22 replies to this topic

[dead money]

Well its that time again. Time for the flyers to start their usual dominace of the leafs. I dont know what it is, but Toronto just never has a chance against Philly. So, can I get all my Philly brethren to show their support of the best team that never wins anything.

[Governator]

Must've sucked to lose against the Rangers in the opener.

[digitalmonkey]

Any word on who's starting in net for the Leafs?

[MapleLeafs]

Belfour

[MapleLeafs]

Starting Goalies TonightOttawa - Ray EmeryLos Angeles - Jason LaBarberaPhiladelphia - Robert EschePhoenix - Jason LeNeveuToronto - Ed BelfourMontreal - Jose TheodoreChicago - Nikolai KhabibulinSt. Louis - Patrick LalimeDallas - Marty TurcoEdmonton - Ty Conklin

[digitalmonkey]

MapleLeafs said:

Starting Goalies TonightOttawa - Ray EmeryLos Angeles - Jason LaBarberaPhiladelphia - Robert EschePhoenix - Jason LeNeveuToronto - Ed BelfourMontreal - Jose TheodoreChicago - Nikolai KhabibulinSt. Louis - Patrick LalimeDallas - Marty TurcoEdmonton - Ty Conklin

source?

[MapleLeafs]

digitalmonkey said:

source?

Dammit Monkey! I didn't want to reveal this. This is gold when it comes to fantasy! lol j/khttp://www.hockeyinf...antasy/goalies/Ssssshhhh!

[MapleLeafs]

Note at the bottom, it says 93% correct, so it's not a lock!I'm watching the Leafs pregame, and they're saying it's Tellqvist tonight, so proceed with caution.... sorry!

[digitalmonkey]

MapleLeafs said:

Note at the bottom, it says 93% correct, so it's not a lock!I'm watching the Leafs pregame, and they're saying it's Tellqvist tonight, so proceed with caution.... sorry!

M. Tellqvist it is.I was just curious...no money involved!

[digitalmonkey]

dead money said:

Well its that time again.  Time for the flyers to start their usual dominace of the leafs.  I dont know what it is, but Toronto just never has a chance against Philly.  So, can I get all my Philly brethren to show their support of the best team that never wins anything.

:roll: :roll:

[MarionSauce]

Haha. In your face!

[dead money]

Well it looks like the flyers suck this year. If they cant even beat the leafs, then they are in serious trouble. But seriously, the leafs look pretty good this year. It should be fun to watch the flyers take another series from them in the playoffs.

[mrdannyg]

yeah babyi'd mock you further, but the egg on your face is pretty evident, and that was a ballsy move putting it out there. leafs rule.good stuff so far by the leafs, 3 games and 0 losses against teams that were supposed to be the best in the league this year. leafs usually get up for those games though and then donk off games to crappy teams (ahem...habs).reason for the leafs winning? Wade Belak - 11 minutes.11 too many, but its a start.Daniel

[digitalmonkey]

mrdannyg said:

good stuff so far by the leafs, 3 games and 0 losses against teams that were supposed to be the best in the league this year.  leafs usually get up for those games though and then donk off games to crappy teams (ahem...habs).

What is your point? Are you laying the foundation for your big excuse when the Leafs don't make the playoffs? They played too many crappy teams and not enough against supposed Cup contenders.If your goal is to antagonize me (and other Montreal fans) with your idiotic attempts at hab-bashing, you should at least be a fan of a team that doesn't provide so much ammunition for retaliation.

[mrdannyg]

you're usually a pretty nice guy and must've forgotten your juice box when you wrote this so i won't say too much in response other than:that'd be a pretty absurd way to lay the foundation for the leafs not doing well this year. i'm sure i'd come up with something a hell of a lot better than that, or at least something vaguely logical.and that'd also be a poor way to antagonize habs fans. i was basically just working off the assumption that people expect the sens and flyers to do better this year than the habs. also that people would realize that while the leafs obviously have a rivalry with the habs, the rivalries against the flyers and sens are much more current.so maybe a little reading comprehension class and a juice box before you get all worked up next time. and then maybe i won't have to type like a patronizing douchebag.daniel

[Ottawa_Biatch]

drop the gloves boys

[digitalmonkey]

mrdannyg said:

you're usually a pretty nice guy and must've forgotten your juice box when you wrote this so i won't say too much in response other than:that'd be a pretty absurd way to lay the foundation for the leafs not doing well this year.  i'm sure i'd come up with something a hell of a lot better than that, or at least something vaguely logical.and that'd also be a poor way to antagonize habs fans.  i was basically just working off the assumption that people expect the sens and flyers to do better this year than the habs.  also that people would realize that while the leafs obviously have a rivalry with the habs, the rivalries against the flyers and sens are much more current.so maybe a little reading comprehension class and a juice box before you get all worked up next time.  and then maybe i won't have to type like a patronizing douchebag.daniel

It doesn't take much skill in reading comprehension to understand what "...crappy teams (ahem...habs)" means. Perhaps you need a refresher course in diction. And I'm sure you CAN come up with many excuses as you've had years of practice.

[UglyJimStudly]

mrdannyg said:

reason for the leafs winning?  Wade Belak - 11 minutes.11 too many, but its a start.

This is a common error made by people who look at stats without watching games. Belak played 11 minutes, yes, and about 10:45 of that he was within 3 feet or less of Forsberg. Not coincidentally, Forsberg was a non-factor. Belak was one of the players assigned to check Forsberg, and did it pretty much perfectly.

[mrdannyg]

UglyJimStudly said:

mrdannyg said:

reason for the leafs winning?  Wade Belak - 11 minutes.11 too many, but its a start.

This is a common error made by people who look at stats without watching games. Belak played 11 minutes, yes, and about 10:45 of that he was within 3 feet or less of Forsberg. Not coincidentally, Forsberg was a non-factor. Belak was one of the players assigned to check Forsberg, and did it pretty much perfectly.

i didn't notice - thanks i'll look for that next time.

[mrdannyg]

digitalmonkey said:

And I'm sure you CAN come up with many excuses as you've had years of practice.

KowboyKoop said:

Zing!