Skip to Next Poll »
24
Your 5 most hated sports franchises (Edited 07/19/11 11:18AM by Kenne)
Which 5 teams of any sports do you dislike the most.

First team to appear on 5 different lists, is the "Big Loser".

Don't forget to PQ those who list your teams. Your 5 most hated sports franchises <span style="font-size:12px;">(Edited 07/19/11 11:18AM by Kenne)</span> Photo

| Closed on 09/18/11 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room | Numeric Input Opinion Poll
Teams:  NHL
34 Fans
Question
184.4121. Your 5 most hated sports franchises

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
Poor Quality (6) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
  
226 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
Poor Quality (8) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#3 | 1141 days ago



New England Pats
Philadelphia Eagles
Boston Redsox
Philadelphia Phillies
Atlanta Falcons
7  
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#5 | 1141 days ago

Edmonton Eskimos
Toronto Maple Leafs
Poor Quality (5) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (8) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (6) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#9 | 1141 days ago

 FK Partizan Belgrade,Pittsburgh Steelers,NY Yankees,Michigan Wolverines,Miami Heat
#10 | 1141 days ago

1) Alabama Crimson Tide
2) Jimmie Johnson -48 Team
3) New York Yankees
4) Kyle Busch - 18 Team
5) Philadelphia Phillies
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#12 | 1141 days ago

How do you hate them (but love them too)? Ugh.
87  
#13 | 1141 days ago

Wait? Kyle Busch is a sports franchise?
87  
#14 | 1141 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
F*** Boston (Celtics)
Saints
Spurs
Don't even watch hockey but If I did, I'd hate the Flyers
F*** Boston (Celtics)


NY Jets
Miami Heat
Canucks
Canadiens
Yankees
28  
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#16 | 1141 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

(Edited by cubsgirl2)
ms_hippie_queen wrote:
jets (g******d*****mmit i hate them)
cowboys (the other texas team)
yankees (everything that is wrong with baseball)
cardinals (they were better than the astros when the astros were their best)
nba (yawn.)
 Leigh, you are so cool. Yes they are everything that is wrong with baseball.  





omg, Dave said the Cubs, no one hates the Cubs. 
6  
#17 | 1141 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
Wait? Kyle Busch is a sports franchise?
And I know Alabama pays their players, but can they be considered a franchise? 
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#19 | 1141 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
How do you hate them (but love them too)? Ugh.
@ me?

I love their older days. I dislike them now in competition & their current roster.
#20 | 1141 days ago

(Edited by kobe_lova)

Ohhhh, so it was an implied your 5 most hated franchises this week, this year, at the moment.



Apparently the Yankees are the "Big Losers"....Their trophy case begs to differ, but couldn't stop laughing long enough to prepare a statement by press time. A press conference may be scheduled for late this afternoon.

87  
#21 | 1141 days ago

 i do
69  
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#24 | 1141 days ago

hskrdave wrote:
 i do
87  
#25 | 1141 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
 Quit smiling,  you don't hate the Cubs.  You just like seeing me cry. 
6  
#26 | 1141 days ago

New York Yankees
Boston RedSox
Boston Celtics
Miami Heat
New England Patriots

I was going to go with the Cowboys and Dodgers, but why kick them when they are down!
54  
#27 | 1141 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Leigh, you are so cool. Yes they are everything that is wrong with baseball.  





omg, Dave said the Cubs, no one hates the Cubs. 
Most of the South Side hates the Cubs.
666  
#28 | 1141 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
Dodgers
Yankees
Dodgers
Red Sox
Dodgers

And Flames & Stars get honorable mentions.
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#32 | 1141 days ago

Lobotomy Jones wrote:
Most of the South Side hates the Cubs.
You guys don't hate the Cubs.  You hate the fans and the attention the Cubs receive despite being bad for 100+ years.  Come on, admit it?!?!
#33 | 1141 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Dodgers
Yankees
Dodgers
Red Sox
Dodgers

And Flames & Stars get honorable mentions.
I knew you were a fake MLS fan. 
#34 | 1141 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

Lobotomy Jones wrote:
Most of the South Side hates the Cubs.
 Thats ok, we all know the only reason Chicago keeps the sox is to keep the south siders out of  the north side.   
6  
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#36 | 1141 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
I knew you were a fake MLS fan. 
There are no MLS teams that have earned any kind of venom on my part.    Yet.
#37 | 1141 days ago

Yankees
Alabama Crimson Tide
Clemson Tigers
St Louis Cardinals
10  
#38 | 1141 days ago

ML31 wrote:
There are no MLS teams that have earned any kind of venom on my part.    Yet.
Real MLS fans have hatred for other teams. 
#39 | 1141 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
jets (g******d*****mmit i hate them)
cowboys (the other texas team)
yankees (everything that is wrong with baseball)
cardinals (they were better than the astros when the astros were their best)
nba (yawn.)
Yankees? Really? I forgive you cause your other 3 were good. Seriously, how bout...
Dallas Cowboys... (Jery's Kids)
Boston Red Sox  (suck)
San Antonio Spurs
New England Patriots (Bela-cheat)
Texas Rangers (since last year's playoffs)
As soon as the Texans can beat somebody, anybody I'll hate them too.
#40 | 1141 days ago

I LOATHE EVERYONE EQUALLY !!!!!
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#42 | 1141 days ago

originalcrash78 wrote:
Yankees? Really? I forgive you cause your other 3 were good. Seriously, how bout...
Dallas Cowboys... (Jery's Kids)
Boston Red Sox  (suck)
San Antonio Spurs
New England Patriots (Bela-cheat)
Texas Rangers (since last year's playoffs)
As soon as the Texans can beat somebody, anybody I'll hate them too.
yes yankees. and i believe they are the first to reach five. biggest losers. i mean what a flop they are on top of being jerks. they buy the best players available and all they have to show for it is 27 championships? peh.

( you)
#43 | 1141 days ago
ChristiSunshine (+)

Boston Celtics
Boston Red Sox
NY Yankees
Detroit Red Wings
University of Kentucky
#44 | 1141 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Real MLS fans have hatred for other teams. 
Fine...  Just to satisfy your definition of "real"...   I hate Chivas USA. 
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#46 | 1141 days ago
ChristiSunshine (+)

Scott wrote:
New England Patriots - (2 words - Spy Gate)
Cincinnati Reds - (St. Louis Cardinals new most hated rival)
New York Yankees - (I dont fault a team that can go out and buy anybody they want.  I just hate what that does to baseball as a whole)
Los Angeles Lakers - ("Win like a champion.  Lose like a champion" - Mike Tirico after watching the Lakers antics against the Mavs)
Ohio State Buckeyes - (nobody enjoyed the self destruction of Jim Tressel, Terrelle Pryor and THE Ohio State Buckeyes then me)

I needed another slot for the Pats.
Poor Quality (5) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#49 | 1141 days ago

rockysnappyduke wrote:
That team owned by Jerry Jones
That team that won the Super Bowl thanks in part to Spy gate
The team in the AL East with the big bankroll
The other team in the AL East with the big bankroll
Any major league team in Houston, Texas

i'm not offended, just curious. what's with the houston hate?
#50 | 1141 days ago

rockysnappyduke wrote:
That team owned by Jerry Jones
That team that won the Super Bowl thanks in part to Spy gate
The team in the AL East with the big bankroll
The other team in the AL East with the big bankroll
Any major league team in Houston, Texas

"The team in the AL East with the big bankroll"

You'll have to be more specific. 
Poor Quality (6) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#52 | 1141 days ago

Atlanta Falcons~ no-brainer.
The Steelers- Same thing here.
The Ravens~ Dislike the owner and the team.
Maimi Heat~ Lebone-head shames,
The Bucs~ the second Saints heated rivalry.

PQ away ppl.
#53 | 1141 days ago

rockysnappyduke wrote:
That team owned by Jerry Jones
That team that won the Super Bowl thanks in part to Spy gate
The team in the AL East with the big bankroll
The other team in the AL East with the big bankroll
Any major league team in Houston, Texas

I was very tempted to put Jerry Jones,... I mean the Dallas Cowboys.
#54 | 1141 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Quit smiling,  you don't hate the Cubs.  You just like seeing me cry. 


yep
49  
#55 | 1141 days ago

1. Ohio State
2. Ohio State
3. Ohio State
4. Ohio State
5. Ohio State
5  
#56 | 1141 days ago

(Edited by kteacher)
1. Vancouver Canucker F*ckers!
2. Anaheim Ducks (total given...and they whine a lot ....not to mention C. Perry looks like a member of the trench coat mafia).
3. Normally the Red Wings would be placed here, but I don't really hate them......most of their fans suck huevos (not you Woody and maybe one other), but the team isn't bad....and I've really thought about this. Thought about it so much, I considered putting the Canadians in the 3 spot because of 93 (suck it Nyce), but then I thought of Cammy (love him)....so I'm going Steelers in the 3 spot because they annoy me and because of Super Bowl 14.
4. San Francisco Stink'n Giants
5. UbePa FAce's Boston Celtics
13  
Poor Quality (6) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#58 | 1141 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
F*ck the Eagles
F*ck the Yankees
F*ck the Lakers
F*ck Green Bay (Titles don't count as Superbowls b*tches)
F*ck the Eagles.  Yeah, I know I already said that, but F*ck 'em twice anyhow.

Individuals?

Brett Fart
Kobe I aint MJ Bryant
A$$ Rod
Brett Fart
Tom Brady
Brett Fart
Kobe I aint MJ Bryant
A$$ Rod
Brett Fart
Tom Brady


There is a another poll for these!
22  
#59 | 1141 days ago

richard_cranium wrote:
Brett Fart
Kobe I aint MJ Bryant
A$$ Rod
Brett Fart
Tom Brady


There is a another poll for these!
I'm too tired to look.  I am figuring out the hard way that my a$$ aint 17 no more.  Which aisle is the Icy Hot and Ibuprofin on?
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
Poor Quality (5) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#63 | 1141 days ago

This poll is unfair. One city takes three of my franchises. So I'm cheating, here it goes.

