Toggle sidebar

Sportsnet: Trotz talks Maple Leafs

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Gary Nylund said:
Do you believe in black magic, voodoo, curses etc.? I ask because that's the only way "can't win" makes sense.

Also, it's a different team every year so "6 years" isn't applicable either.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say team. I said core.
 
Lol we had top 5 odds to win the cup since 2017. Not really news if someone points out we have a good chance to win.

Trotz comments are useless unless he has a suggestion for our flaws the GM sucks at fixing.
 
mikeyz said:
I didn’t say team. I said core.
Click to expand...
OK same core. I will repeat my question which you haven't answered:

Do you believe in black magic, voodoo, curses etc.? I ask because that's the only way "can't win" makes sense.
 
Gary Nylund said:
OK same core. I will repeat my question which you haven't answered:

Do you believe in black magic, voodoo, curses etc.? I ask because that's the only way "can't win" makes sense.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But I am just saying that there has to be a certain point where you have to come to the realization that a group of players just can't win. And 6 years is more then generous.
 
ponder said:
So overall:
- Seasons 1/2: if anything, exceeded expectations
- Season 3: slight underdogs, had a real shot but lost in 7
- Seasons 4/5: choked, bad losses
- Season 6: played well but lost a very evenly matched series in 7
Click to expand...

That's a rather generous way of framing it, but I get that some want to remain positive.
Personally, the first two I give them a pass just barely. Sure, the were big underdogs in both but it's not like underdogs never rise up and beat the odds. Happens virtually every post-season.

But since then they've had a 3-2 (or better series) lead in the 3 of the 4 and lost them all. Once you can forgive, but 3 in 4 years, sorry, doesn't matter who the opponent is, you had the other team on the ropes in each one with 2 (or more) attempts to finish them off and failed. That's a pattern of choking.

And in the other one (Columbus) they were a no-show in 4 of the 5 games, save for a 3-minute goalie-pulled miracle stretch in g4 to push the series to a deciding game. Then they choked in the final.

So to me, the simplest way to think about it is that it's 4 straight years they were as good or better than their opponent and they lost them all. And the result is that this "breakthrough" we are waiting for, I worry that if they just get to the 2nd round, is that it? Okay, at least they can win one, let's just re-tool for next year?

To me, 7 years with a single series victory is only fractionally better than 6 years with none. A breakthrough should really be considered no less than a conference final.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blanche Blanche
mikeyz said:
Of course not. But I am just saying that there has to be a certain point where you have to come to the realization that a group of players just can't win. And 6 years is more then generous.
Click to expand...
I understand being skeptical of their chances, the word "can't" just doesn't make sense as it implies a 0% chance of success which is clearly wrong.
 
Nineteen67 said:
Dubas has managed the entire year like he only needs to win one round, and I don’t think anything has changed.


That’s entirely possible, which is why you can’t let him make any moves without consent from above.
Click to expand...
He is the GM. He can make the moves he chooses to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom