Guys lets be nice to eachother.
We could all die tomorrow.

Maybe
Probably not all.

Some

Well at least one...that could happen.

Ah fack it.
Carry on.

Guys lets be nice to eachother.
We could all die tomorrow.

Maybe
Probably not all.

Some

Well at least one...that could happen.

Ah fack it.
Carry on.
- Fakepartofme

But what if we don't die for like, a couple years or something? Does this mean I have to keep being nice ALL THAT TIME!!! That sounds like a lot of work!

I think I'd rather just die as I live. An unapologetic bumhole.

Has UG ever admit to being wrong, or even acknowledge that he can sometimes make mistakes? Professional GMs and coaches can make mistakes, though. Interesting. But he doesn’t have an inferiority complex.
- Steven_Seagull

EVERYTHING I SAY IS RIGHT!

even the parts that contradict eachother?

ESPECIALLY THE PARTS THAT CONTRADICT EACHOTHER

Then the next freaking page!



WTF?!
- Thecakeisalie

twatism

Guys lets be nice to eachother.
We could all die tomorrow.

Maybe
Probably not all.

Some

Well at least one...that could happen.

Ah fack it.
Carry on.
- Fakepartofme

I hope it's Lindsay Lohan.

EVERYTHING I SAY IS RIGHT!

even the parts that contradict eachother?

ESPECIALLY THE PARTS THAT CONTRADICT EACHOTHER
- Feeling Glucky?

wait till the 3am glory posts.

I'm a little confused on how exactly Andersen was the only reason the Leafs made it to 7 games when he apparently didn't play well in 5 of those 7 games.
- Thecakeisalie

He was good enough to extend the series, not good enough to get a lead or finish the series. It's really not that hard to understand. Pretty basic actually.

(frank)in ground hog day in here everyday!

(frank)in ground hog day in here everyday!
- .HOHO.

I need to know when the new day begins... does it coincide with the 3am rant OR are we sticking with traditional 12 turnover?

He was good enough to extend the series, not good enough to get a lead or finish the series. It's really not that hard to understand. Pretty basic actually.
- Unholy_Goalie

are you serious about this comment? I'm wondering because its before 1am..

He was good enough to extend the series, not good enough to get a lead or finish the series. It's really not that hard to understand. Pretty basic actually.
- Unholy_Goalie

Oh, of course! According to you he played poorly the first 4 games, and the 7th, but somehow was the reason they made it to game 7. I got ya, don't worry.
It makes perfect sense.










To a crazy person.

(frank)in ground hog day in here everyday!
- .HOHO.

Did Lums see his shadow?

Sparks was drafted by the Leafs in 2011

His first NHL start, he got a shutout

He won the Calder and the Holmes

He's earned his chance to be backup....after 7 years, you don't risk losing him to waivers, and it wouldn't set a very good example for future draftees either.

I think it's a wise strategy by Dubas, in order to keep all 4 goalies in the system.
Curtis won't get claimed
Pickard was a waiver a pickup
If Sparks poops the bed, nobody will claim him either.

With this strategy, the only risk is losing Pickard to waivers.

He was good enough to extend the series, not good enough to get a lead or finish the series. It's really not that hard to understand. Pretty basic actually.
- Unholy_Goalie

Jesus

Oh, of course! According to you he played poorly the first 4 games, and the 7th, but somehow was the reason they made it to game 7. I got ya, don't worry.
It makes perfect sense.










To a crazy person.
- Thecakeisalie

Game 1: 5 goals against on 40 shots
Game 2: Pulled. 3 goals against on 5 shots.
Game 3: 40 saves on 42 shots.
Game 4: 3 goals against on 21 shots.

Notice how he played bad or below average for 3 of the first 4 games?

Game 5: 42 saves, .933 SV%
Game 6: 32 saves, .970 SV%

Notice how he saved them from being eliminated twice and forced a game 7?

Game 7: 6 goals against on 35 shots, blew a 3rd period lead.

Is this all that hard to comprehend right now?

He was bad at the beginning of the series, bad at the end but spectacular to extend the series to game 7. What part about this is confusing for you people?

Sparks was drafted by the Leafs in 2011

His first NHL start, he got a shutout

He won the Calder and the Holmes

He's earned his chance to be backup....after 7 years, you don't risk losing him to waivers, and it wouldn't set a very good example for future draftees either.

I think it's a wise strategy by Dubas, in order to keep all 4 goalies in the system.
Curtis won't get claimed
Pickard was a waiver a pickup
If Sparks poops the bed, nobody will claim him either.