Entire City of Boston
Yankees
Lakers
New England Patriots
Baltimore Ravens
#64 | 1141 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 Well, I know that I am not keeping score, but I have a funny feeling the Yankees are once again the winners. 
6  
#65 | 1141 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Well, I know that I am not keeping score, but I have a funny feeling the Yankees are once again the winners. 
 That shouldn't surprise anyone, I personally never heard anyone use the phrase "lovable winners" when referring to a sports team.
22  
#66 | 1141 days ago

Boston Red Sox, Oakland Raiders, Dallas Cowboys, Oakland A's, Miami Heat
5  
#67 | 1141 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

richard_cranium wrote:
 That shouldn't surprise anyone, I personally never heard anyone use the phrase "lovable winners" when referring to a sports team.
 Well,  this is one competition I am glad as a Cubs fan to lose. 
6  
#68 | 1141 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 Well,  this is one competition I am glad as a Cubs fan to lose. 
 Losing, something Cubs fans should be used to by now!

come on Glenda, you made that one too easy.
22  
#69 | 1141 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

richard_cranium wrote:
 Losing, something Cubs fans should be used to by now!

come on Glenda, you made that one too easy.
 I know, I was in the Cubs bar watching the Cubs lose it in the 8th, so my mind wasn't really on the comment.  
6  
#70 | 1141 days ago
TheGregg (+)

 In no Particular Order:

ucla
notre lame
oakland raiders
yankees
celtics
206  
#71 | 1141 days ago

Yankees
Steelers
Red Sox
Ravens
Jimmie Johnson...if it counts
33  
#72 | 1141 days ago
Nick__ (+)

1) PACKERS
2) YANKEES
3) MIAMI HEAT
4) VANCOUVER CANUCKS
5) DETROIT PISTONS OF THE 1990's!!!

my list, when I was younger was

1) PACKERS
2) ST. CARDS, but, since the Cubs suck, there really isn't that rivalry anymore
3) DETROIT RED WINGS - I've grown to RESPECT them and now I dislike and disrespect VANCOUVER
4) Used to be the DETROIT PISTONS but since LBJ & BOSH did what they did during the Free Agency signings of 2010, they are my #1 NBA team to dislike!
5) YANKEES - They are the evil empire!
8  
#73 | 1140 days ago

My guess would be, (as others have mentioned) that the Yankees win this, with the Cowboys or the Red Sox coming in second and third.
Maybe the Heat....but, probably not enough. I don't dislike the Yankees, or like them, same for the Red Sox. The thing I don't get is, I see a lot of ppl that are Yankees fans. The most hated... and loved I suppose.
#74 | 1140 days ago

 If we do college sports my list is Texas, Notre Dame, Arizona State, Colorado, and the entire SEC.
5  
#75 | 1140 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
i'm not offended, just curious. what's with the houston hate?
 Ha, there are only 4 teams that I really hate, so I just added No. 5 to mess with you  When I was watching the All-Star game, it was my first time seeing Hunter Pence and he's fun to watch, eh?
4  
#76 | 1140 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
"The team in the AL East with the big bankroll"

You'll have to be more specific. 
 That would be the Has-beens AKA Spank-mes, with the other being the Red Sox of course.
4  
#77 | 1140 days ago

Philadelphia Flyers
Boston Red Sux
New England CHEATRIOTS
49ers
Dallas Cowboys/Giants-When they play each other, I hope they BOTH lose
69  
#78 | 1137 days ago
BDV4U (+)

Not much of a hater, but a complimentary disliker of:
  • Detroit Dead Things
  • Chicago Blah-hawgs
  • NY Skankees
  • Boston Dread Sucks
  • HUGE tie for 5th amongst NBA, soccer, collegiate football/basketball universities & conferences, NFL, NASCAR and other teams/franchises
#79 | 1137 days ago

Just the Dallas Cowboys.
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#81 | 1128 days ago

First & Foremost OHIO STATE

Secondly The New York Skankees

Third The Chicago White Sux

Fourth The San Jose Sharks

Fifth Oregon State
17  
#82 | 1128 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Packers



Vikings
Red Wings
Cardinals(MLB)
Pistons
You only hate the red wings cuz they are consistanly good. please tell me i'm wrong.
17  
#83 | 1128 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
First & Foremost OHIO STATE

Secondly The New York Skankees

Third The Chicago White Sux

Fourth The San Jose Sharks

Fifth Oregon State
You only hate the Sharks because they are consistently good AND they have knocked off the Wings 3 times and the last two in a row. 
#84 | 1128 days ago

 I don't hate but a lot of disrespect  --1- DALLAS Cowboys 2 nd LA. Lakers 3rd Miami Heat 4th All NFL and NCAA football zebras who just can screw up a good football game.   5th The rich tv net worth's who want to charge us to see our favorite football games this fall....{Due to subject local black out your game will not be seen ...}Unless you want to pay  to see what you would use to get   ..Dish network Direct  tv. cable.etc. wants your money
#85 | 1128 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
You only hate the red wings cuz they are consistanly good. please tell me i'm wrong.
I respect the hell out of Kenny Holland and the Wings, but I hate them because they're a rival.  Datsyuk and Zetterberg with nice finds later in the draft, but even they are getting up there in age.  Can't wait to see how the Wings will restock the roster in the salary cap era.  Something tells me you'll be looking up at the Hawks for the foreseeable future.  Then again, we've owned the Wings since 2008 so you're probably used to it. 

#86 | 1127 days ago

The Jokeland Gays
The Los Angeles Dodgers
The Dallas  Cowboys
The Philadelphia Phillies
New York Giants
#87 | 1127 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
I respect the hell out of Kenny Holland and the Wings, but I hate them because they're a rival.  Datsyuk and Zetterberg with nice finds later in the draft, but even they are getting up there in age.  Can't wait to see how the Wings will restock the roster in the salary cap era.  Something tells me you'll be looking up at the Hawks for the foreseeable future.  Then again, we've owned the Wings since 2008 so you're probably used to it. 

looking up at the blackhawks?!?!?!...Please...i guess making the playoffs 20 seasons in a row has nothing to do with how good the red wings are and how great ken holland is because he knows how to bring players up through the system instead of throwing them into the mix right away,.
17  
#88 | 1127 days ago

ML31 wrote:
You only hate the Sharks because they are consistently good AND they have knocked off the Wings 3 times and the last two in a row. 
no i hate the sharks because of joe thornton and they're not that good when was the last time they won a stanley cup?? and really how well did they play against vancouver in the WCF this year??
17  
#89 | 1127 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
no i hate the sharks because of joe thornton and they're not that good when was the last time they won a stanley cup?? and really how well did they play against vancouver in the WCF this year??
Fair enough...  But somehow I'm doubting you hated Joe when he was a Bruin.

Yes.  Sharks played like crap in the CF.   But at least they were playing in them the last two years.  Crushing the Wings on the way both times.  And call me crazy but somehow I think this has more to do with your Shark hate than Joe Thornton.
#90 | 1127 days ago

(Edited by HULL_17)
ML31 wrote:
Fair enough...  But somehow I'm doubting you hated Joe when he was a Bruin.

Yes.  Sharks played like crap in the CF.   But at least they were playing in them the last two years.  Crushing the Wings on the way both times.  And call me crazy but somehow I think this has more to do with your Shark hate than Joe Thornton.
you're right they have beaten the wings the last two seasons...is being consistanly good  is that good when you blow a 3-0 lead only to win it in 7 games?? and no it really has nothing more to do with the fact that i think joe thornton is a vile gross sick excuse of a human being. (My Opinion...anyways) & Yes i did hate joe thornton as a Bruin.
17  
#91 | 1127 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
you're right they have beaten the wings the last two seasons...is being consistanly good  is that good when you blow a 3-0 lead only to win it in 7 games?? and no it really has nothing more to do with the fact that i think joe thornton is a vile gross sick excuse of a human being. (My Opinion...anyways) & Yes i did hate joe thornton as a Bruin.
winning 4-3 even when leading 3-0 is still good enough.  Plus they have for a number of years been on top of what has recently been the best overall division in the League.

OK.  You hated him as a Bruin too.  But you can't blame one for not entirely buying that given the recent team histories....
#92 | 1127 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
looking up at the blackhawks?!?!?!...Please...i guess making the playoffs 20 seasons in a row has nothing to do with how good the red wings are and how great ken holland is because he knows how to bring players up through the system instead of throwing them into the mix right away,.
Did the Wings not benefit from being essentially the Yankees of the NHL while there was no salary cap?  I'm not saying Kenny Holland isn't great.  In fact, I'd say he's arguably the best GM in all of sport.  But he's got a unique set of challenges he must face now that he can't buy veterans the way the Wings used to.  Some guys will take a pay cut for a shot at the cup, but those guys are well past their prime for the most part(ie Rafalski). 
#93 | 1127 days ago

ML31 wrote:
winning 4-3 even when leading 3-0 is still good enough.  Plus they have for a number of years been on top of what has recently been the best overall division in the League.

OK.  You hated him as a Bruin too.  But you can't blame one for not entirely buying that given the recent team histories....
Dude, I'd call the Sharks the Buffalo Bills of hockey, but that would giving them too much credit.  Way to pimp those regular season records.  Maybe they'll finally get over the hump one of these years a la the Dallas Mavericks.  I wouldn't count on it, though.  Blackhawks will be back to teaching lessons next year.  Book that sh*t.  
#94 | 1127 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Dude, I'd call the Sharks the Buffalo Bills of hockey, but that would giving them too much credit.  Way to pimp those regular season records.  Maybe they'll finally get over the hump one of these years a la the Dallas Mavericks.  I wouldn't count on it, though.  Blackhawks will be back to teaching lessons next year.  Book that sh*t.  
Hawks were a flash in the pan.  You know it.  The League knows it.  Most fans know it.  Denying it is lunacy.
#95 | 1127 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Did the Wings not benefit from being essentially the Yankees of the NHL while there was no salary cap?  I'm not saying Kenny Holland isn't great.  In fact, I'd say he's arguably the best GM in all of sport.  But he's got a unique set of challenges he must face now that he can't buy veterans the way the Wings used to.  Some guys will take a pay cut for a shot at the cup, but those guys are well past their prime for the most part(ie Rafalski). 
Yankees of the NHL...Please...Come back to me when you have a legit argument. as i said befor it is not my fault or anyone elses fault in the organization that we know how to built championchips by bringing players up through the system instead of letting them get tossed right in the mix of the NHL. so please tell me how exactly are we the Yankees of the NHL...we don't throw millions upon millions of dollars at one player and hope for the best. we spread the money out as evenly as possible and develope the player and bring them up when they'r ready.
17  
#96 | 1127 days ago

