stassen@spp2.UUCP (Chris Stassen) (05/06/85)
In article <5201@ucla-cs.ARPA> you write: > >I'm sure many people will call tonight's Oiler 11-2 victory over the >Black Hawks an awesome display of firepower. I call it a classless >act. I call it an awesome display of defensive ineptitude on the part of the 'Hawks. At least four of those goals should not have been allowed. > (oh oh, it is gonna get warm around here) With a 3 or 4 goal >lead you might expect a team to try protecting it. Not the Oilers, they >aren't content to beat a team - they have to humiliate them. I would call this a very good strategy. If you can blow away their confidence in the first game, you'll probably have them shaken enough to have an easy sweep. If you can do it, do it - and Edmonton is one of the few teams that could score 11 goals in the playoffs. > What this >does is make the league look bad, and give other teams a reason to gun >for them. Does not parse. How does this make the league look bad? I think they made the 'Hawks look bad, but not without some help from the 'Hawks. "Gun for them?" Huh? Are you saying that this will cause other teams to try harder to beat Edmonton (they're not trying now?). Or do you mean "rough them up?" I don't think that will help much, either, since Edmonton proved last year that they could beat the Islanders at their own game. > To keep pressing as hard as possible with a 10 goal lead isn't >good hockey, it is a sign of, well, immaturity. Who knows, maybe Chicago >will get mad now. And then again, maybe Chicago will be demoralized enough to go on to lose the next three in a row. >ps - I feel *MUCH* better now! So does Edmonton, unlike Chicago. -- Chris p.s. What happened to the Flyers last night? I thought Edmonton was the team that was supposed to look bad after the "vacation."