- Oct 10, 2007
- 27,757
- 15,334
They have a former all-star.Lets not get crazy... that's like saying EDM has a goalie.
Now do the HabsHow can Calgary have trouble beating a mediovce bum like Talbot?
They have a former all-star.Lets not get crazy... that's like saying EDM has a goalie.
Now do the HabsHow can Calgary have trouble beating a mediovce bum like Talbot?
Sure.Despite Sens total fail for 7 years they have still won more playoff series over past 10 years than the Leafs.
Those "battles of Ontario" were over 20 years ago.
Its true more in seasons and less in playoffs. That's why you can't play with time, it's limited. Edmonton should have swept or won in 5.they didn't. Bc they had record breaking trash goaltending.Not sure why you brought up the entire world and working as if that's a thing. I believe you are talking about stats over time. Unfortunately, time is limited in seasons and playoff series.
Watch that first period again and tell me the Oilers played like an elite defensive team in it. Skinner isn't very good but Edmonton is paying him 2.6. You get what you pay for. Not his fault the team has been a goalie graveyard for nearly two decades.
Totally agree. The only change to the playoffs I would make is going 1-8 with division winners being top 2, instead of this Divisional format thing.As somebody who watched many just missed bubble teams, it's just not necessary. Give fans a mercy rule and go with 16 teams. not all teams need playoffs.
Also look at bob. He stoned us the first few games. Doesn't look great this year, but I'll take him with a track recordNot sure why you brought up the entire world and working as if that's a thing. I believe you are talking about stats over time. Unfortunately, time is limited in seasons and playoff series.
Hard to win in 4 or 5, scoring, checks note, 1 goal in the first 2 games. But, you're the stats over time guy, so I'm sure you can spin a cute yarn.Its true more in seasons and less in playoffs. That's why you can't play with time, it's limited. Edmonton should have swept or won in 5.they didn't. Bc they had record breaking trash goaltending.
Tell me skinners save % winning that series?Hard to win in 4 or 5, scoring, checks note, 1 goal in the first 2 games. But, you're the stats over time guy, so I'm sure you can spin a cute yarn.
Edmonton lost. Don't be a chad.Tell me skinners save % winning that series?
And Edmonton still won because they were superior
Tell me skinners save % winning that series?
And Edmonton still won because they were superior
I will say it again: Skinner is 55th in Goals Saved Above Expected. Most of the 54 goalies ahead of him are paid less. We're getting ripped off.
You guys are unbelievable. What compels you to defend every shitty goal he lets in? What motivates you guys to robotically rush to his defense? Put him behind Anaheim's defense or San Jose's or Chicago's and tell me how he compares to their goalies? He'd be washed out of this league, dude.
Well, to be fair, Skinner had zero goals in the finals last year. That's not good.Like I said he's not good. Not a fan and never been one. He's a 26 year old 3rd round pick that has 158GP and never really even had good numbers in the AHL. Ridiculous to have the weight of a supposed cup favourite on a goalie like that.
But this belief that he's the only reason the Edmonton Oilers ever lose a hockey game and that they are flawless otherwise should probably get classified in the next DSM as mental illness. Seems to be contagious even.
What was his save %?Edmonton lost. Don't be a chad.
Im not doing your homework, Chad. I know he had zero goals, but I'm not opening a new window to help you feel like you know how to argue your point about Edmonton sweeping after scoring 1 goal in the first two games.What was his save %?
Don't avoid the question. It's a simple question
Unless you want to be cowardly about it
Like I said he's not good. Not a fan and never been one. He's a 26 year old 3rd round pick that has 158GP and never really even had good numbers in the AHL. Ridiculous to have the weight of a supposed cup favourite on a goalie like that.
But this belief that he's the only reason the Edmonton Oilers ever lose a hockey game and that they are flawless otherwise should probably get classified in the next DSM as mental illness. Seems to be contagious even.
You can't invoke flat earthers as an analogue in an argument and call other people hyperbolic.Well, I personally believe that flat-earthers have some type of mental illness, and defending Stuart Skinner after a game like the one he had tonight puts you right there with flat earthers for an obliviously stubborn refusal of the obvious.
He's not the only reason they lost tonight, but if there was ever a game where you could pin the loss on one guy without sounding hyperbolic, this was it.
yup, as the other poster said 20 years maybe a bit longer-early 2000s anyway.It has been a while since they've met in the playoffs
So you cannot answer one simple question?Im not doing your homework, Chad. I know he had zero goals, but I'm not opening a new window to help you feel like you know how to argue your point about Edmonton sweeping after scoring 1 goal in the first two games.
In sum, you avoided a question despite calling others cowards on, checks notes, the internet.
Apparently the Oilers fans realize that Skinner sucks. He has 0 playoff goals.This conversation is actually real