if they where as good as you are saying they are they would have closed out the series in four games. that is the different between good and great teams. and another thing...you need to quit talkin like you know me on the joe thornton issue i have never liked him and never will...so i don't appreciate you trying to tell me the only reason why i don't like him is because of recent team history...nope that's not true i haven't liked him since he came into the NHL...
17  
#97 | 1127 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Not much of a hater, but a complimentary disliker of:
  • Detroit Dead Things
  • Chicago Blah-hawgs
  • NY Skankees
  • Boston Dread Sucks
  • HUGE tie for 5th amongst NBA, soccer, collegiate football/basketball universities & conferences, NFL, NASCAR and other teams/franchises
Funny that you have the nerve to call the Red Wings the "Dead" things when you're a Blues Fan. I Find That Quite Comical.
17  
#98 | 1127 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
HULL_17 wrote:
if they where as good as you are saying they are they would have closed out the series in four games. that is the different between good and great teams. and another thing...you need to quit talkin like you know me on the joe thornton issue i have never liked him and never will...so i don't appreciate you trying to tell me the only reason why i don't like him is because of recent team history...nope that's not true i haven't liked him since he came into the NHL...
That's just an excuse and you know it.  Of course, I could use the route that certain Wings fans used and claim the reason for the 3 losses were the refs.  But that would just be bad sportsmanship.  The bottom line is the Sharks have advanced further than the Wings (at Wings expense) no matter what kind of spin helps satisfy you.
I have also never claimed to know you.  I have said I know the situation and have read what you wrote.  They don't add up.  And given your attitude I am leaning towards it is more because the Sharks have knocked off the Wings two years in a row than it is about Thornton.  Sure, it's possible.  But a reasoned person would understand why someone would think otherwise and just move on.
#99 | 1127 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
I respect the hell out of Kenny Holland and the Wings, but I hate them because they're a rival.  Datsyuk and Zetterberg with nice finds later in the draft, but even they are getting up there in age.  Can't wait to see how the Wings will restock the roster in the salary cap era.  Something tells me you'll be looking up at the Hawks for the foreseeable future.  Then again, we've owned the Wings since 2008 so you're probably used to it. 

owened us since 2008?? how on gods green earth do you figure that?? :O
17  
#100 | 1127 days ago

ML31 wrote:
That's just an excuse and you know it.  Of course, I could use the route that certain Wings fans used and claim the reason for the 3 losses were the refs.  But that would just be bad sportsmanship.  The bottom line is the Sharks have advanced further than the Wings (at Wings expense) no matter what kind of spin helps satisfy you.
I have also never claimed to know you.  I have said I know the situation and have read what you wrote.  They don't add up.  And given your attitude I am leaning towards it is more because the Sharks have knocked off the Wings two years in a row than it is about Thornton.  Sure, it's possible.  But a reasoned person would understand why someone would think otherwise and just move on.
what's an excuse?? how awful the sharks played in that series because they couldn't close out the series till game 7?
17  
#101 | 1127 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
what's an excuse?? how awful the sharks played in that series because they couldn't close out the series till game 7?
I have to spoon feed you?  So be it.

You are looking for a silver lining in the loss.  So you put down the team that beat you by saying they couldn't close it out in 4 when all that matters is that it gets closed out.  Sure it would be better if it was in 4.  But better in 7 than not at all.
BTW...  Where is your silver lining from the year before?  I bet it is because the Sharks didn't close that one out in 4 and let it go to 5.
#102 | 1127 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Hawks were a flash in the pan.  You know it.  The League knows it.  Most fans know it.  Denying it is lunacy.
Flash in the pan?  We have arguably the best core of young players in the NHL in Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Boland, and Crawford to along with very good vets like Sharp and Hossa.  And we just added a ton of toughness to protect our young stars.  The HAwks are here to stay for awhile.  Meanwhile, the Sharks window is closing.  I'd be angry if I were you too. 
#103 | 1127 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I have to spoon feed you?  So be it.

You are looking for a silver lining in the loss.  So you put down the team that beat you by saying they couldn't close it out in 4 when all that matters is that it gets closed out.  Sure it would be better if it was in 4.  But better in 7 than not at all.
BTW...  Where is your silver lining from the year before?  I bet it is because the Sharks didn't close that one out in 4 and let it go to 5.
i would have said that about any team that couldn't close out a 3-0 lead


&

if i was going to hate a player on talent alone then i wouldn't like joe pavelski. so take your theories about why i dislike joe thornton and shove it...
17  
#104 | 1127 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
Yankees of the NHL...Please...Come back to me when you have a legit argument. as i said befor it is not my fault or anyone elses fault in the organization that we know how to built championchips by bringing players up through the system instead of letting them get tossed right in the mix of the NHL. so please tell me how exactly are we the Yankees of the NHL...we don't throw millions upon millions of dollars at one player and hope for the best. we spread the money out as evenly as possible and develope the player and bring them up when they'r ready.
Before the salary cap was imposed, Detroit could afford to add salary and as a result, very good/great players signed with the Wings or were traded there because the trading partner couldn't afford to keep them.  How do you think the "Russian Five" came to be?  How do you think you landed Shanahan and Murphy?  How do you think you landed Conn Smythe winner Mike Vernon?  What about Hasek, Chelios, Robitaille, and HULL?  I would go on, but I think you get the point. 
#105 | 1127 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Before the salary cap was imposed, Detroit could afford to add salary and as a result, very good/great players signed with the Wings or were traded there because the trading partner couldn't afford to keep them.  How do you think the "Russian Five" came to be?  How do you think you landed Shanahan and Murphy?  How do you think you landed Conn Smythe winner Mike Vernon?  What about Hasek, Chelios, Robitaille, and HULL?  I would go on, but I think you get the point. 
you realize in 02 hull, robitaille, hasek and chelios and a few others who where already on the team took pay cuts so the first 3 mentioned could come here to detroit to win a ring cuz that was more important than money
17  
#106 | 1127 days ago
BDV4U (+)

HULL_17 wrote:
Funny that you have the nerve to call the Red Wings the "Dead" things when you're a Blues Fan. I Find That Quite Comical.
Would you prefer Old Things, judging by the age of most of the players over the past 2 decades, Gordie Howe-breath? LMAO
#107 | 1127 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Would you prefer Old Things, judging by the age of most of the players over the past 2 decades, Gordie Howe-breath? LMAO
you're a blues fan...how is you calling the red wings the "dead" things a valid point?? you're a blues fan man...
17  
#108 | 1127 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
you realize in 02 hull, robitaille, hasek and chelios and a few others who where already on the team took pay cuts so the first 3 mentioned could come here to detroit to win a ring cuz that was more important than money
And that's very commendable for guys to take pay cuts for the chance to win a cup(or another in some cases).  I'm just saying the Wings could take on a lot more salary back before the cap and it certainly wasn't a rarity. 

Hull didn't take a huge pay cut for the duration of his last deal.  In 2002 he made a lot less than the following two seasons, but he would of taken a cut anywhere because it was the end of his career.  Same for Luc.  Hasek made $8 million from 2002-04, the most he ever made per year in his career.  Chelios(TRADER - j/k) also didn't appear to take a pay cut either.

If I was a hockey player, Detroit would be a top destination for obvious reasons.  Like I said, I consider Kenny Holland one of the best GMs in all of sport and the Red Wing franchise speaks for itself. 

I don't think the Wings are going anywhere anytime soon and that speaks volumes to the franchise as a whole.  I just tend to think the new set of challenges in a new era will prevent the Wings from being the dominating team they were for so many years. 

It'll be fun to watch unfold. 
#109 | 1127 days ago
BDV4U (+)

HULL_17 wrote:
you're a blues fan...how is you calling the red wings the "dead" things a valid point?? you're a blues fan man...
Have you failed to read the title of this thread?!?

Cubs fans talk smack on here all the time and they haven't won anything since Woodrow Wilson was President. If I don't like Detroit & Chicago, I don't have to like Detroit & Chicago! END OF STORY!!!

BTW - Your boy was STILL in the crease in Dallas, versus Buffalo - NO GOAL!!!
#110 | 1127 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Have you failed to read the title of this thread?!?

Cubs fans talk smack on here all the time and they haven't won anything since Woodrow Wilson was President. If I don't like Detroit & Chicago, I don't have to like Detroit & Chicago! END OF STORY!!!

BTW - Your boy was STILL in the crease in Dallas, versus Buffalo - NO GOAL!!!
im not saying you can't hate detroit but have a good reason why. ohh you're calling them the dead things...do you realize how stupid that makes you look??

BTW--i will stand by this untill the day i die that it should not have been a goal but the refs called it how they called it and the Stars won the 99 stanley cup. Deal With It America!! Deal With It.
17  
#111 | 1127 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Flash in the pan?  We have arguably the best core of young players in the NHL in Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Boland, and Crawford to along with very good vets like Sharp and Hossa.  And we just added a ton of toughness to protect our young stars.  The HAwks are here to stay for awhile.  Meanwhile, the Sharks window is closing.  I'd be angry if I were you too. 
Yep.  Flash in the pan.  Hawks have salary cap issues and it showed last year.  They couldn't maintain the level they displayed the year before.  And it is showing no sign of changing anytime soon.  Sorry, but the truth can hurt.

As for the Sharks, I have been thinking their window was closing for the last 4 years.  And it seems to keep staying open.  Get used to posting pictures of the 2010 Cup celebration.  It's likely you will have to milk that for another 49 years.
#112 | 1127 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
i would have said that about any team that couldn't close out a 3-0 lead


&

if i was going to hate a player on talent alone then i wouldn't like joe pavelski. so take your theories about why i dislike joe thornton and shove it...
Fact is, your attitude and the circumstances don't back up what you say.  I will repeat this because you didn't seem to get it the first time around.  It is 100% reasonable that someone wouldn't believe your reasons for hating the Sharks.  A rational human being would understand and accept it and not keep dragging it on and on and on.
#113 | 1127 days ago

(Edited by kteacher)
HULL_17 wrote:
you realize in 02 hull, robitaille, hasek and chelios and a few others who where already on the team took pay cuts so the first 3 mentioned could come here to detroit to win a ring cuz that was more important than money
 Uh.....excuse me................but Robitaille didn't take a pay cut. He went for the longer deal which wasn't being offered by the Kings.


OK......carry on. This is a fun conversation. 


Go Poll! 
13  
#114 | 1127 days ago
BDV4U (+)

HULL_17 wrote:
im not saying you can't hate detroit but have a good reason why. ohh you're calling them the dead things...do you realize how stupid that makes you look??

BTW--i will stand by this untill the day i die that it should not have been a goal but the refs called it how they called it and the Stars won the 99 stanley cup. Deal With It America!! Deal With It.
If you looked at THE ENTIRE LIST, I mocked ALL OF THEM, not just Detroit! Did Blah-Hawg fans bitch? Did Skankee fans bitch? Did Dred Sux fans bitch? I'm sure if I mentioned the Flubs, Blewers, LA Queens, SJ Minnows, Vancouver Blowchunks, Calgary Blames, Edmonton Boils, Minnesota Milds, Dallas Cowgirls, the 69ers, Pittsburgh Cheaters, Cleveland Brownspots, Cincinnati Bungholes or anyone else - they wouldn't bitch either. JUST YOU!

In your own words, Deal With It.
#115 | 1127 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
yes yankees. and i believe they are the first to reach five. biggest losers. i mean what a flop they are on top of being jerks. they buy the best players available and all they have to show for it is 27 championships? peh.

( you)
everybody may hate the Yankees- but 27 rings speaks for itself- NOBODY has that many- dont hate the players- hate the game!!!

b
48  
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#117 | 1127 days ago

alainpeartree wrote:
everybody may hate the Yankees- but 27 rings speaks for itself- NOBODY has that many- dont hate the players- hate the game!!!

b
I think I speak for many when I say it's not so much the Yankees we hate but the economic system MLB uses that enables the rich teams to buy players and give themselves the greatest chances at winning titles.  Since the Yankees are the grossest manifestation of the system, people hate on them for that reason.   They can't boo what is wrong with the game so they boo the team that best represents what is wrong with the game.
#118 | 1127 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
If you looked at THE ENTIRE LIST, I mocked ALL OF THEM, not just Detroit! Did Blah-Hawg fans bitch? Did Skankee fans bitch? Did Dred Sux fans bitch? I'm sure if I mentioned the Flubs, Blewers, LA Queens, SJ Minnows, Vancouver Blowchunks, Calgary Blames, Edmonton Boils, Minnesota Milds, Dallas Cowgirls, the 69ers, Pittsburgh Cheaters, Cleveland Brownspots, Cincinnati Bungholes or anyone else - they wouldn't bitch either. JUST YOU!

In your own words, Deal With It.

you are irrelivent because you can't see someone's opinion if they don't have to do with the sharks or the giants!!

17  
#119 | 1127 days ago

I've thought on it for years and am left with no explanation why but,

"Florida ... F you!  Yeh, all of you!  Not "all of you" like  "the people" ... just ALL of your teams!   All of your teams look like the tampon isle to me!"

"Pennslyvania ... Penn St.  Joe Paterno is the only reason I can't say the same thing about your ENTIRE Fn state's teams!!"

Raiders ... F you!  Not the team ... I like the team ... Raider Nation ... You're a bunch of Fn ret**ds!!  (Except you Kat   you can hang wit em ... make em look saucy)

NY Giants ... Not even L.T. could make y'all cool.  I don't give a F if Elmer Fudd blindly got that ball down the field and stuck that other dude's helmet ... y'all weren't "seriously" challenged before getting to that game in the playoffs.  Take the ring and Fn stare at it REALLY CLOSE ... because Fudd ain't getting you back there anytime soon!!

Cleveland Browns  <~~~ I've never wanted to love a team I hate more than you .... whatever the F it is about your team (coach, qb ... whatever), you  guys Fn p*** me off!!!   I wish I'd never seen Eric Metcalf tight rope down the sidelines ... then I could legitimately hate you without feeling guilty!  F'ers!!!!
#120 | 1127 days ago
BDV4U (+)

HULL_17 wrote:

you are irrelivent because you can't see someone's opinion if they don't have to do with the sharks or the giants!!

HUH?!? What do the Sharks and Giants have to do with it?

If I'm so "irrelivent" (whatever that is, since it's in no dictionary I've ever seen), then why jump my $#!+ over what I said about the Dead Things?
#121 | 1126 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Yep.  Flash in the pan.  Hawks have salary cap issues and it showed last year.  They couldn't maintain the level they displayed the year before.  And it is showing no sign of changing anytime soon.  Sorry, but the truth can hurt.

As for the Sharks, I have been thinking their window was closing for the last 4 years.  And it seems to keep staying open.  Get used to posting pictures of the 2010 Cup celebration.  It's likely you will have to milk that for another 49 years.
Thanks for pointing out the salary cap issues, Captain Obvious.  I'm well aware of the cap problems the Hawks faced last summer and even into this season.  However, we were able to keep our core intact and we have some young studs coming up like Nick Leddy and Ben Smith.  We didn't maintain the elite level displayed on the Stanley Cup run(in which the Sharks got swept - lol), but I'll chalk it up to a Stanley Cup hangover.  Don't worry, your Sharks will never know what a SC hangover is because they're too busy choking away their precious little regular seasons. 

The Hawks will be back among the elite this season.  You mad? 
#122 | 1126 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
HUH?!? What do the Sharks and Giants have to do with it?

If I'm so "irrelivent" (whatever that is, since it's in no dictionary I've ever seen), then why jump my $#!+ over what I said about the Dead Things?
that was directed twords someone else...my bad...i apologize.... =| because to me you have no real reasoning about why you call them dead things...yeah you mocked every team on your list...but what's the reasoning behind it...
17  
#123 | 1126 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
jswol54 wrote:
Thanks for pointing out the salary cap issues, Captain Obvious.  I'm well aware of the cap problems the Hawks faced last summer and even into this season.  However, we were able to keep our core intact and we have some young studs coming up like Nick Leddy and Ben Smith.  We didn't maintain the elite level displayed on the Stanley Cup run(in which the Sharks got swept - lol), but I'll chalk it up to a Stanley Cup hangover.  Don't worry, your Sharks will never know what a SC hangover is because they're too busy choking away their precious little regular seasons. 

The Hawks will be back among the elite this season.  You mad? 
Keeping the core intact resulted in an 13th place finish.  And needing help from other teams to even do that. 

And of course, you aren't the slightest bit annoyed when someone points out things you don't like to hear.  Of course not.  You are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

PS:  I wonder how many years you will be using the "Stanley Cup Hangover" as an excuse... 
#124 | 1126 days ago

1 - Wow, I would list some teams I dislike but I don't really feel like getting into a pi**ing match with oversensitive fans. Geez people, it's all in fun.
2 - I don't really think anybody needs a good reason to hate or mock a team. It's all part of the fun of being a "fanatic".
34  
#125 | 1126 days ago

Jess wrote:
1 - Wow, I would list some teams I dislike but I don't really feel like getting into a pi**ing match with oversensitive fans. Geez people, it's all in fun.
2 - I don't really think anybody needs a good reason to hate or mock a team. It's all part of the fun of being a "fanatic".
i think the hot green in the seahawks uniforms is stupid.
#126 | 1126 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
i think the hot green in the seahawks uniforms is stupid.
I do too. I hate it.
34  
#127 | 1126 days ago

Jess wrote:
I do too. I hate it.
well, that totally deflated my hate balloon for the pee-hawks.
#128 | 1126 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
i think the hot green in the seahawks uniforms is stupid.
 I think the fact that the Texans and their fans claim to be a professional football team from Texas is rec*ckulous!
22  
#129 | 1126 days ago

Jess wrote:
1 - Wow, I would list some teams I dislike but I don't really feel like getting into a pi**ing match with oversensitive fans. Geez people, it's all in fun.
2 - I don't really think anybody needs a good reason to hate or mock a team. It's all part of the fun of being a "fanatic".
True.  So very very true.   I take part in such shenanigans with a smile as I enjoy it.  But some people do so way too seriously.  As if their sister was insulted or something.  It's just sports people!   Lighten up.
#130 | 1126 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Keeping the core intact resulted in an 13th place finish.  And needing help from other teams to even do that. 

And of course, you aren't the slightest bit annoyed when someone points out things you don't like to hear.  Of course not.  You are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

PS:  I wonder how many years you will be using the "Stanley Cup Hangover" as an excuse... 
It took a lot of time to get the new pieces to gel with the old.  It's not rocket science, chief.  Once that happened, we took the WC champs to 7 games before losing it OT.  Our young guys played very well in the playoffs and the core is intact.  We don't have goaltending issues either.  Add all that up and the future looks very bright.

I'd be mad too if I rooted for the Sharks.  They can't even make it to the Finals before breaking your little heart.  How dare they!  But hey, at least you guys won the Presidents Trophy back in 2008-09.  Do you guys pretend it's your Stanley Cup?  In November, when I'm in SanJo, I'll be sure to make a pit stop at Britannia Arms and ask them.  Or better yet, after looking at the schedule, I see my Hawks play @ the Tank on the 23rd.  Maybe I'll head west a few days early.

Btw, your tears taste delicious. 
#131 | 1126 days ago

 

87  
#132 | 1126 days ago

richard_cranium wrote:
 I think the fact that the Texans and their fans claim to be a professional football team from Texas is rec*ckulous!
at least my texans team isn't run by some socal cryptkeeper.
#133 | 1126 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
at least my texans team isn't run by some socal cryptkeeper.
 You leave Kat's Raiders out of this, having Al Davis as an owner and being a Raider fan has got to be hard enough!
22  
#134 | 1126 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
well, that totally deflated my hate balloon for the pee-hawks.
LOL oh I'm used to it..I've heard everything. An uncle of mine used to call them the SeaChickens. I've developed thick skin...you have to when your favorite team is the Seahawks
34  
#135 | 1126 days ago
ChristiSunshine (+)

Jess wrote:
1 - Wow, I would list some teams I dislike but I don't really feel like getting into a pi**ing match with oversensitive fans. Geez people, it's all in fun.
2 - I don't really think anybody needs a good reason to hate or mock a team. It's all part of the fun of being a "fanatic".
Well said. 
#136 | 1126 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
It took a lot of time to get the new pieces to gel with the old.  It's not rocket science, chief.  Once that happened, we took the WC champs to 7 games before losing it OT.  Our young guys played very well in the playoffs and the core is intact.  We don't have goaltending issues either.  Add all that up and the future looks very bright.

I'd be mad too if I rooted for the Sharks.  They can't even make it to the Finals before breaking your little heart.  How dare they!  But hey, at least you guys won the Presidents Trophy back in 2008-09.  Do you guys pretend it's your Stanley Cup?  In November, when I'm in SanJo, I'll be sure to make a pit stop at Britannia Arms and ask them.  Or better yet, after looking at the schedule, I see my Hawks play @ the Tank on the 23rd.  Maybe I'll head west a few days early.

Btw, your tears taste delicious. 
Excuses excuses excuses.  The fact is, the Hawks caught lightning in a bottle.  It actually takes a good organization to contend year in and year out on a consistent basis.  Maybe the Sharks will win a Cup.  Maybe not.  But they certainly have the better odds as they will continue to be an automatic playoff team while come April you will be praying some other team loses so you can maybe make it in the door.  I'm sure when I head through Chicago next week I will still see those Hawk fans still "hungover" from 2010, right?

You sure you know whose tears you are tasting?
#137 | 1126 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Excuses excuses excuses.  The fact is, the Hawks caught lightning in a bottle.  It actually takes a good organization to contend year in and year out on a consistent basis.  Maybe the Sharks will win a Cup.  Maybe not.  But they certainly have the better odds as they will continue to be an automatic playoff team while come April you will be praying some other team loses so you can maybe make it in the door.  I'm sure when I head through Chicago next week I will still see those Hawk fans still "hungover" from 2010, right?

You sure you know whose tears you are tasting?
Gutting half our roster and still taking the WC champs to 7 games made for a pretty good season.  It's not what we're used to the past few years, but it was expected when the team went "all in" the year before.  It paid off because I got to see my boys hoist Lord Stanley's Cup and the party that ensued was epic.  Dollar Bill Wirtz isn't around to ruin the franchise anymore so you can hush with the consistency talk.  The Hawks will be making the playoffs for the foreseeable future and we're still young.  Meanwhile, the Sharks continue to age and will never get over the hump.  Sharks fans should demand more.  But hey, those are might cute regular seasons you have.

You Jelly?



 
#138 | 1126 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Gutting half our roster and still taking the WC champs to 7 games made for a pretty good season.  It's not what we're used to the past few years, but it was expected when the team went "all in" the year before.  It paid off because I got to see my boys hoist Lord Stanley's Cup and the party that ensued was epic.  Dollar Bill Wirtz isn't around to ruin the franchise anymore so you can hush with the consistency talk.  The Hawks will be making the playoffs for the foreseeable future and we're still young.  Meanwhile, the Sharks continue to age and will never get over the hump.  Sharks fans should demand more.  But hey, those are might cute regular seasons you have.

You Jelly?



 
 Holy crap that's a lot of people. It makes me claustrophobic just looking at it. Eek.
34  
#139 | 1126 days ago

i always thought the stanley cup looks like one of those collapsible cups you take camping.
#140 | 1126 days ago

Jess wrote:
 Holy crap that's a lot of people. It makes me claustrophobic just looking at it. Eek.
Haha.  There were an estimated 2 million people there.  It was complete and utter chaos, about nine thousand degrees(especially hot in my Toews sweater), and I loved every second of it.  Especially Kaner slamming champagne every 2 minutes.      
#141 | 1126 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Gutting half our roster and still taking the WC champs to 7 games made for a pretty good season.  It's not what we're used to the past few years, but it was expected when the team went "all in" the year before.  It paid off because I got to see my boys hoist Lord Stanley's Cup and the party that ensued was epic.  Dollar Bill Wirtz isn't around to ruin the franchise anymore so you can hush with the consistency talk.  The Hawks will be making the playoffs for the foreseeable future and we're still young.  Meanwhile, the Sharks continue to age and will never get over the hump.  Sharks fans should demand more.  But hey, those are might cute regular seasons you have.

You Jelly?



 
If thinking that needing a team to losejust to get the last playoff spot and losing in the first round was a great achievement, who am I to argue?  You are always right.  You have pretty low expectations if that is what you expected after winning the Cup.  So I guess you will be happy waiting another 49 years for lightning to strike again.  You say Sharks fans should demand more?  They demand a hell of a lot more than just making the playoffs like you seem to be happy with.  

Sorry you are angry about all this.  It's supposed to be fun but you are holding grudges. 
Looks like you got yourself 49 years worth of pictures.   At least you're prepared!
#142 | 1126 days ago

ML31 wrote:
If thinking that needing a team to losejust to get the last playoff spot and losing in the first round was a great achievement, who am I to argue?  You are always right.  You have pretty low expectations if that is what you expected after winning the Cup.  So I guess you will be happy waiting another 49 years for lightning to strike again.  You say Sharks fans should demand more?  They demand a hell of a lot more than just making the playoffs like you seem to be happy with.  

Sorry you are angry about all this.  It's supposed to be fun but you are holding grudges. 
Looks like you got yourself 49 years worth of pictures.   At least you're prepared!
Yeah, you jelly.  So you're telling me you wouldn't trade one season in which you needed help to make the playoffs for the celebration below?









I find it comical that you call me a know-it-all.  You define that phrase. 

It's ok to be jelly.  I'd be jelly too if I were you. 

As a sign of peace, I give you this awesome picture. 

#143 | 1126 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
If thinking that needing a team to losejust to get the last playoff spot and losing in the first round was a great achievement, who am I to argue?  You are always right.  You have pretty low expectations if that is what you expected after winning the Cup.  So I guess you will be happy waiting another 49 years for lightning to strike again.  You say Sharks fans should demand more?  They demand a hell of a lot more than just making the playoffs like you seem to be happy with.  

Sorry you are angry about all this.  It's supposed to be fun but you are holding grudges. 
Looks like you got yourself 49 years worth of pictures.   At least you're prepared!
Well Toronto is next with 1967 and St. Louis with 1968. Can we use that strategy? LOL
#144 | 1126 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Well Toronto is next with 1967 and St. Louis with 1968. Can we use that strategy? LOL
Hey now, step in line.  The Sharks are anxiously awaiting their next Cup.  After all, the fans demand more than a team that just won the Cup. 
#145 | 1126 days ago
BDV4U (+)

jswol54 wrote:
Hey now, step in line.  The Sharks are anxiously awaiting their next Cup.  After all, the fans demand more than a team that just won the Cup. 
What happened to the 40-50 year waiting period?!? Sharks started in what? 1993? So you're due in the 2030s! LMAO
#146 | 1126 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
What happened to the 40-50 year waiting period?!? Sharks started in what? 1993? So you're due in the 2030s! LMAO
I'd rather be Rosie O'Donnell's sex slave than root for the Sharks.  I'm just saying that their fans demand more than any other team in the NHL.  That is why they have so many Stanley Cup banners hanging in the rafters at the Shark Tank. 
#147 | 1126 days ago

The next SC will hopefully be.......................


13  
#148 | 1126 days ago

(Edited by richard_cranium)
kteacher wrote:
The next SC will hopefully be.......................


 Psst, you are doing it wrong. This thread is for ripping on other people's teams. There is a different thread for praising your own. Hold on let me go find it for you.

Nevermind that poll was also for ripping on other people's teams. But you are still doing it wrong!
22  
#149 | 1126 days ago
BDV4U (+)

richard_cranium wrote:
 Psst, you are doing it wrong. This thread is for ripping on other people's teams. There is a different thread for praising your own. Hold on let me go find it for you.

Nevermind that poll was also for ripping on other people's teams. But you are still doing it wrong!
But it's the LA Kings, so it's self-ripping.
#150 | 1126 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
But it's the LA Kings, so it's self-ripping.
OK......Blues Fan. Like you have reason to talk. How many SCs does your team have? Hmmmmmmm. That's what I thought. 
13  
#151 | 1126 days ago

richard_cranium wrote:
 Psst, you are doing it wrong. This thread is for ripping on other people's teams. There is a different thread for praising your own. Hold on let me go find it for you.

Nevermind that poll was also for ripping on other people's teams. But you are still doing it wrong!
 Shut. Up Cow Girls (ha ha.........like that Ashlie? ) Fan!

I was posting that because of the pissing match that was going on above me. They were doing it wrong too, so I followed.  Besides ......you rarely follow directions so who are you to tell me to?
13  
#152 | 1126 days ago

(Edited by richard_cranium)
kteacher wrote:
 Shut. Up Cow Girls (ha ha.........like that Ashlie? ) Fan!

I was posting that because of the pissing match that was going on above me. They were doing it wrong too, so I followed.  Besides ......you rarely follow directions so who are you to tell me to?
 Says the fan of the St. Louis Lambs! L.A. is so awful that the Lambs had to leave town to win a Super Bowl!
22  
#153 | 1126 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
jswol54 wrote:
Yeah, you jelly.  So you're telling me you wouldn't trade one season in which you needed help to make the playoffs for the celebration below?









I find it comical that you call me a know-it-all.  You define that phrase. 

It's ok to be jelly.  I'd be jelly too if I were you. 

As a sign of peace, I give you this awesome picture. 

Obviously your arrogance knows no bounds.  

If one could guarantee a victory, I might.  But such a guarantee cannot be made.
So better to go into the post season with better odds of success than have the one legit chance every 20 years or so.
Once again, if it helps you find peace by calling others "know-it-all"s when you have never once admitted there was even a remote chance you could be wrong....   Knock your self out.  I'm not here to judge you.  Especially when you seem to have that job in hand already.

Keep recycling those pics.  I'm sure they help keep the terrors of a mediocre future at bay. 
#154 | 1126 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
jswol54 wrote:
Hey now, step in line.  The Sharks are anxiously awaiting their next Cup.  After all, the fans demand more than a team that just won the Cup. 
No, but per your own words they demand far more than hawk fans do.

I would advise you to turn your calender forward but it would be too cruel even to one as condescending as yourself to ask you to live in the here and now.  Well beyond June of 2010. 
#155 | 1126 days ago
BDV4U (+)

(Edited by BDV4U)
kteacher wrote:
OK......Blues Fan. Like you have reason to talk. How many SCs does your team have? Hmmmmmmm. That's what I thought. 
At least were 3-for-3 GOING to the Finals (69-71) when they started out! And still hold the North America record with 25 straight playoff appearances. LOL
#156 | 1126 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
BDV4U wrote:
Well Toronto is next with 1967 and St. Louis with 1968. Can we use that strategy? LOL
You want to take turns?   That would get the Hawks their next Cup a lot faster, that's for sure!

But I guess it's nice to win once in 49 years as a reward for living one of the most absolutely horrid places in North America.
#157 | 1126 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
You want to take turns?   That would get the Hawks their next Cup a lot faster, that's for sure!

But I guess it's nice to win once in 49 years as a reward for living one of the most absolutely horrid places in North America.
I just want the Blues to get their Cup - screw Chicago! LOL
#158 | 1126 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
BDV4U wrote:
I just want the Blues to get their Cup - screw Chicago! LOL
You radical!    Hawk fans think demanding anything better than mediocrity is completely crazy!
#159 | 1126 days ago

richard_cranium wrote:
 Says the fan of the St. Louis Lambs! L.A. is so awful that the Lambs had to leave town to win a Super Bowl!
 LOW. BLOW. 

Yeah......well the RAms weren't from LA. They were in Anaheim (like the Angels). And and and .....Forget it....I can't type any more to someone who can't even spell "awful."



13  
#160 | 1126 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
At least were 3-for-3 GOING to the Finals (69-71) when they started out! And still hold the North America record with 25 straight playoff appearances. LOL
 All that means is that they are in the same club as the Kings -----the Cup-less club. 
13  
#161 | 1126 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
You radical!    Hawk fans think demanding anything better than mediocrity is completely crazy!
Remember, I grew up in St. Louis. You're not telling me something I don't know. Dead Thing fans are the same way! Why do you think both are so hated?!? Arrogant, stuck-up, English soccer hooligans in hockey jerseys.
#162 | 1126 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
First & Foremost OHIO STATE

Secondly The New York Skankees

Third The Chicago White Sux

Fourth The San Jose Sharks

Fifth Oregon State
I can see Ohio State, the Yankees and White Sox, the Sharks and seeing as your a Lions fan, maybe the Packers and Bears but Oregon State?  How on earth does someone who live in Michigan dislike a team in Oregon?  
619  
#163 | 1126 days ago

Scott wrote:
I can see Ohio State, the Yankees and White Sox, the Sharks and seeing as your a Lions fan, maybe the Packers and Bears but Oregon State?  How on earth does someone who live in Michigan dislike a team in Oregon?  
lol funny you ask that scott...it is all because my friend jeff is as big of a oregon state fan as i am a michigan fan...he was born and raised in oregon and loves his beavers...LMAO (Pun Intended) so he hates the wolverines as i hate the beavers lol that's why i hate oregon st.
17  
#164 | 1125 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Obviously your arrogance knows no bounds.  

If one could guarantee a victory, I might.  But such a guarantee cannot be made.
So better to go into the post season with better odds of success than have the one legit chance every 20 years or so.
Once again, if it helps you find peace by calling others "know-it-all"s when you have never once admitted there was even a remote chance you could be wrong....   Knock your self out.  I'm not here to judge you.  Especially when you seem to have that job in hand already.

Keep recycling those pics.  I'm sure they help keep the terrors of a mediocre future at bay. 
Come on, man.  You've stated time and time again that my Hawks stand no chance of competing year in and year out.  That's simply your opinion and it's fine.  However, hockey experts in all corners of this continent disagree with that notion.  In layman's terms, you're in the minority. 

I'm sorry your team hasn't delivered a Cup.  I'm sure it sucks.  But to sit here and act as if my squad doesn't stand a chance and we don't demand more is foolish.  Prior to Bill Wirtz bringing the franchise down we were a very proud organization.  When Wirtz stopped showing home games on local TV and didn't produce a good product, we sent a message by only filling half the UC.  Things got better after his son took over, did they not?  We're back and it sickens you because we've already won a Cup.  You call it a flash in the pan, we call it being back.  Keep drinking the haterade and my boys will be back among the top grouping in the WC. 
#165 | 1125 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Come on, man.  You've stated time and time again that my Hawks stand no chance of competing year in and year out.  That's simply your opinion and it's fine.  However, hockey experts in all corners of this continent disagree with that notion.  In layman's terms, you're in the minority. 

I'm sorry your team hasn't delivered a Cup.  I'm sure it sucks.  But to sit here and act as if my squad doesn't stand a chance and we don't demand more is foolish.  Prior to Bill Wirtz bringing the franchise down we were a very proud organization.  When Wirtz stopped showing home games on local TV and didn't produce a good product, we sent a message by only filling half the UC.  Things got better after his son took over, did they not?  We're back and it sickens you because we've already won a Cup.  You call it a flash in the pan, we call it being back.  Keep drinking the haterade and my boys will be back among the top grouping in the WC. 
There you go overstating things. 

It is you who time and time again claimed the Sharks will never compete when hockey experts on all corners of the globe disagree with that notion.  You are in the minority there.  It is foolish to act like my squad doesn't stand a chance.  Especially when the extreme majority do not feel that way and the team is consistently among the Cup favorites year after year.    Further, you were the one who implied you were satisfied with the first round exit in your post # 137.  Don't blame others for reacting to what you yourself put out there.  And on the flip side, I never wrote or implied that I or other Sharks supporters were satisfied with regular season success only to lose in the 2nd or 3rd playoff round.  If I am wrong, cite the post where I did.  You went there with no provocation whatsoever.

Next, this thread is supposed to be filled with good natured sports hate.  I never even mentioned the Blackhawks on my hated team list.  To think I have some sort of sports hatred for them is derranged.  I don't even care about them.  They are just there.  Which means my take on the team is unhindered by emotion.  As your take on them so obviously is.

Dude, you are among the worlds biggest hypocrites.  You freely dish crap out to people but your panties get all bunched up when it is dished back at you. 
#166 | 1125 days ago

(Edited by jswol54)
ML31 wrote:
There you go overstating things. 

It is you who time and time again claimed the Sharks will never compete when hockey experts on all corners of the globe disagree with that notion.  You are in the minority there.  It is foolish to act like my squad doesn't stand a chance.  Especially when the extreme majority do not feel that way and the team is consistently among the Cup favorites year after year.    Further, you were the one who implied you were satisfied with the first round exit in your post # 137.  Don't blame others for reacting to what you yourself put out there.  And on the flip side, I never wrote or implied that I or other Sharks supporters were satisfied with regular season success only to lose in the 2nd or 3rd playoff round.  If I am wrong, cite the post where I did.  You went there with no provocation whatsoever.

Next, this thread is supposed to be filled with good natured sports hate.  I never even mentioned the Blackhawks on my hated team list.  To think I have some sort of sports hatred for them is derranged.  I don't even care about them.  They are just there.  Which means my take on the team is unhindered by emotion.  As your take on them so obviously is.

Dude, you are among the worlds biggest hypocrites.  You freely dish crap out to people but your panties get all bunched up when it is dished back at you. 
Please point out where I ever said " the Sharks will never compete."  The only thing I said was they have nice regular seasons and they continually choke in the playoffs.  Those are the facts whether you like them or not.  And the team is aging and even you agreed that it looks like the window is closing.  They continue to make the playoffs and that's commendable.  But until they actually get over the hump and deliver the Cup, they will be criticized.  Don't like it?  Tough.

I never wrote or implied that I or other Sharks supporters were satisfied with regular season success only to lose in the 2nd or 3rd playoff round.  If I am wrong, cite the post where I did.  You went there with no provocation whatsoever.

I never said you did. 

Next, this thread is supposed to be filled with good natured sports hate.  I never even mentioned the Blackhawks on my hated team list.  To think I have some sort of sports hatred for them is derranged.  I don't even care about them.  They are just there.  Which means my take on the team is unhindered by emotion.  As your take on them so obviously is.

My first post was good natured.  You just don't possess the ability to see I actually wasn't flaming because your emotions got the best of you.  You're sensitive.  When you call my team a "flash in the pan" and provide nothing to back that up but the obvious salary cap issues that no longer exist, I'm going to call you out on it.  

You think I'm satisfied with just making the playoffs?  Absolutely not.  But as I've stated time and time again, we as Hawks fans knew what was coming and that in 2010, it was Cup or bust.  In short, all I said is that I was willing to to deal with one mediocre season if it meant my team won the Cup.  And you can say the Hawks were a one hit wonder all you want, but we still managed to take the WC champs to 7 games with a ton of new guys.  

Do you not think it was going to take some time for the team to gel?  Because if you don't, it's obvious you've never played a team sport in your life.   
#167 | 1125 days ago

Umm...you two are getting very long-winded. Whoever is reffing this needs to declare a winner, so a next bout can begin.

87  
#168 | 1125 days ago

 I'm tired of this thread now. 
34  
#169 | 1125 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:

Umm...you two are getting very long-winded. Whoever is reffing this needs to declare a winner, so a next bout can begin.

Declare me the winner and I'll hush up. 
#170 | 1125 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
Please point out where I ever said " the Sharks will never compete."

OK.   In your very next line you confirmed it.  Here it is again...  the only thing I said was they have nice regular seasons and they continually choke in the playoffs.  If you want to be a nit picker it is not an exact word for word quote.  But you and I both know what the comment means.  That and you saying the Sharks will "never win the Cup". 

But until they actually get over the hump and deliver the Cup, they will be criticized.  Don't like it?  Tough.

I never said they didn't deserve to be criticized for post season failure.  Every Sharks fan knows they do as does everyone in the organization from the investors, to Craig Jamieson, to Doug Wilson and on down to the ushers at the Tank.  Criticism is one thing.  To say they will "never win the Cup" is just spiteful.

I never said you did. 

On the contrary.  In your post #137 you said, "the Sharks continue to age and will never get over the hump.  Sharks fans should demand more.  But hey, those are might cute regular seasons you have."  Not only did you outright claim Sharks fans are not craving a Stanley Cup, but you implied they are perfectly happy with a good regular season combined with playoff failure.  You further continued to mock your own little snippy comment in other posts you made.

My first post was good natured.

It could have been taken that way on its own.   But you have a history.  MY emotions got the better of me?  I'm sensitive?  I'm not the one making baiting comments in completely unrelated threads over the last few weeks.  Your tone totally changes when your teams get called out.  It happened in other threads you and I dealt with each other and it happened again here.  Fact is, if someone has their emotions out of whack because someone dared to question his team, it's you.  You dish out grief but wig out when someone gives 1/10 of it back.

When you call my team a "flash in the pan" and provide nothing to back that up but the obvious salary cap issues that no longer exist, I'm going to call you out on it.

It was more than just the salary cap issue.  It was their performance in their Cup defending season.  I mentioned that then.  For some reason you must have forgot.

You think I'm satisfied with just making the playoffs?  Absolutely not.

That's not what you said in post #137.  You praised the team for needing help to get in the playoffs and for a first round exit.  Most fans who just experienced a title would be appalled at such a sequel.

But as I've stated time and time again, we as Hawks fans knew what was coming and that in 2010, it was Cup or bust.

Perhaps elsewhere.  But not here.

And you can say the Hawks were a one hit wonder all you want, but we still managed to take the WC champs to 7 games with a ton of new guys. 

That would be great...  IF the Hawks cruised into the playoffs and the 7th game was the Conference Finals.   Instead, it was a team that need help from others just to get in and a first round exit.  But as I said, sugar coat it all you like if it makes you feel better about the one of the more pathetic follow ups to a Cup winning season.

Do you not think it was going to take some time for the team to gel?

