treble Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 Luckily for the Wings, they won it the next 2 years and then again a few years after that. Had they not, they'd probably go down in history as chokers, but now anything from that era pre-1997 is pretty much forgotten.
Guest Redhawk Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 The Vince Carter/Antwan Jamison/Jeff McInnis/Shammond Williams-era UNC Tar Heels had all the talent to win a NCAA title.
The Czech Republic Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 How about the 1995 and 1996 Detroit Red Wings. They were swept by the Devils which was shocking enough and then they roll through the rest of the league in 96 with 62 wins only to lose to fucking Colorado in 6 games in the WCF Hey Colorado was no slouch that year...Sakic, Forsberg, Roy, C Lemieux, and more
Vern Gagne Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 86 Red Sox were by no means a bust, they came back from a 3-1 defecit in the ALCS and came one weird fluke short of winning the World Series. A bust to me is a team that vastly underperformed and either didn't make the playoffs or was bounced early on (Ala the 98 Astros) The Red Sox did blow a 2-0 lead, going back to Boston for games 3-4-5. Than were 1 out away from winning in Game 6. Miami Hurricanes in the 1987 Fiesta Bowl against Penn St. They all showed up in military fatigue, and Vinny Testeverde threw 5 interceptions. The Detroit Red Wings in 95-96. Most wins in league history with 61. Didn't even make the Stanly Cup Finals. Can't remember who they lost to. Maybe Colorado.
Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 I'll say the Miami Heat 1999. They were the best team in the East, and then lost to the Knicks (8th seed) in Game 5 on a fluke Allan Houson lay up. Of course I loved every second of it . The Knicks became the only team in history I believe to be the 8th seeded team and make it all the way to the NBA Finals. Heart breaking loss to San Antonio in 5 games though.
razazteca Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 I think when the early 90's Denver Nuggets (Mutumbo & Chris Jackson) beat the Sonics (Kemp & Payton) in the 1st round it became the 1st 8 seed to win a series.
DerangedHermit Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 I meant to say the Mets had future potential hall of famers. Even then I may have been stretching it. The Mets should have at least been in the race till late August with those lineups. In 2001, they were in the race until the last week. Fucking Benitez and Franco and Brian Jordan.
Guest Bottled Black Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 I'd have to go with the 93 Mets. Coleman, Bonilla, Saberhagen, Murray, etc. I believe that was the year of Coleman and the firecracker, Saberhagen and the bleach, Bonilla and the Post writer/calling the pressbox to protest an error ruling/earplugs in the OF, and Murray just being his typical miserable self.
DerangedHermit Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 Definitely the 1993 Mets. That's why I can stand the Met teams now...it can't get that bad again. Maybe a bad apple here or there, but not 1993 levels.
Guest Bottled Black Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 I still say its that team that caused them to focus on this extended family mentality of only signing high character players.
DerangedHermit Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 Definitely...and it's still why the media's frigid towards the Mets.
CanadianChris Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 2000 Vikings had a near perfect regular season then lost to the Giants in the playoffs 55-3 or something obscene. The 2000 Vikings went 11-5. You're thinking of the 1998 Vikings, who went 15-1 but lost to the fucking Falcons in the NFC title game (which should go here as well). It would've set up an amazing Super Bowl against the also-nearly-undefeated Broncos.
Just John Posted April 12, 2004 Report Posted April 12, 2004 The Falcons had the same record as the Broncos that year (14-2). They actually weren't that bad of a team, contrary to what most bitter Viking fans will tell you.
lomasmoney Posted April 14, 2004 Report Posted April 14, 2004 86 Red Sox were by no means a bust, they came back from a 3-1 defecit in the ALCS and came one weird fluke short of winning the World Series. A bust to me is a team that vastly underperformed and either didn't make the playoffs or was bounced early on (Ala the 98 Astros) The Red Sox did blow a 2-0 lead, going back to Boston for games 3-4-5. Than were 1 out away from winning in Game 6. Miami Hurricanes in the 1987 Fiesta Bowl against Penn St. They all showed up in military fatigue, and Vinny Testeverde threw 5 interceptions. The Detroit Red Wings in 95-96. Most wins in league history with 61. Didn't even make the Stanly Cup Finals. Can't remember who they lost to. Maybe Colorado. yeah they did lose to Colorado and they had 62 wins.
TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe Posted April 15, 2004 Report Posted April 15, 2004 2003 New York Giants - The team was reloaded in several areas of need (a new kicker, punter, long snapper, and returner) all of which were injured and one had an awful season. Not to mention the horrid O-Line and the numerous injuries. Kerry Collins, Jeremy Shockey, Luke Pettitgout, Shaun Williams, Keith Hamilton, Omar Stoudmire, Will Allen, Will Peterson. They were decimated, went 4-12 and lost their last 7 or 8 games of the season.
Guest Bottled Black Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 It was 8 they were 4-4 then they ended 4-12. I honestly think they just never recovered from that collapse against the '9ers in the playoffs.
sfaJack Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 Or it could just be that the Giants are/were perpetually overrated, and their flimsy house of cards finally came crashing down last year. Just one Dallas Cowboys fan's opinion, anyway.
Guest Bottled Black Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 All I can say to a Cowboys fan is just wait until next year when Parcells swears he's done coaching forever... For the 4th Time.. We'll see how good the 'Boys do after that. Two reason for saying this 1) Look at the guys history, and 2) It's only a matter of time until Jones get under his skin.
sfaJack Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 That depends on who replaces him, really. If it's Carthon, as is rumored, then they should be ok. Parcells won't last all four years on the job. He'll put in two more, and then vanish for another few years or so. I know this. I'm prepared for it. Hell, it was sweet enough just getting back to respectability this year.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 Or it could just be that the Giants are/were perpetually overrated, and their flimsy house of cards finally came crashing down last year. Just one Dallas Cowboys fan's opinion, anyway. Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Considering Dallas has done nothing to address it's severe weaknesses in the offseason I would be worried about Parcell's house of cards doing the same.
sfaJack Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 Eh, I'm not expecting a great Super Bowl run or anything. I wouldn't be shocked at all if the 'Boys slip back to 8-8 or 7-9 or something (any further than that would be a problem). They overachieved a great deal last year, and in no way did I expect them to make the playoffs with a lot of the same guys that had gone 5-11 for three straight years. Bill's got a plan though. He's done it too many times in his career to doubt him now. 7-9/8-8 this year...12-4 with a shot at the Super Bowl in '05...? I could live with that. Think about this though: who amongst their division foes has done anything to markedly improve themselves this offseason? As of this moment, I'd put the Cowboys right on par with or ahead of both NY and Washington, and not all that far behind the Eagles, who have probably missed their window. Of course, the draft is still to come, along with the June 1 cuts (see ya, Larry Allen), but it's shaping up to be a pretty tight division.
Guest Anglesault Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 I'd have to go with the 93 Mets. Coleman, Bonilla, Saberhagen, Murray, etc. I believe that was the year of Coleman and the firecracker, Saberhagen and the bleach, Bonilla and the Post writer/calling the pressbox to protest an error ruling/earplugs in the OF, and Murray just being his typical miserable self. I remember the firecracker and Murray and Bonilla in general, but I'm drawing a blank on the bleach.
TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 As of this moment, I'd put the Cowboys right on par with or ahead of both NY and Washington The Giants have had a terrible off-season. They lost all 3 starting LB's and cut 2 RB's. Lots of guys left via free agency and I couldn't believe they cut Mike Barrow. I'm very much on the fence of who I want them to take in the draft, be it Manning, Gallery, or Taylor. However if someone falls to them at pick #4 they don't really need (like Fitzgerald) they should trade down and scoop up some more picks, then if they really want a stud QB of the future they could get Rivers somewhere in the middle of the first round or so.
CanadianChris Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 I'd have to go with the 93 Mets. Coleman, Bonilla, Saberhagen, Murray, etc. I believe that was the year of Coleman and the firecracker, Saberhagen and the bleach, Bonilla and the Post writer/calling the pressbox to protest an error ruling/earplugs in the OF, and Murray just being his typical miserable self. I remember the firecracker and Murray and Bonilla in general, but I'm drawing a blank on the bleach. Sabes sprayed bleach on a reporter who wrote a bad (but accurate) story about him.
Guest Bottled Black Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 Yeah thank God he just happened to have a SuperSoaker filled with bleach hanging out by his locker.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now