PMAC Posted May 28, 2004 Share Posted May 28, 2004 Originally posted by FanPuck 33 Being a fluke isn't so much about luck as it is playing very well for a short period of time, surpassing the team's true ability. Wouldn't you call Carolina and Anaheim flukes? Both came out of nowhere to make the finals, then were awful the next season. In my opinion, and in most dictionaries, "fluke" means lucky. By your criteria the '95 Devils could be considered flukes because they won the Cup which many people weren't sure they could do and then missed the playoffs the next season. By your criteria the 1993 Habs were flukes because they went out early the next season. I said it before, I'll say it again... a conference champion has earned their place. You may win a few games on luck, but not three playoff rounds. Carolina and Anaheim struggled the year following their cup appearances due to weak goaltending and forwards who could no longer score... it does not mean they had no talent in the previous playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribeiro Posted May 28, 2004 Author Share Posted May 28, 2004 Don't compare the '93 Habs to the Lightning. That's sad, the Habs had way more talent. Shit. How the hell can you compare this, to the the Lightning? Patrick Roy, André Racicot, Rob Ramage, Kirk Muller, Mike Keane, Kevin Haller, Paul DiPietro, John LeClair, Denis Savard, Benoît Brunet, Brian Bellows, Lyle Odelein, Vincent Damphousse, Gary Leeman, Mathieu Schneider, Eric Desjardins, Jesse Bélanger, Ed Ronan, Mario Roberge, Donald Dufresne, Todd Ewen, Sean Hill, Patrice Brisebois, Gilbert Dionne, Stephan Lebeau, Jean-Jacques Daigneault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted May 29, 2004 Share Posted May 29, 2004 Originally posted by Riberio TextDon't compare the '93 Habs to the Lightning. That's sad, the Habs had way more talent. Actually, I did not compare the '93 Habs to the Lightning. If you read carefully, what I said was that IF you accept the definition of "fluke"-- which I was arguing was wrong, then the comparision could be made. But, now that you mention it... André Racicot, Kevin Haller, Paul DiPietro, Gary Leeman, Jesse Bélanger, Ed Ronan, Mario Roberge, Donald Dufresne, Todd Ewen, Gilbert Dionne, Stephan Lebeau, Jean-Jacques Daigneault none of these guys had long careers and Ramage, Savard, and Bellows were near the end of their careers. The Habs had a great talent in net, leadership from Muller, and LeClair delivering the best playoff of his career. One could almost call their win a fluke especially since they won 10 OT games in a row BUT, as I SAID NHL Conference Champions and Stanley Cup Champions are NOT FLUKES they are the product of months of sustained high-level effort-- the teams' previous and subsequent performances are irrelevant. [Edited on 2004/5/29 by PMAC] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribeiro Posted May 29, 2004 Author Share Posted May 29, 2004 You forgot to mention Dejardins and Damphousse. :nono: They weren't flukes, but they were under-dogs. The Bay Lightning are no where close to that level of talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Now, before I start, I want you to know that the '93 team is my favorite Habs club. Comparing them to the Bolts is quite difficult. The Habs had like 6 20 goal scorers that season, and the Bolts had 5 25 goal scorers. While I think the Bolts have more talented offensive players, I still give the edge to the Habs, because their forwards were also great defensively, ie Muller and Carboneau. While I think Kubina and Sydor are both great D-men, but the Habs had Schneider and Dejardins. The other defensemen I don't see a huge difference, so I give the edge to the Habs. In nets, obviously Roy is better than Khabi, but Grahme is better than "Red Light." But who cares about the backups? I feel that the Habs in 1993 were indeed flukey team. Not many expected them even to get to the second round, and then they won 10 straight OT games and eventually won the cup. While winning 10 OT games takes skill, it also took some luck. Then the next year, and pretty much ever since then, the Habs were invisible. While they were a good and exciting team, would you compare them to a Colorado or Detroit? The '95 Devils also were a bit flukey. Nobody considered them contenders, then they won the cup. Then they didn't become contenders again for a few more years. Anaheim and Carolina both came out of nowhere, then folded the next season with almost identical teams. That tells me they fluked the year before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy_Guy_Guy Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 What's so great about St Louis? The only thing great about him is his passing skills. The guy cant score great goals unless its on a breakaway. Then Lecavalier who most of his goals came on breakaways he did it against the habs and the flyers. And he sucked on the first round. The only reason they made it to the finals was cuz they faced opponents who made mistakes and they capitalised. Besides Islanders were a poor team and when the habs almost had game 3 won. There's 16 seconds left and they get scored on cuz they let lecavalier alone in front of the net. If they had actually checked the player who had the puck and passed to Lecavalier (i think it was st louis) or if they had just pushed him or even jumped on the puck they wouldn't have scored and then the week goal at overtime wouldnt have come. And then the last game where we played great and then they got that fluky game winnning goal that hit a skate from the back of the net and went in. Dont tell me they won it by talent. Habs deserved both those games and the series would've been tied and then we would've won in 7 games and all this crap about lecavalier and st louis wouldve been over. Just watch how they'll lose in the finals in 6 games. They couldnt even score once in game 3. I thought great players had the ability to create chances. So why didnt lecavalier and st louis do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Originally posted by Guy_Guy_GuyWhat's so great about St Louis? Let's see here. 1. He led the league in scoring. 2. He is fun to watch, such great speed. 3. He's one of the smallest guys, yet has become a star. 4. Good passer, good scorer. 5. Dangerous at even strenght, PP, and SH. Just watch how they'll lose in the finals in 6 games. They couldnt even score once in game 3. I thought great players had the ability to create chances. So why didnt lecavalier and st louis do that? They had plenty of good chances. Kiprusoff stood on his head and made a number of great saves. I predicted the Flames in 6 before the series, based on the way they are playing and the heart they show. Tampa has more overall skill, but Calgary wants it more. The Flames have an entire country behind them, while the Bolts just have the growing fan base in the Tampa area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribeiro Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 He's one of the smallest guys, yet has become a star. That isn't a first in history or anything. Hockey isn't basketball, and doesn't always favour the biggest guys. The wing position loves small, fast guys. Kariya, Gretzky are two names that come up when you think of "small", but they are both great. Naslund is under 6' too, and Ribeiro isn't large either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 St. Louis has indeed established himself as a star in this league. Is he "great" yet? That hasn't been decided yet. He led the league in scoring, no small feat. He has also had a good playoffs. Sure, there have been great small guys, and St. Louis adds to that list. I mean, he is 5 foot 8 with skates on. And don't even try comparing Ribeiro to St. Louis at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Stanley Cup Champions-- not flukes, although I really wish Calgary had won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.