Hindsight is always 20/20
- Steven_Seagull

Dude, just fcuk off with this.

The reality of what happened PROVES you wrong, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They were leading going into the 3rd period of game 7.

That does NOT, by any logic or circumstance = little chance of beating Boston. Absolutely nothing you argue, changes that reality; nothing.

So, for once, just give the (frank) up. I won't be dragged down a rat hole with you on this issue. You are wrong. Don't continue to make more of an azs of yourself with this crap.

- Aetherial

Good (frank)ing luck with that.

Then the next freaking page!



WTF?!
- Thecakeisalie

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

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

We were brutal in the first two games and coughed up Game 7. Boston wasn't even that good through the series and we pushed it to seven. Boston didn't win the series because they were that good, they barely got past us because we were that bad.

Bottom line - We beat ourselves and have hopefully learned from it.

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

But... didn't you say earlier,

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...
- Thecakeisalie

If Andersen was good depends on what your definition of 'was' is, jerks.

If Andersen was good depends on what your definition of 'was' is, jerks.
- Zezel

Is that a Clinton reference? I thought the word he was confused by was "is".

Is that a Clinton reference? I thought the word he was confused by was "is".
- Thecakeisalie

Komagod did not have sexual relations with that woman, Brad Marchand.

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

Okay ... Let's hear this story straight from the Big Jabroni

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

But... didn't you say earlier,

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.
- Thecakeisalie

Not playing well for 3 out of 4 games constitutes the statement, wasn't at his best in the first 4 games. The majority of the first four games, he was either below average if not terrible. 1 out of 4 is not good.

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.

Nothing changed except how you interpreted the words written. You're nit picking at this point.

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.

He was the reason in game 5 and 6 why the series went to game 7, not because the Leafs were trading wins with the Bruins every step of the way. The Leafs got their asses handed to them for the majority of that series.

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...

Ah yes, the good ole "the referees gifted the Bruins powerplays" story. Fact is, nobody is out to get the Leafs. The Leafs took stupid penalties because they made stupid decisions and/or were constantly chasing the Bruins because the Bruins maintained better possession and better control of the games.

You're contradicting yourself
- burn

Lead in the series, not a game.

Oh the Komagod, I miss him already!

They should play him with Kulemin and Grabbo.

Member Kulemin, and Grabbo?

I member.

Member when Mac In The USSR was our amazing second line?

Now it's double M and Johnny T up your ass (frank)ing lit, mutha(frank)as

We were brutal in the first two games and coughed up Game 7. Boston wasn't even that good through the series and we pushed it to seven. Boston didn't win the series because they were that good, they barely got past us because we were that bad.

Bottom line - We beat ourselves and have hopefully learned from it.
- As_I_See_It

Brutal because the Bruins were better and were better for most of the year. It was a bad match-up. The Bruins had a great 1st line that shutdown Matthews, they play strong possession, team defense style and their goalie is pretty good. Overall, the Bruins had the Leafs beat in almost every category. The bottom line is that the Bruins were better.

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

Rask wasn't particularly good but he was good enough and better than Andersen.

This Andersen in the Boston series debate is (frank)ing riveting man. Right now the momentum is swinging back and forth!

I like kitties.

I like kitties.
- Zezel

I like titties can we change topics?

I like titties can we change topics?
- winsix

I too enjoy the breasteses

Not playing well for 3 out of 4 games constitutes the statement, wasn't at his best in the first 4 games. The majority of the first four games, he was either below average if not terrible. 1 out of 4 is not good.



Nothing changed except how you interpreted the words written. You're nit picking at this point.



He was the reason in game 5 and 6 why the series went to game 7, not because the Leafs were trading wins with the Bruins every step of the way. The Leafs got their asses handed to them for the majority of that series.
- Unholy_Goalie

Sure thing UG. You didn't contradict yourself at all. Whatever you say. I don't feel like arguing this with you until 3am tonight.

Ah yes, the good ole "the referees gifted the Bruins powerplays" story. Fact is, nobody is out to get the Leafs. The Leafs took stupid penalties because they made stupid decisions and/or were constantly chasing the Bruins because the Bruins maintained better possession and better control of the games.
- Unholy_Goalie

Why does it matter how they got the power plays? My point was too many shorthanded situations is going to be detrimental to a goalie's save percentage and goals against. It makes the goalie look worse than he was because during a power play the opposition is usually able to set up good scoring chances.

Komagod did not have sexual relations with that woman, Brad Marchand.
- Zezel

Komarov has bad taste, just like Clinton. Marchand is a slut. Cheated on him with Callahan like a week later.

I like titties can we change topics?
- winsix

Wow, I like titties and kitties too! You guys are A OK!

Komarov has bad taste, just like Clinton. Marchand is a slut. Cheated on him with Callahan like a week later.
- Thecakeisalie

Lol...there were stains on the blue jersey

this thread is why I barely come here, wtf. get your poop together u (frank)ing nerds

Sure thing UG. You didn't contradict yourself at all. Whatever you say. I don't feel like arguing this with you until 3am tonight.



Why does it matter how they got the power plays? My point was too many shorthanded situations is going to be detrimental to a goalie's save percentage and goals against. It makes the goalie look worse than he was because during a power play the opposition is usually able to set up good scoring chances.
- Thecakeisalie

Ever hear the phrase "your goalie is your best penalty killer"?

It wasn't 100% Andersen's fault but at the same time he wasn't as good as he usually is. He finished the playoffs with a .899 SV% which was several points lower than his regular season total. Part of that is bad defense, part of that is fatigue from having to carry the team all year.