Getting knocked out in the playoffs by the team that ultimately wins the Stanley Cup that year is a better result than getting knocked out by any other team in the playoffs. So: go Canes.
Also: the Devils-Canes series was, despite the outcome, one of the most amazing playoff series I have ever witnessed. I only started following the Devils in 1999-2000, however, (I had just moved to California from NJ, but my heart never made it any farther west than Continental Airlines Arena. I was only 14, so I became very connected to the state and the team), and the only better series I can recall are the Anaheim-Devils Stanley Cup final, and the series where we stunned the Flyers--I think we were down 3-1 in the series, and won three straight to win the series and went to the finals? Whichever happened, I wish I had been old enough to appreciate what I was witnessing. I have a memory of Scott Stevens giving Lindross a concussion around mid-ice. Even then I knew that I had seen something amazing... I just didn't realize how rare it was to see someone like that playing for the Devils.
But even though I felt like we were the better team in this playoffs, I've always held that "good teams win ugly," meaning that if a team is to be successful it needs to be able to play like crap for an entire game and still win. I hope that this series is the most painful series that I will ever witness in my entire life as a Devils fan, but at the same time I recognize that the teams were pretty much equally matched. So, in a way, the teams are interchangeable, so if the Canes win the cup I'd be more amenable to the fact that some team other than the Devils won this year.
We peaked too early this year, and even MSG/MSG+ inadvertently pointed it out before it happened. Does anyone remember when they summed up the season chronologically (to that date), breaking up the season into chunks that encapsulated the teams slumps and streaks? When they did point it out, they pretty much identified how the Devils had won maybe 63% of their games for a few months, experiencing both winning streaks and periodic slumps, then got really hot in the late winter/early spring (i.e., they got hot too early). Shortly after they highlighted these statistics, Brodeur returned, our winning streak faltered and died, and we just stumbled into the playoffs; frankly, in light of many peoples' justifiable predictions, we overachieved in the playoffs.
It's a shame... it seems like whichever playoff-eligible team wins the cup is the team that is best able to hit a very high peak over the 28 (max) games of the postseason. Up until I started writing this message, I have been behind Sutter (our team has looked better since he's behind the bench), but maybe this premature firing of the team's extra cylinders is on him. I'd like to have him around for another two years or so, still... but I'd also like to know that we have a clear successor for Brodeur.
What I'm really trying to say is that I want the Canes to have enough success to justify our losing in this round.
ihaveaquestionMember Since 13 Apr 2009
Offline Last Active Aug 21 2012 10:55 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 4
- Profile Views 684
- Member Title Draft Pick
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown