Rite of Spring 2018-“What happens in the playoffs stays in the playoffs”

[Unocal]

39 minutes ago, Crabcake47 said:

Let’s not forget that the Caps were in double OT of a Game 3 they absolutely had to win or this never happens. 

 

They had to kill a penalty. Columbus had a power play and IIRC they hit a goalpost.

[FGM13]

10 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

So Eric Lindros kicked that whole stupid tradition off, huh? 

 

 

Figures. 

 

It didn’t even work! The first team to not touch it and win was Tampa in 2004! I’m all for fun and silly superstitions/traditions but god this one is dumb.

[Kramerica Industries]

Guess we're about to learn that it wasn't that the Capitals have a Penguins problem but rather that it's that the Capitals have a MAF problem, huh?

[ozzyman314]

Speaking of MAF, with the season he's had, cup or not this year is he a HoF'er? 

I think a cup this year would make him a 100% lock (if he wasn't already), but probably not a 1st ballot.  

[Crabcake]

7 hours ago, SabresRule7361 said:

 

They had to kill a penalty. Columbus had a power play and IIRC they hit a goalpost.

I have no idea tbh, I went to bed after regulation that day and found out when I woke up, fully expecting to be down 3-0. 

[AnPheitseog]

7 hours ago, ozzyman314 said:

Speaking of MAF, with the season he's had, cup or not this year is he a HoF'er? 

I think a cup this year would make him a 100% lock (if he wasn't already), but probably not a 1st ballot.  

Not a chance. For me, he's in the hall of very good. 

[crashcarson15]

8 hours ago, SabresRule7361 said:

 

They had to kill a penalty. Columbus had a power play and IIRC they hit a goalpost.

Was game 3 the one where the Jackets hit, like, four posts? Yeah, I'm gonna go pour myself a stronger drink.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

9 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Here's the annual graphic about touching the conference champoinship trophies. (click a bunch of times to expand)

 

 

 

This is cool. And well done.

 

But the 98 Caps should be in blue!

[Dalcowboyfan92]

Heart says Washington in 6.

Gut says Vegas in 6.

 

I'm happy to see Ovi finally get his shot at hoisting the Cup; and I hope he does get that chance.

[OnWis97]

10 hours ago, Crabcake47 said:

I beg to differ. First of all, as mentioned before, this ain’t your daddy’s expansion team. Vegas is a different beast - great coach, great keeper, super deep. 

 

Second of all, what the Caps did this postseason imo covers all their bases in terms of choking. Down 2-0 in the first round after two home L’s? Win the next four. Lose a heartbreaking Game 1 to the Pens and immediately have the “here we go again” thoughts start? Win four of the next five. Blow a 2-0 lead in a series? Win it in 7. This team showed fight, heart, and mental strength that hasn’t been seen in a Rock the Red-era Caps team. They remind me a lot of the ‘16 Sharks. People generally don’t call the Sharks chokers anymore iirc. 

Whether or not they shed the "choker" label depends on what happens in the finals.  If they win, obviously.  If they just get beaten by a better team, sure. But if they lose in, using my vernacular, Minnesota Vikings fashion, the label sticks.

 

I'm glad they won.  A second Lightning Cup does nothing for me; I'd have been pulling for Vegas to put the cherry on top of this joke sundae.  Now...I can get on board with a franchise I've known my entire life that has no Cups.  Go Caps!

[The_Admiral]

not interested

[TBGKon]

13 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

So at what point does Yzerman sacrifice Cooper to appease the gods?

I'm getting to the point of believing Stevie Y is considering that.  Tampa fans went thru a similar situation with Dungy and the Buccaneers.  Dungy changed a culture, while Gruden took them to the next level.  It might be time for a change.

[habsfan1]

3 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Whether or not they shed the "choker" label depends on what happens in the finals.  If they win, obviously.  If they just get beaten by a better team, sure. But if they lose in, using my vernacular, Minnesota Vikings fashion, the label sticks.

 

That, essentially. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Washington is the better team, when they play with that extra gear kicked in. That's a reason why I feel like it's a must win for the Capitals to officially and permanently erase the labels.

[JayMac]

Can we hope for 3-3 series tie?

[Alex Houston]

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Whether or not they shed the "choker" label depends on what happens in the finals.  If they win, obviously.  If they just get beaten by a better team, sure. But if they lose in, using my vernacular, Minnesota Vikings fashion, the label sticks.

 

I'm glad they won.  A second Lightning Cup does nothing for me; I'd have been pulling for Vegas to put the cherry on top of this joke sundae.  Now...I can get on board with a franchise I've known my entire life that has no Cups.  Go Caps!

 

Agreed. Even though San Jose got over their second round mountain-of-a-molehill, they still get lampooned for having all those chances and coming up short. The only thing that removes the chokers label is the other c-word: championships. Everything else is just argumentative gymnastics. 

 

What this point ultimately brings up however, and I still think this would make a great blog series or podcast, is a debate as to what defines a "choker." Obviously, a team who dominated in the regular season and burned out quickly in the postseason should count, but it seems like just an ongoing run of appearances also makes teams get the title. For example, the Sonics losing in '94 to the Nuggets could be seen as a chokejob, but I don't recall them being classified like that in the 15 years they existed after. On the other hand, a team like the Wizards has been the playoffs countless times, yet I doubt any hardcore NBA fan could say DC was "the team to beat" in the last 30+ years. So in this instance, I'd argue two things: One, the label of "choker" is season specific, not franchise specific. Two, a better term would be "underachiever" to define teams constantly in the mix, but never the front runner. 

[OnWis97]

2 minutes ago, Alex Houston said:

 

Agreed. Even though San Jose got over their second round mountain-of-a-molehill, they still get lampooned for having all those chances and coming up short. The only thing that removes the chokers label is the other c-word: championships. Everything else is just argumentative gymnastics. 

 

What this point ultimately brings up however, and I still think this would make a great blog series or podcast, is a debate as to what defines a "choker." Obviously, a team who dominated in the regular season and burned out quickly in the postseason should count, but it seems like just an ongoing run of appearances also makes teams get the title. For example, the Sonics losing in '94 to the Nuggets could be seen as a chokejob, but I don't recall them being classified like that in the 15 years they existed after. On the other hand, a team like the Wizards has been the playoffs countless times, yet I doubt any hardcore NBA fan could say DC was "the team to beat" in the last 30+ years. So in this instance, I'd argue two things: One, the label of "choker" is season specific, not franchise specific. Two, a better term would be "underachiever" to define teams constantly in the mix, but never the front runner. 

I don't think bombing out in one postseason makes a team a choker.  The Mariners team that set the record for wins lost in the postseason but I never think of them as having choked.  Postseason, by design, leads to the best regular season team not always winning it all.

 

I think it's sort of a combination of frequency of losing in the postseason, how frequently losses occur as a "favored" team, and how those losses occur.

 

 

[Still MIGHTY]

Ovechkin giving zero  s

 

[Crabcake]

1 minute ago, Still MIGHTY said:

Ovechkin giving zero craps

 

Good for him.  Curses are dumb.

[TBGKon]

Well Vegas touched the trophy and so did the Caps, so no harm no foul

[Kramerica Industries]

Hopefully, with both teams doing that, something that hasn't happened since 2002 (thanks, @McCarthy), this can be the start of a new trend of teams picking up the trophies once more. Only hockey could have a "tradition" that caught on like wildfire where the original player and team to do it, Eric Lindros and the '97 Flyers, got swept in the Final. Not sure how that made one ounce of sense.