CanucksCorner.com Forums

Uncle dans leg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:43 pm Tuna comes in here licking his anus again after getting cornholed by another shitty team.

Ya but...andersen blah blah blah....



Your team is lining up for yet another post season suck-show and you know it. Keep licking tuna...you'll get the corn out

They Have 3 playoff chokers - Tavares (his NYI team was dreadful until this year), Andersen (Anaheim), 10 million William (last year’s playoffs)

Watching the leaves suck and blow every spring is like our national pastime

BigTuna wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:14 pm
Nylander is 22. So yes, it does get easier. He's not a mid 30's aging forward. Huge difference. It's rare a young player gets less $ starting in year 2 of the deal.

The guy reeks of arrogance! If his ego was any more inflated, he could take to flight.

The funny thing is this time last year you would have called the Capitals a core of playoff chokers. (Ovi, Holtby, Kuznetzov, Backstrom)

How the hell is Tavares a playoff choker? 22 points in 24 games.

Or Nylander for that matter? 8 points in 13 games


Anderson...., small sample size but I can give him that one. The other guys- yeah...., no.


It’s like a monkey leaping up and down flinging his crap against the wall and then clapping his paws when a small chunk sticks.

leaves are still gonna get worked against Boston

Tavares also scored the game 7 OT goal which gave the Islanders their only playoff series win in 25 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... gV2_CLMd1s


Choker!

from Dom at the Athletic:
"Analyzing the Importance of Playing Heavy Hockey in the Playoffs"

The adage goes that the playoffs are an entirely different animal, a place where the physicality ramps up as the competition heats up – a place where the strong thrive and the weak-willed struggle to survive.

To an extent, that belief is actually true: playoff games are very different from regular season games. It’s plain to see that games are more contentious as tempers flare and aggression rises and the numbers bare that out as well. Since 2009-10, the average team lays 22.6 hits-per-60 during the regular season. In the playoffs that rises 37 percent to 31.1 hits-per-60. Of the 144 teams that have made the playoffs, 142 have seen a rise in their hit totals. That’s not a typo. Even more striking is that 85 percent of teams see a rise of at least five hits or more.
There seems to be a disconnect between the playoffs being more physical and physical teams having an edge because of it. The playoffs may be a more naturally heavy environment due to the stakes at hand, but does the degree that teams are more physical than another matter?

Not really. There’s little relationship between a team’s regular season hit rate and playoff games played, a slight negative relationship between playoff hit rate and games played, as well as between how much more teams hit in the playoffs compared to its regular season rate and games played. It seems that the more physical a team is, the less likely they are to go far in the playoffs. That may seem odd considering the teams that go deep are more physical than their regular season selves (teams that make the final earn 8.8 more hits-per-60 in the playoffs than in the regular season), but it makes sense when you consider it’s not just the teams that go deep that get more physical – it’s every team.



"Gritty Physical hockey in playoffs" is a myth.

Why you trying to convince?

Don’t try and convince us ....

rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am Why you trying to convince?

Don’t try and convince us ....

Agreed. I still pick Boston

rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am Why you trying to convince?

Don’t try and convince us ....

Well it's not like i wrote this article. It's brand new.

It's facts, so none of you will like it or understand it.

BigTuna wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:02 am

rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am Why you trying to convince?

Don’t try and convince us ....

Well it's not like i wrote this article. It's brand new.

It's facts, so none of you will like it or understand it.

Are we a tad condescending this morning?

BigTuna wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:02 am

rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am Why you trying to convince?

Don’t try and convince us ....

Well it's not like i wrote this article. It's brand new.

It's facts, so none of you will like it or understand it.

We lost a Stanley cup because of .... non existent brutality. Brutality that was not called, brutality that was allowed.

Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist... that’s f.. ing bullshit

micky107 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:09 am

BigTuna wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:02 am

rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am Why you trying to convince?

Don’t try and convince us ....

Well it's not like i wrote this article. It's brand new.

It's facts, so none of you will like it or understand it.

Are we a tad condescending this morning?

You live in a world where you aren't proven wrong daily on here.

rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:16 am

BigTuna wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:02 am

rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am Why you trying to convince?

Don’t try and convince us ....

Well it's not like i wrote this article. It's brand new.

It's facts, so none of you will like it or understand it.

We lost a Stanley cup because of .... non existent brutality. Brutality that was not called, brutality that was allowed.

Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist... that’s f.. ing bullshit

You lost the playoffs because of this:
25 25 16 9 51 849 798 .940 1.98

Tim Thomas was unstoppable in the playoffs. If he's even slightly worse, you have the cup. It had nothing to do with brutality and physicality. You outshot Boston in the series! LOL. Get out of here with that.

Thomas' 2011 playoffs, and particularly the finals goes down in the history books. He allowed 7 goals in 7 games total. Keep telling yourself it was physicality. You could not put the puck in the net because the goalie in the other end played historically great.

Sometimes I go through some of the comments on here and wonder if anyone even watches hockey.

BigTuna wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:17 am

micky107 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:09 am

BigTuna wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:02 am

rats19 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:42 am Why you trying to convince?

Don’t try and convince us ....

Well it's not like i wrote this article. It's brand new.

It's facts, so none of you will like it or understand it.

Are we a tad condescending this morning?

You live in a world where you aren't proven wrong daily on here.

And now honesty. It's a great first step.