Ok, your interpretation of "past events" goes back only so far in this case, fair enough. If you think a 2 game sample size is enough to draw conclusions from though then I suggest you go educate yourself before making more foolish posts.
Going back longer than 2 and a half years provides data that holds no value for evaluating current teams. Both teams were in entirely different phases of development and had entirely different systems and players.
No, a 2 game sample size is not too small when the only conclusions being drawn are that we will struggle against them this year because we have struggled against them this year. Not much of a stretch, especially considering the way those losses happened.
Now you're really grasping at straws. Even if we were to accept for a moment that we were the better team for 35 minutes, this has zero relevance to anything. This is a perfect example of what I see as a loser attitude. "We outplayed them for 35 minutes, look ma, a moral victory, let's celebrate".
No, once AGAIN, not celebrate, but not bash them either for a game that could have gone either way.
It's not grasping at straws. First you're telling me that it's "how you play the game", not wins, that matter. Now it's strictly wins, and how we play doesn't matter?
So which is it? It has become quite obvious that your story changes to fit your argument.
And why is that? Is it because you're saying we're not as good as an average team? That's what it sounds like you're saying but I wouldn't go that far myself.
No, because Columbus, their style, players, etc. work very well against our system which gives us a tougher time than we would get from a different opponent. Therefore, this game would hold a higher difficulty value.
I'm certainly not tearing the team apart. I just see it for what it is. Mediocre, excellent in some areas, horrible in others, overall extremely unpredictable. I'll praise them when they play well, but I refuse to make excuses for them when they play poorly.
Except your team equation somehow goes elite area + elite area + below average area + Above average in the standings + above average last year = Mediocre. Does not compute.
You mentioned that we didn't get any PP's as an excuse. Why? Sometimes you get PP's and sometimes you don't. Often, if you get them it's because you earn them by applying pressure, something we didn't do. Why are you crying the blues about not getting any PPs? Using that as an excuse seems like you think we should get auto-PPS, why else would you be complaining. If you mean something else, you should make yourself more clear, than you wouldn't have to accuse people of twisting you words around.
It was not an excuse, it was a reason. Learn the difference.
Yes, sometimes PPs come from pressure. Just as often, they are entirely random, as are the style of game the refs are looking to call. Refs decided to put away their whistles that game, which makes overcoming deficits that much more difficult.
If we had gotten the early 2 goal lead, and the same conditions held true, it would be the same situation for Columbus. It's how games play out, and I agree that players need to learn how to overcome it, but it's foolish to suggest they don't affect outcomes.
Is threatening me with mods the equivalent of saying "I'll tell mom"? OK DD, I stand warned I guess.
It's not threatening anything. It's making you aware that I know what you are doing, and if you continue to do it, it is against site rules and I'll get others involved.
You are not allowed to intentionally misrepresent what another user is saying, let alone follow them from thread to thread and do so repeatedly.
That's deep. And who's to blame for the fact that we got behind?
Toronto's. Nowhere did I say differently.
OK you didn't get the point, I'll explain. I find it laughable (and indicicative of a "loser" mentality that you are making excuses after the fact for the fact that we played poorly and lost a very winnable game. You might have some more credibility if you said BEFORE the game that this would be a particulary tough one but making excuses after the fact is for losers.
My stance did not change because we lost. The facts said this would be a tough game. Believe what you want.
According to the betting line, Toronto was a decent favorite to win the game - that is the point. The line-makers are well aware of history, past performance etc., but go figure, Toronto was still a solid favorite. You have dismissed the betting lines as meaningless for various reasons (all really really bad reasons) but the fact is, the guys that set the line know more about this than you do by a very very large margin.
The oddsmaker are aware of what makes them the most money, and if people making the bets are not concerning themselves with every intricate detail of their performance, history and statistics, which most don't, then the odds will not reflect those things like you think they will.
Once again, betting lines have no place in our discussion. Learn how they work, and then learn how to properly apply them in discussions.
