AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 07/08: V Blades of Glory

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber


I am a fan of some teams-- so are you and therefore we both do have some biases-- what of it?

If you actually read my posts you will see that I have not exactly been too complementary of this year's Flames-- But they have turned a corner-- Not only have they been generally "deserving" of their wins on this win streak, they actually had several games in their preceding losing skid where they really outplayed the other team. So I am beginning to see them as more legitimate playoff squad.

I know that if you outplay the other team enough times the wins will come-- and in the Flames case they HAVE started to come



Answer me this . . . How many games have the Oil won in regulation and how is that particular number evidence of a superior team?

An unbelievably small number, and that proves what?

The teams are competing in the league and with the rules that they do.

Some teams have better goal-tending. Some are stacked at forward. Some compete in very weak divisions. Others beat the **** out of the opposition and try to win that way.

One team has been good at shoot-outs. So what?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

WTF? I don't think it's personal, but whatever. I'm sorry if that offended you.

But honestly, if it did...well, I'll leave it at that.

Go have a drink, and take a pill, Dave.

You know exactly what you were doing.

[Flubber]

NOW the weaknesses of the Flames

1. poor shootout play-- poor OT play
2. a general inability to finish outside the top line
3 still lack strong secondary scoring
4. Not because of tonight but I have my doubts about Conroy as an asset-- ditto Yelle
5. tendency to give up the big chance-- odd-man break or breakaway
6. Although they hit ok, not really big and strong-- often effective in the corners by out manning but very very very few strong one on one moves

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber


Lets ALL keep it to hockey-- mentioning drinking or motehrs or whatever is unecessary-- we can fight enough within the hockey realm

**** off.

[Asher]

Some teams have better goal-tending. Some are stacked at forward. Others beat the **** out of the opposition and try to win that way.

One team has been good at shoot-outs. So what?

Most of these things is relevant in the playoffs and the chase for the stanley cup, one is not. I thought this was made clear.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Some teams have better goal-tending. Some are stacked at forward. Others beat the **** out of the opposition and try to win that way.

One team has been good at shoot-outs. So what?

Most of these things is relevant in the playoffs and the chase for the stanley cup, one is not. I thought this was made clear.

One could note that to get to a shoot out a team has not been beaten in OT. That might have an impact in the play offs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Go have a drink, and take a pill, Dave.

You know exactly what you were doing.

Originally posted by notyoueither


**** off.

Wow. You're unreal.

You're the one trying to get the threads banned. The Oilers suck, but don't bring everyone else down with it.

I'm done for tonight so you can cool off.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither


One could note that to get to a shoot out a team has not been beaten in OT. That might have an impact in the play offs.

No, not scoring but not being scored on in one 5 min OT is not an essential skill.

[notyoueither]

Give it a stir, Asher.

It needs it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

No, not scoring but not being scored on in one 5 min OT is not an essential skill.

I thought you were done.

And defence in OT is not essential?

Under what colour sky on which planet?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I thought you were done.

And defence in OT is not essential?

Under what colour sky on which planet?

Stalemates in OT are useless. Duh. You need to score in OT to win. The Oil and the Flames each can't do that very well. The difference is the Flames can and do win in regulation enough to be a good team, the Oilers do not.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither




One team has been good at shoot-outs. So what?

1. They don't have them in the playoffs and
2. You need to be at least moderately ok at the other part of the game to get there-- I think I have said at least 3 or 4 times in this thread that I have been surprised at how well the Oil have played on some nights.


Again as I have said previosuly, if the OIL can succeed in the shootouts, good for them. Its the rules.. BUT their lack of success otherwise means they have lost in regulation more games than they have won by any method


Oh and its hypocritical to slam the Flames 'loser points" while trumpeting the Oil's shootout points. Both are in the rules-- If the Flames can exceed the Oil while getting one point for every tie to two for the Oil well, good for the Flames-- You can't have it both ways-- either you want to religiously measure sucess by how they actually count the points or you don't--

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


**** off.

See this is the crap I am talking about. I have done nothing even slighly rude toward you. This is where it gets really boring.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Stalemates in OT are useless. Duh. You need to score in OT to win. The Oil and the Flames each can't do that very well. The difference is the Flames can and do win in regulation enough to be a good team, the Oilers do not.

And I'll go back to... if the Flames didn't get points for losing, they would not be far ahead of the Oilers.

And you don't get points for losing in the playoffs.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber


See this is the crap I am talking about. I have done nothing even slighly rude toward you. This is where it gets really boring.

If you do not know why I said that in that situation, you are too stupid to explain it to.