89 games later....  They still didn't gel.  You think they need another 89 since they will have more new pieces this season?  Other Cup winners find ways to not necessarily win the Cup but at least find ways to compete the next season.  Even if it is the start of a downward slide.
#171 | 1125 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Declare me the winner and I'll hush up. 
Can't. 1. I'm biased as sh*t. 2. I stopped reading yesterday morning. LOL
87  
#172 | 1125 days ago

(Edited by jswol54)
ML31 wrote:
Please point out where I ever said " the Sharks will never compete."

OK.   In your very next line you confirmed it.  Here it is again...  the only thing I said was they have nice regular seasons and they continually choke in the playoffs.  If you want to be a nit picker it is not an exact word for word quote.  But you and I both know what the comment means.  That and you saying the Sharks will "never win the Cup". 

But until they actually get over the hump and deliver the Cup, they will be criticized.  Don't like it?  Tough.

I never said they didn't deserve to be criticized for post season failure.  Every Sharks fan knows they do as does everyone in the organization from the investors, to Craig Jamieson, to Doug Wilson and on down to the ushers at the Tank.  Criticism is one thing.  To say they will "never win the Cup" is just spiteful.

I never said you did. 

On the contrary.  In your post #137 you said, "the Sharks continue to age and will never get over the hump.  Sharks fans should demand more.  But hey, those are might cute regular seasons you have."  Not only did you outright claim Sharks fans are not craving a Stanley Cup, but you implied they are perfectly happy with a good regular season combined with playoff failure.  You further continued to mock your own little snippy comment in other posts you made.

My first post was good natured.

It could have been taken that way on its own.   But you have a history.  MY emotions got the better of me?  I'm sensitive?  I'm not the one making baiting comments in completely unrelated threads over the last few weeks.  Your tone totally changes when your teams get called out.  It happened in other threads you and I dealt with each other and it happened again here.  Fact is, if someone has their emotions out of whack because someone dared to question his team, it's you.  You dish out grief but wig out when someone gives 1/10 of it back.

When you call my team a "flash in the pan" and provide nothing to back that up but the obvious salary cap issues that no longer exist, I'm going to call you out on it.

It was more than just the salary cap issue.  It was their performance in their Cup defending season.  I mentioned that then.  For some reason you must have forgot.

You think I'm satisfied with just making the playoffs?  Absolutely not.

That's not what you said in post #137.  You praised the team for needing help to get in the playoffs and for a first round exit.  Most fans who just experienced a title would be appalled at such a sequel.

But as I've stated time and time again, we as Hawks fans knew what was coming and that in 2010, it was Cup or bust.

Perhaps elsewhere.  But not here.

And you can say the Hawks were a one hit wonder all you want, but we still managed to take the WC champs to 7 games with a ton of new guys. 

That would be great...  IF the Hawks cruised into the playoffs and the 7th game was the Conference Finals.   Instead, it was a team that need help from others just to get in and a first round exit.  But as I said, sugar coat it all you like if it makes you feel better about the one of the more pathetic follow ups to a Cup winning season.

Do you not think it was going to take some time for the team to gel?

89 games later....  They still didn't gel.  You think they need another 89 since they will have more new pieces this season?  Other Cup winners find ways to not necessarily win the Cup but at least find ways to compete the next season.  Even if it is the start of a downward slide.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.  You're really starting to bore me.  We could go on and on with what we thought was implied, but the debate is going nowhere.  So I'll digress a bit.

How many defending Cup champions had as much turnover as the Hawks?

I asked another question that went unanswered.  Would you trade one season in which you needed help to make the playoffs if that meant your team won the Cup the previous season?   
#173 | 1125 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.  You're really starting to bore me.  We could go on and on with what we thought was implied, but the debate is going nowhere.  So I'll digress a bit.

How many defending Cup champions had as much turnover as the Hawks?

I asked another question that went unanswered.  Would you trade one season in which you needed help to make the playoffs if that meant your team won the Cup the previous season?   
don't let him get to you. that's all he does is avoid answering questions because he knows the answer(s) is that his team is fading fast in the west. and like i said before if it's not about the sharks or giants he doesn't want to hear it and rambles and rambles to hear his own fingers on the keyboard. lol  *Vomit*
17  
#174 | 1125 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
don't let him get to you. that's all he does is avoid answering questions because he knows the answer(s) is that his team is fading fast in the west. and like i said before if it's not about the sharks or giants he doesn't want to hear it and rambles and rambles to hear his own fingers on the keyboard. lol  *Vomit*
He doesn't get to me in the slightest.  He's like my personal jester. 
#175 | 1125 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.  You're really starting to bore me.  We could go on and on with what we thought was implied, but the debate is going nowhere.  So I'll digress a bit.

How many defending Cup champions had as much turnover as the Hawks?

I asked another question that went unanswered.  Would you trade one season in which you needed help to make the playoffs if that meant your team won the Cup the previous season?   
Cry me a river.  Turnover is a part of the game.  All teams deal with it.  Obviously you are clinging hard to that excuse so I don't want to be the cause of your depression.  You keep going with that.

The question you claim went unanswered was indeed answered in my post # 153.   Not surprised you blew it off.

I'm not surprised that the post where I actually cited what you said and listed actual posts to back up what I said is the one that caused you to stop addressing what you brought up because of "boredom".   Classic and totally predictable move on your part.
#176 | 1125 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
don't let him get to you. that's all he does is avoid answering questions because he knows the answer(s) is that his team is fading fast in the west. and like i said before if it's not about the sharks or giants he doesn't want to hear it and rambles and rambles to hear his own fingers on the keyboard. lol  *Vomit*
Wrong.  I straight up address the questions head on.  As a recent example in my response I pointed out the exact post where I did indeed answer his question. 

And I don't make excuses like, "the refs are against us" or, "we had a lot of turnover".

How about you point out an example where what you just said was true?

No?   I thought so.
#177 | 1125 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
He doesn't get to me in the slightest.  He's like my personal jester. 
Of course not.  You are always right.  And me getting to you isn't why you go around trying to bait me either.  Me getting to you isn't why your tone changes the instant I say anything about your precious teams.  Of course not!

Thanks for the laughs!   Nice to get them on a slow work day.
#178 | 1125 days ago

(Edited by jswol54)
ML31 wrote:
Cry me a river.  Turnover is a part of the game.  All teams deal with it.  Obviously you are clinging hard to that excuse so I don't want to be the cause of your depression.  You keep going with that.

The question you claim went unanswered was indeed answered in my post # 153.   Not surprised you blew it off.

I'm not surprised that the post where I actually cited what you said and listed actual posts to back up what I said is the one that caused you to stop addressing what you brought up because of "boredom".   Classic and totally predictable move on your part.
Cry me a river.  Turnover is a part of the game.  All teams deal with it.  Obviously you are clinging hard to that excuse so I don't want to be the cause of your depression.  You keep going with that.

Whether you like it or not, it's a valid excuse.  You conveniently ignored the question which is comical.  I'm not mad broseph.  I've stated that numerous times.  We won the Cup.  Deal with it.

I'm not surprised that the post where I actually cited what you said and listed actual posts to back up what I said is the one that caused you to stop addressing what you brought up because of "boredom".   Classic and totally predictable move on your part.

That goes both ways, chief.  You "conveniently" ignore a lot of questions.

Of course not.  You are always right.  And me getting to you isn't why you go around trying to bait me either.  Me getting to you isn't why your tone changes the instant I say anything about your precious teams.  Of course not!

Being jelly is an ugly trait. 


 
#179 | 1125 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
Cry me a river.  Turnover is a part of the game.  All teams deal with it.  Obviously you are clinging hard to that excuse so I don't want to be the cause of your depression.  You keep going with that.

Whether you like it or not, it's a valid excuse.  You conveniently ignored the question which is comical.  I'm not mad broseph.  I've stated that numerous times.  We won the Cup.  Deal with it.

I'm not surprised that the post where I actually cited what you said and listed actual posts to back up what I said is the one that caused you to stop addressing what you brought up because of "boredom".   Classic and totally predictable move on your part.

That goes both ways, chief.  You "conveniently" ignore a lot of questions.

Of course not.  You are always right.  And me getting to you isn't why you go around trying to bait me either.  Me getting to you isn't why your tone changes the instant I say anything about your precious teams.  Of course not!

Being jelly is an ugly trait. 


 
Whether you like it or not, it's a valid excuse.  You conveniently ignored the question which is comical.  I'm not mad broseph.  I've stated that numerous times.

I'm not judging but even you just called it an excuse.  Even your own team never used it as an excuse.  They manned up and placed it on their own shoulders.  I never ignored your question and I told you the post # where you could find the answer.  Go ahead and turn a blind eye to that.  It seems to be in your character.

That goes both ways, chief.  You "conveniently" ignore a lot of questions.

It could.  But not in this instance.  You think I ignored your questions?  Go ahead and ask again.  (in one case it will be the 3rd time you asked)   I'll point out the post where I answered them.  Who am I kidding?  We both know you won't do it.

Being jelly is an ugly trait. 

Don't be so hard on yourself.  With help you can get over that hump.
#180 | 1125 days ago

I'm not judging but even you just called it an excuse.  Even your own team never used it as an excuse.  They manned up and placed it on their own shoulders.  I never ignored your question and I told you the post # where you could find the answer.  Go ahead and turn a blind eye to that.  It seems to be in your character.

They're professionals.  Of course they can't come out and say it.  That sort of thing is for guys like us to debate over.  I never once said we would have won the Cup or even the 1st round series had there not been such a high turnover.  Instead, I said I was happy with the season after all the changes.  Nevertheless, it was an excuse.  You happy? 

And you didn't answer the question directly.  I asked flat out if you would trade a mediocre season for a Cup.  You then responded with "If one could guarantee a victory, I might.  But such a guarantee cannot be made." That's not what I asked. 

Let's say you are assured the Cup in exchange for a mediocre season.  Would you do it?
#181 | 1125 days ago

87  
#182 | 1125 days ago

New England Patriots
Baltimore Ravens
New York Jets
Duke
Pittsburgh Steelers
#183 | 1125 days ago

98 reasons why i hate hockey in two seconds: comments #82-#180.
#184 | 1125 days ago

Somebody's





But they're not here.
#185 | 1125 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Of course not.  You are always right.  And me getting to you isn't why you go around trying to bait me either.  Me getting to you isn't why your tone changes the instant I say anything about your precious teams.  Of course not!

