurricanes and respond to every thread with canned tripe rather than engage in a legitimate conversation whenever you don’t agree with someone’s position. What a waste of bandwidth.
All you have done is assert that the Hurricanes are a fluke because they 1) “play in a weak division” and 2) beat the Sabres on the way to the Cup last season.
When I 1) pointed to a division that is, in actuality, weaker than the Southeast and 2) turned your “if the Sabres hadn’t been hurt they’d have pwned you!!!1″ argument back on you, your best retort boiled down to “that doesn’t matter, the Hurricanes are a fluke and the Southeast is a weak division, the Sabres rule!”
The only difference between your comments and mine is that I used fewer words.
Chet, you still didn’t get the memo about Carolina’s performance versus the “superior” NE division last year?
To rehash, Carolina was 14-5-1 against the “superior” NE division. They earned 1.45 points per game.
Buffalo was 11-8-1 versus the “weak” SE division, inculding a weak 5-5-0 in their own building. They earned 1.15 points per game.
Compound that over a whole “theoretical” season, and Carolina finishes with 119 points and Buffalo finishes with 94.
If the competition was weaker in the SE division, why couldn’t the mighty Sabres do better than they did?
Chet,
Maybe the fact that you can’t understand why acidqueen has a “Good Blog” is the fact that you don’t have the high level of education it takes to understand logic and rationale. That’s all she uses. You use narcissism to make your arguments which makes them flawed from the get go. Thus you could never see this blog as a “Good blog” because you just are too tainted by the buffalo sabres slug tinted glasses you wear. For every argument that you try to make that shows acid queen is biased, she gives you facts, and you end up showing yourself to be biased. In other words, only intelligent, fact finding, rational creatures will find this a good blog. Go back to euclidean geometry to learn your logic then come back and you will see why this is a good blog. It’s all about intelligence and logic. You just don’t have it. Thus will never see anything rational as good. Canes won the cup. you didn’t. Cue sabre fan whining here.
Apolinar1: You’re an idiot. Please stop talking.
AcidQueen: I said, specifically, that I would NOT call Carolina a fluke champ, so your claim that I said so is nothing more than willful ignorance on your part (par for the course). There’s no denying that the Hurricanes got some huge breaks in three of four rounds last year - only someone who drinks the “Canes are great because they won” Kool-Aid would claim otherwise. You’ve done nothing but put words in my mouth. Go back and read what I said.
Redblack: The Northeast went 136-85-29 in non-division play last year for 1.20 points per game; the Southeast went 122-106-22 in non-division play last year for 1.06 points per game. Now we can work with your sample size of 40 games, or we can work with my sample size of 500 games, but I know where any statistician would put his money. Point-blank, the Southeast was decidedly below average last year - the average points per game last year was 1.11 due to OT/SO games, which is higher than the SE’s mark. The Northeast was a better division. Tampa Bay was the worst second-place team in the league last year, and the 20-point gap between the Lightning and the Hurricanes was the largest in the league.
Basically, every reply in this thread has come down to “The Hurricanes won last year, everyone should just get over it.” Fine; good for them. But you flamers can’t discuss last year’s run or this year’s failure at all - it’s a blind spot. That’s just fine. You’ve got all off-season now to think about it.
I hate the “fluke” thing in regards to the SC. It is the hardest trophy to win in professional sports. Bottom line, the Canes won it, fair and square (unlike the Stars vs. Buff but that’s an old tired rant).
Kudos to the Canes for their hard work last year and the great Cup Final. Cox’s article smacks of jealousy and pettiness. As AQ said, how come the fluke label doesn’t get thrown at other teams that have won and not made the playoffs the following year?
“…sore loser with no imagination and a small e-penis”
I have no idea what this means, but it’s pretty damned stellar.
Thank you, I do my best.