Pears Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 Right. And Boston was 100%, we were only 85%, which is why they won, right? If that's what helps you sleep at night, sure, you're free to believe what you'd like. I don't expect him to play. He was injured. Ryan Kesler was not. That's why Mason Raymond could not play, while Ryan Kesler could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Our team was decimated, which is a fact you continue to ignore for whatever reason. Is it because you always want to be right no matter what, and refuse to be proven otherwise? Pathetic King, just pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConnorFutureGM Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Our team was decimated, which is a fact you continue to ignore for whatever reason. Is it because you always want to be right no matter what, and refuse to be proven otherwise? Pathetic King, just pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 King's point: Both Canucks and Boston had injuries. Boston won. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 It has been noted that Raymond's shot has not been as good as it once was since his broken thumb injury in the 2010 - 11 season. So, in your opinion, is Raymond playing at 100%, is he playing not at 100%, or is he just useless as some others around here contend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 My point is that he continues to refute clear facts, because he doesn't want to admit he is wrong. He thinks we were injured, for example, he said Kesler wasn't injured, so I asked him to explain why he needed surgery and all the rehab in the off-season. And you know what's funny? He didn't even reply, because he didn't want to admit he was wrong. You can go along with him, and continue to refute the clear fact that we were alot more decimated than Boston was. I've accepted that we lost, and naturally there are reason's for that, Injuries IMO are one of the biggest reason's why, there are other's but I think if we had been as healthy as the Bruins the result would have been different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Just because nobody trumpets how hurt they are as loud as the Vancouver Canucks do - every single year, month, week, day - doesn't mean that other teams aren't equally bruised. To suggest that Boston was of perfect health and thus had an advantage over the Vancouver Canucks, who led the series 2-0, before choking, is just sad and contributes heavily to why the Canucks are so universally hated. Nobody likes excuses. All Vancouver had to do was not lose 4/5 games to Boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 So though I admit, it isn't the only reason we lost, my point is that you continue to refute the pure fact that compared to Boston we were completely decimated and were nothing like the team that was able to roll right through any team we played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 No, that is not a "pure fact" at all. Somehow I doubt that you're a part of either Boston or Vancouver's medical team. And I'll again remind you that Vancouver was up 2-0 in the series. If Boston swept the series, your argument might hold more ground. But the simple fact is that Vancouver choked. They got to the big stage, and were knobby-kneed schoolgirls in Boston. 8-1 in game 3 (inexplicable), 4-0 in game 4. It was Vancouver's for the taking; the only way that Boston could've won was by beating Vancouver in 4/5 games. And that's what happened. And now you're blaming injuries. And this is why everyone hates the Canucks. As for your "roll right through any team we played" assertion - did you miss the first round? You know, the one where the 8th seed took us to OT in Game 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Your definition for an injured player is freaking pathetic 'oh yeah a player has to not be able to play games to be considered injured.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 No, that is not a "pure fact" at all. Somehow I doubt that you're a part of either Boston or Vancouver's medical team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Anywhere but Vancouver, that's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Why do you continue to be so ignorant by ignoring the fact, that's as clear as day, that our team was freaking injured???? Your definition for an injured player is freaking pathetic 'oh yeah a player has to not be able to play games to be considered injured.' Screw off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 If you don't believe they were injured then please explain all the surgery and Rehab they needed after the playoffs, please do I would like to hear your explanation. Why do you think they didn't? Roberto Luongo that's why, he was no question our best player in our wins, without him we would have been swept believe me. Oh I'm sorry I didn't know we lost that series. I said roll through not destroy, there are going to be bumps in the road, but at the end of the day our team still rolled past them and onto the 2nd round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Yes Luongo was very, very noticeable in that series. He definitely won 3 games for us almost singlehandedly, and some might argue that he lost 4 games in that same fashion. We didn't lose that series against Chicago, no. We didn't roll past them though, we scraped past them after being ahead by the widest of margins. What appeared to be a potential sweep turned into a nail-biting potential heart attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Either way all this is beside the point, my point was that if this team was healthy that I think we would have kept winning, like we had all year, but this is just King's way of sidetracking to make his argument seem better than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Like I said, the Canucks must've been healthy in games 1 & 2, which they won. And before mentioning Luongo, Tim Thomas was equally good in those games, probably even better. Did a wave of Avian Flu pervade the dressing room once they hit Boston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm not sure what your point is here besides doging the facts. Our team was very limited, Luongo was able to hold to folt amazingly and he won us games 1, 2 and 5. The series went along and with the Suspension and injuries increasing it got worse, Lu couldn't hold to fort forever. Like I said I don't know what your trying to say other than continue to dodge clear facts & sidetrack to make your initial look better now that I have put alot of holes in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 You amuse me. Out of curiosity, if Blackhawk fans told you that the only reason the Canucks beat them in round 1 was because David Bolland and Brent Seabrook didn't play in a significant amount of the games, would you agree with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Don't know, don't care. If he's playing, in an NHL game, in 2012, it should be safe to assume that he is healthy enough to play, meaning that he is not injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.