JianYang
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 19,483
- 18,811
they had two 90+ forwards, two 80+ forwards
come on now...
How does that change anything I said?
they had two 90+ forwards, two 80+ forwards
come on now...
Are you serious ?
what for exactly, what point would it proves ???Do you want me to show you all the teams that had stars that didn't win?
Yes you need great players. We need kk to turn into a bergeron or kopitar type player. We need an elite d, we need elite goaltending.
We don't necessarily need 100 point players.
stuck on 100, good on you.How does that change anything I said?
Because the post I initially responded to referenced 100 points.....what for exactly, what point would it proves ???
dunno why you're stuck on the 100 pts. it's not the 80's anymore.
excet your post (the one I replied to at least) was talking about superstars, not about the number of points this or that player would get.Because the post I initially responded to referenced 100 points.....
We agree, just so you know. Does a 105 point Draisatl help your team more in the playoffs than a 72 point Kopitar? Does Mitch Marner help your team win in the playoffs more than Logan Couture (career high 70pts)excet your post (the one I replied to at least) was talking about superstars, not about the number of points this or that player would get.
look, if you think one needs to get 100 pts to be a superstar, you go ahead, Just so you know, in the last decades there's been years without a single superstar, and some others with only one or two.
No was just curious.....and didnt want to look it up.Damphousse had 99pts..man...imagine if he had a called back secondary assist?!?!
Kovalev had 84pts like 10 years ago.
Was this a quiz?
Nobody says it was a prerequisite.Superstars are fun to watch but I'll take a winning team anyday.
1993 Muller was 28th overall in scoring, lebeau was around 50th
Again, not comparing teams but elite offensive totals are not a prerequisite for a winning team - depth at all positions is
I would love to have both.Nobody says it was a prerequisite. Many teams have won without one.
Does not mean its exactly smart to go 35 years and counting without one.
I would rather have a winning team than a team with superstars.
But its not against the rules to have both. Sometimes it appears some Habs forget that.
Damn. Can the Sens catch a break with all this off-ice drama?
Damn. Can the Sens catch a break with all this off-ice drama?
thats what elite players do, put up points. lots of them.We agree, just so you know. Does a 105 point Draisatl help your team more in the playoffs than a 72 point Kopitar? Does Mitch Marner help your team win in the playoffs more than Logan Couture (career high 70pts)
ALL I'm saying is that you dont' need sexy point totals from your top players to have a contending team. NOW AGAIN, I'm not trying to make a case for our current Habs. We are missing 2-3 elite players at key positions.
But just because we probably won't be in a position to draft a Nate Mackinnon, doesn't mean that a winner can't be built here.
Damn. Can the Sens catch a break with all this off-ice drama?
Oh, wow. Melnyk is the new Harold Ballard. Bets money at a casino to try and win a jackpot in the hopes of presenting an OS? That club needs to be put under trusteeship.
If this really happened, there is probably a lot more we don’t know about.
Timeline doesn't fit.I would usually say not way it happened it's a made up story but it's Melkyk we are talking about so it's probably true.
Timeline doesn't fit.
Bring it on, it would be the best thing to happen to the CH.Imagine the Sens moving to QcC!
Epic
Yes lol, but the real story really paints the picture of Melnyk’s inabilities.An un-sourced screencap of text from @mrgrozz is all I need to know the truth.
Imagine the Sens moving to QcC!
Epic