|
| 24 Jan 2013 12:19 AM |
eagles = canucks- arrogant fans, no championships to show for it, choking bills = sabres- sadness all around dolphins = islanders/oilers- they were a dynasty, now there's not much to show for it patriots = penguins- championships and crybabies who get rules put in place because of them jets = maple leafs- last championships happened in the 60's. now there's rage and tears everywhere ravens = flyers- hard, questionably dirty, players browns = blues- no championships, people often forget they're a team steelers = canadiens- "count the rings!!!!"~ said fans who weren't around for those championships texans = sharks- always on the rise colts = capitals- one good player that keeps the team floating jaguars = coyotes- no one really cares, they're gonna move titans = nashville- always irrelevant broncos = rangers- hype every year, success, none chiefs = jets- irrelevant diehards raiders = devils- haven't been relevant in a while, and the diehards are too scary to mess with chargers = hurricanes- mediocre, people forget that they're a team giants = bruins- when you least expect it, they'll pop up and win a championship by upsetting the team no one wants to see win. reluctant heroes redskins = senators- only special because they're in the capital bears = lightning- start good, choke lions = blue jackets- garbage every single season packers = red wings- likeable team with long lasting players that keep winning... in the regular season vikings = wild- dissapointing. every single season. panthers = panthers- exciting squads that will turn out to be absolutely nothing by the end saints = kings- never were any good, even with star players, but won a championship recently bucs = ducks- won a championship a while ago, people often forget who they are, both teams based off of gimmicks cardinals = avalanche- they're a team? rams = flames- championship once, always in the hunt for the playoffs, often mediocre 49ers = blackhawks- old dynasty that finally became relevant again seahawks = wild- all about the fans, but nothing to show for it |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 12:32 AM |
>no cowboys >no stars
gosh darnit |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 12:35 AM |
omg i knew i was forgetting a team!!!!!
broncos (again) = stars- irrelevant, sign old guy, relevant |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 12:36 AM |
| and 30 NHL teams vs. 32 NFL teams. there wasn't really a fit for the cowboys, bengals, seahawks and falcons |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
tgross25
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 35765 |
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 09:03 AM |
49ers in super bowl = blackhawks in finals
yaaaaay |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 11:28 AM |
@ddude but the canucks haven't won a stanley cup lel |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 01:50 PM |
>Sabres=Bills >Sabres 2-0-0
wdf tato, are you saying they will do what the bills do, win a bunch and then suck? Ain't happening |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 01:51 PM |
it happens every year the bills have never been good the sabres have never been good |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 01:51 PM |
and you're two games into a 48 game season there's plenty of time to fall straight back down to earth |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 01:52 PM |
I know that -_- They aren't gonna suck. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 01:53 PM |
they are they don't have the resiliency, the goaltending, and the players to match other teams in the east |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 01:57 PM |
THEY DON'T HAVE THE GOALTENDING YOU SAY? HAHAHAHAHAHA Miller is a great GK. Ott is good, but they shoulda kept Derek Roy. All around they are good. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 01:59 PM |
| yeah, he`s a great GK with his barely above .900 save percentage |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
zim347
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Apr 2007 |
| Total Posts: 25482 |
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 02:34 PM |
"broncos = rangers- hype every year, success, none"
>doesnt follow NHL clearly
hype has only really been this year, and no one expected us to go to ECF last year. plus i cant believe your judging NYR's season after their first 3 games lol |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 02:36 PM |
| Can't compare us to canucks, we don't riot when we lose. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Goalied13
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 3484 |
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 03:04 PM |
Nashville - The Preds aren't very irrelevant... they have been consistently in the playoffs as of late.
Rangers - I think getting to the playoffs and the Eastern Conference Finals is pretty successful.
Devils - Not relevant? They made it to the Stanley Cup Finals last year, they're usually a team to be reckoned with.
All others I more or less agreed with. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tchapman
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Jul 2007 |
| Total Posts: 6910 |
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 03:08 PM |
seahawks = wild- all about the fans, but nothing to show for it
D: |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 10:15 PM |
"hype has only really been this year, and no one expected us to go to ECF last year. plus i cant believe your judging NYR's season after their first 3 games lol" that new york bias you guys get hype every single year, and produce nothing.
"Nashville - The Preds aren't very irrelevant... they have been consistently in the playoffs as of late." >not knowing the definition of irrelevant
"Rangers - I think getting to the playoffs and the Eastern Conference Finals is pretty successful." oh yeah that's why they have 1 cup in the past 50 years
"Devils - Not relevant? They made it to the Stanley Cup Finals last year, they're usually a team to be reckoned with." >you >being able to read the devils only became relevant last year, and no one honestly cared about them until they made the SCF and they were still put up for sale after the stanley cup that's the definition of irrelevancy
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2013 10:16 PM |
| actually i think cowboys=stars |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|