Thanks for the laughs!   Nice to get them on a slow work day.
 Do you get along with anybody? I've yet to see it on here. 
5  
#186 | 1125 days ago

jswol54 wrote:
I'm not judging but even you just called it an excuse.  Even your own team never used it as an excuse.  They manned up and placed it on their own shoulders.  I never ignored your question and I told you the post # where you could find the answer.  Go ahead and turn a blind eye to that.  It seems to be in your character.

They're professionals.  Of course they can't come out and say it.  That sort of thing is for guys like us to debate over.  I never once said we would have won the Cup or even the 1st round series had there not been such a high turnover.  Instead, I said I was happy with the season after all the changes.  Nevertheless, it was an excuse.  You happy? 

And you didn't answer the question directly.  I asked flat out if you would trade a mediocre season for a Cup.  You then responded with "If one could guarantee a victory, I might.  But such a guarantee cannot be made." That's not what I asked. 

Let's say you are assured the Cup in exchange for a mediocre season.  Would you do it?
No, I answered the question directly.  What you thought of the answer doesn't mean you can claim I never answered.  I never claimed you felt they should have won the Cup.  I was just surprised you seemed satisfied with the medioric way the team defended their title.  And felt it hypocritical that you would rag on some other teams fans for demanding something greater than you seemed to demand yourself.  Yes, I am happy you know it is an excuse.  And you are obviously cutting your team huge slack for finally winning.

To your new question...  The answer is obviously that if such a thing could be a 100% certainty somehow....  Obviously yes.  I hope you don't go where I think you are going to go with that however.
#187 | 1125 days ago

desertrat wrote:
 Do you get along with anybody? I've yet to see it on here. 
I get along with everyone.  Everyone I know tells me what an easy going guy I am.
#188 | 1125 days ago

Guys...guys...relax...hockey sucks.
#189 | 1125 days ago

Jason_ wrote:
Guys...guys...relax...hockey sucks.
second.

All in favor
#190 | 1125 days ago

I'm not even going to justify that argument with a response.

However, it would be pretty awesome if we could stop talking in circles now.

PS...I hate the Dallas Stars for no other reason than a couple of their former players ticked me off a few too many times. Other than that, it's not the teams I dislike; it's the fan bases of those teams. 


34  
#191 | 1125 days ago

If it kills, AYE!
87  
#192 | 1125 days ago

Jess wrote:
I'm not even going to justify that argument with a response.

However, it would be pretty awesome if we could stop talking in circles now.

PS...I hate the Dallas Stars for no other reason than a couple of their former players ticked me off a few too many times. Other than that, it's not the teams I dislike; it's the fan bases of those teams. 


I could mod all of this........if only........
#193 | 1125 days ago

Jess wrote:
I'm not even going to justify that argument with a response.

However, it would be pretty awesome if we could stop talking in circles now.

PS...I hate the Dallas Stars for no other reason than a couple of their former players ticked me off a few too many times. Other than that, it's not the teams I dislike; it's the fan bases of those teams. 


that's really not a good enough reason to hate a team.
#194 | 1125 days ago

Jason_ wrote:
I could mod all of this........if only........
I'd give you a star, but I'm not allowed to play with scissors and glue anymore after that nasty little incident in the girls bathroom.
#195 | 1125 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
I'd give you a star, but I'm not allowed to play with scissors and glue anymore after that nasty little incident in the girls bathroom.
Did you cut your labia off?
#196 | 1125 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
98 reasons why i hate hockey in two seconds: comments #82-#180.
 
13  
#197 | 1125 days ago

 I hate Jack and Jason. 


Both are off my list and their teams are now top of my most hated list. 
13  
#198 | 1125 days ago

Jason_ wrote:
Did you cut your labia off?
Yup, that's where the glue came in...wait, what?
#199 | 1125 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
Yup, that's where the glue came in...wait, what?
Elmers?  Wood?  Gorilla?  Super? 
#200 | 1125 days ago

 I'm guessing glitter glue.
13  
#201 | 1125 days ago

kteacher wrote:
 I'm guessing glitter glue.
I bet he vajazzled.
#202 | 1125 days ago

Jason_ wrote:
I bet he vajazzled.
 No doubt. 
13  
#203 | 1125 days ago

Jason_ wrote:
I bet he vajazzled.
#204 | 1125 days ago

The Green "Gay" Packers
The Colorado "Crapalanche"
Cleveland Indians
Oh "CryO" State
Sorry Kramer..........Pittsburgh Penquins


I wouldn't say I hate them because that's a strong word, however...I really really really really dislike these teams.
4  
#205 | 1125 days ago

1- oakland raiders
2- miami heat
3- san diego chargers
4- dallas cowboys
5- new york yankees
#206 | 1125 days ago

1- LA Lakers
2- New York Yankees
3- ST Louis Rams
4- Patriots
5- Dallas Cowboys
420  
#207 | 1125 days ago

 What happened to the hockey fight? At least I didn't feel the need to read this thread during that argument. Damn it reading sucks more than hockey!
22  
#208 | 1124 days ago

richard_cranium wrote:
 What happened to the hockey fight? At least I didn't feel the need to read this thread during that argument. Damn it reading sucks more than hockey!
I do have to thank you. I knew you would be the one to PQ me
I could have put Dallas Cowboys at the top of the list but they
had to be on there somewhere
420  
#209 | 1124 days ago

maddhatter6691 wrote:
I do have to thank you. I knew you would be the one to PQ me
I could have put Dallas Cowboys at the top of the list but they
had to be on there somewhere
 I didn't want to, but Kenne said we had to pq people who listed our teams. I am simply following his rules, plus you listed the Lakers also. I would have pq'ed you twice if I could have.
22  
#210 | 1124 days ago
18packabs (+)

NY Yankees
NY Rangers
Baltimore Ravens
Any Team LeBron plays for
Miami Hurricanes
#211 | 1124 days ago

 For me my most hated are the following. 

Red Sox(MLB) 

Cowboys(NFL) 

Lakers( NBA) 

Rangers(NHL)
#212 | 1124 days ago

the_scooter6 wrote:
 For me my most hated are the following. 

Red Sox(MLB) 

Cowboys(NFL) 

Lakers( NBA) 

Rangers(NHL)
Very Nice you have the
Dallas Cowboys and
LA Lakers listed
420  
#213 | 1124 days ago

Dont make me threadjack this.....
#214 | 1124 days ago
BDV4U (+)

Jason_ wrote:
Dont make me threadjack this.....
Would that make you a jack-on or a .... nevermind!
#215 | 1122 days ago

kteacher wrote:
 LOW. BLOW. 

Yeah......well the RAms weren't from LA. They were in Anaheim (like the Angels). And and and .....Forget it....I can't type any more to someone who can't even spell "awful."



Well, teach...they started in Cleveland, of all places...THEN moved to LA, then to Anaheim in the late 70's....then bolted for St. Louis in '95...AND, they were the first team to have a logo on their helmets...
69  
#216 | 1122 days ago
BDV4U (+)

icfeet wrote:
Well, teach...they started in Cleveland, of all places...THEN moved to LA, then to Anaheim in the late 70's....then bolted for St. Louis in '95...AND, they were the first team to have a logo on their helmets...
TECHNICALLY, they started as the Cincinnati Gunslingers, lasted half a season, moved to St. Louis to finish that season, laid dormant, THEN came back as the Cleveland Rams. If memory serves, they are also the only NFL team to have titles in 3 cities (Cleveland, LA & St. Louis). Only the MLB Braves (Boston, Milwaukee & Atlanta) has that distinction.
#217 | 1122 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
TECHNICALLY, they started as the Cincinnati Gunslingers, lasted half a season, moved to St. Louis to finish that season, laid dormant, THEN came back as the Cleveland Rams. If memory serves, they are also the only NFL team to have titles in 3 cities (Cleveland, LA & St. Louis). Only the MLB Braves (Boston, Milwaukee & Atlanta) has that distinction.
I had to look this up. They moved from Cleveland right after winning their only championship there in 1945. Chicago was the nearest city with a team when they moved to Los Angeles. The Rams were also the first NFL team to have African American players.
#218 | 1122 days ago

1) Dallas Cowboys
2) New York Yankees
3) San Francisco Giants 
4) Boston Celtics
5) New England Patriots

Sorry I'm late...I just saw this thread today!
8  
#219 | 1121 days ago

1 Clippers
2 San F*g Giants
3 49ers
4 Ducks
5 tie - Jazz & Browns #2

U of Arizona Wildcats, Utah Utes & Aggies for NCAA
#220 | 1121 days ago

MLB - Cleveland Indians,
NFL - Pittsburgh Steelers
NHL - Montreal Canadiens,
NBA - New Jersey Nets
NCAAF - Ohio St.
#221 | 1121 days ago

Michael_G wrote:


yep
Is this a Pic of "Glenda" when she was Growing up?
420  
#222 | 1120 days ago

HULL_17 wrote:
don't let him get to you. that's all he does is avoid answering questions because he knows the answer(s) is that his team is fading fast in the west. and like i said before if it's not about the sharks or giants he doesn't want to hear it and rambles and rambles to hear his own fingers on the keyboard. lol  *Vomit*
no you sure don't. you avoid the question by asking another question.
17  
#223 | 1107 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
98 reasons why i hate hockey in two seconds: comments #82-#180.
 Amen to that! Why does it seem like one person in particular is constantly involved in these long  pissing contests that hijack countless threads? 
5  
#224 | 1105 days ago

desertrat wrote:
 Amen to that! Why does it seem like one person in particular is constantly involved in these long  pissing contests that hijack countless threads? 
A better question...

Why is it always the same few people who are the catalysts for pissing contests that "hijack" countless threads?
#225 | 1105 days ago

ML31 wrote:
A better question...

Why is it always the same few people who are the catalysts for pissing contests that "hijack" countless threads?
Of course by "hijack" you mean making dead threads infinitely f*ckawesomer.
#226 | 1105 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

maddhatter6691 wrote:
Is this a Pic of "Glenda" when she was Growing up?
 yes. 
6  

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Sideline Food
Asked by ohwell_ | Locker Room, FanIQ | 1 questions asked Today
1 opinion | 5 comments | Last by Beaneaters
F/E 9/1 and 9/2
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Yesterday
8 opinions | 31 comments | Last by RichyMcWiggleSr
F/E 8/29
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/29/14
8 opinions | 27 comments | Last by JenX63
8-08; Fan IQ's Summertime Music Poll in Review
Asked by hclcdestin | Locker Room, Music | 5 questions asked 08/08/14
45 opinions | 3 comments | Last by hotdog5054
Meet My Grandson Ben Andrew Sturdivant!!!!
Asked by BikerBaby | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/29/14
2 opinions | 2 comments | Last by hskrdave