With this strategy, the only risk is losing Pickard to waivers.
- jimi james

It's a good "future" move because he could potentially be a good back-up and is young.

But in terms of being a proven back-up, who can play 25+ games and give Andersen a rest? That's a big gamble right now.

He was good enough to extend the series, not good enough to get a lead or finish the series. It's really not that hard to understand. Pretty basic actually.
- Unholy_Goalie

i agree. so basic.


he was good enough by not being good enough.

It's a good "future" move because he could potentially be a good back-up and is young.

But in terms of being a proven back-up, who can play 25+ games and give Andersen a rest? That's a big gamble right now.
- Unholy_Goalie

im curious. how many times a minute do you hit refresh waiting for someone to argue with? ill hang up and listen.

Game 1: 5 goals against on 40 shots
Game 2: Pulled. 3 goals against on 5 shots.
Game 3: 40 saves on 42 shots.
Game 4: 3 goals against on 21 shots.

Notice how he played bad or below average for 3 of the first 4 games?

Game 5: 42 saves, .933 SV%
Game 6: 32 saves, .970 SV%

Notice how he saved them from being eliminated twice and forced a game 7?

Game 7: 6 goals against on 35 shots, blew a 3rd period lead.

Is this all that hard to comprehend right now?

He was bad at the beginning of the series, bad at the end but spectacular to extend the series to game 7. What part about this is confusing for you people?
- Unholy_Goalie

So Rask destructed for 3 games and 2 periods. He must have been exhausted and run down yet still moved to the second round.

Game 1: 5 goals against on 40 shots
Game 2: Pulled. 3 goals against on 5 shots.
Game 3: 40 saves on 42 shots.
Game 4: 3 goals against on 21 shots.

Notice how he played bad or below average for 3 of the first 4 games?

Game 5: 42 saves, .933 SV%
Game 6: 32 saves, .970 SV%

Notice how he saved them from being eliminated twice and forced a game 7?

Game 7: 6 goals against on 35 shots, blew a 3rd period lead.

Is this all that hard to comprehend right now?

He was bad at the beginning of the series, bad at the end but spectacular to extend the series to game 7. What part about this is confusing for you people?
- Unholy_Goalie

So now you're saying he was good for 3 games?

But... didn't you say earlier,

He wasn't really at his best the first 4 games, part of the reason they were down 3-1 and his game 7 performance wasn't the best either. So for the majority of the series, yeah, he wasn't as good as he usually is. Nothing anyone here has said disproves that.
- Ugenius

So you said straight up earlier he "wasn't at his best in the first 4", but now you've look at the numbers and it seems he made a rather impressive 40 saves on 42 shots in game 3.

Well, I guess if your definition of "wasn't at his best for the first 4 games" means he wasn't great for 3 of them, but excellent for the other, well then, you've got me. Seems to me you've re-thought things, looked at the facts, and are quickly changing your story to not look stupid.

My interpretation of your statement was he played crap for the first 4, then the 7th, leaving only 2 good games. That doesn't compute to being "the only reason the Leafs made it to 7 games". But you go ahead and change your story even though it's plain for everyone to see in the thread.


Oh yeah, lets not mention how many of the goals scored on Freddy were due to the crazy amount of power plays Boston was gifted. Cause that surely makes no difference for the goalie... 3 pp goals in game 1 for Boston for example. So 3 of the 5. Yeah, he must've been crap, couldn't have been the power plays that did us in...

What's his user name and password?
- Ear Hole

ROFL

im curious. how many times a minute do you hit refresh waiting for someone to argue with? ill hang up and listen.
- systemtool

Sorry, I just did that.

So Rask destructed for 3 games and 2 periods. He must have been exhausted and run down yet still moved to the second round.
- sloppyseconds2

stop bringing facts into this discussion

The key point to remember is wanting to trade Nylander is dumb.

He was good enough to extend the series, not good enough to get a lead or finish the series. It's really not that hard to understand. Pretty basic actually.
- Unholy_Goalie

Game 1: 5 goals against on 40 shots
Game 2: Pulled. 3 goals against on 5 shots.
Game 3: 40 saves on 42 shots.
Game 4: 3 goals against on 21 shots.

Notice how he played bad or below average for 3 of the first 4 games?

Game 5: 42 saves, .933 SV%
Game 6: 32 saves, .970 SV%

Notice how he saved them from being eliminated twice and forced a game 7?

Game 7: 6 goals against on 35 shots, blew a 3rd period lead.

Is this all that hard to comprehend right now?

He was bad at the beginning of the series, bad at the end but spectacular to extend the series to game 7. What part about this is confusing for you people?
- Unholy_Goalie

You're contradicting yourself