Quote:
Originally Posted by 357
1.) This is easy to say. It's like the guy who gets dumped by his girlfriend "I hated that ____ anyway". Sure you did  , but they left you so who's to say.
2.) I didn't ask why you wanted Niemi. I asked why it's different.
3.) Yeah, yeah, yeah Sharks won faceoff percent this past year.
4) BTW, you missed the beginning of the article you linked to. See below:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=5...vid=nhl-search
. |
1) No its what I wrote all year. I ripped Blake and Nabby a lot its there. I was the most critical poster of the Sharks all year. Dont come at me attempting to put thoughts in my head or say what I am thinking with a useless reply like that when I have proof and its posted in the thread. Would you want me to do the same?
2) I never said it was different I said I wanted to sign him. "that would be sweet." Is what I wrote. You agaiin are imagining/ creating in your head. I never said it would be different. Please read it again. I only listed possibilities that might be different after you asked. Which is when I stated why I wanted to sign him. LONG TERM. Not a savior this year. I imagine he wont be that hot this year. But then I never said he would be. As a side note though I dont think much of the rookie we have or the goalie we signed so Niemi may be better then either.
That was not really relevant and I didnt say that prior to now.
3) Again WTF? you asked what the Sharks would do without Malholtra to take faceoffs. I was responding to your question and showing you why it was okay. You asked I answered.
4) Had/has nothing to do with the conversation. I didnt miss it or avoid it. Again I was replying to your question. Why would I include unrelated facts in my reply?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreekGodX
Right when you have most of your players out due to injury, then you won't have any depth. Which is what we both have been saying! Looking at a completely healthy roster we have the depth. I don't see anywhere that he said, by looking at our healthy roster we don't have any depth. I believe at one point they had 9 regular players out. I think that proves we had depth beyond our stars and were able to stay in the playoff picture even though we were injury riddled.
|
Sad.
The Sentence reads with commas so you understand each comma represnts a new statement or line of thought which is tied to the whole discussion, they are not dependent on each other as you two are implying.
1)"We're trying to get back to being the Red Wings,
2)not like last year when we were taped together all year,
3)had no depth and we rode people too hard so when we got to the playoffs we were exhausted," Babcock said.
So you are not confused he is saying "We had no depth and we rode the players we did have so hard that when we got to the playoffs we were exhausted.
We will just agree to disagree