In the left corner....
Although they did beat the Ducks to clinch the Pacific division, it was one of only two regulation wins the Sharks would boast over the Ducks on the season as the Sharks proved yet again that they were the Ottawa Senators of the West Coast, cruising through the regular season only to crash and burn at the end of the year. In their abundant number of playoff runs they have only made it past the second round once, and the years of disappointment have made their fans quite bitter. But are they the most bitter of the two combatants in this poll?
In the right corner...
The Kings are definitely the closer of the two rivals, but they rarely play a meaningful game after Thanksgiving save to pad the standings points of teams like...the Ducks! LA has been just awful ever since they plummeted out of the playoff race in 2005-2006, having gone from 2nd in the West at New Years to all the way out of the playoffs less than four months later. Talk about those young players of theirs all you want, but the question is will they start winning before those prospects seek greener pastures elsewhere?
Answer this way Ducks fans. Would you be more bitter having followed a losing team for 40 years that only got close once and then choked? Or would you be more bitter having been to the playoffs for the better part of 15 years and failed to reach the finals every time and only making the conference finals once? Tough call.
What prompted this poll you might ask? Sharks and Kings fans have been vandalizing my Youtube videos lately. Apparently the Sharks are better than us even though they won three of eight games against us last season, and the Kings are supposedly better than us because they've been around (and terrible) for 40 years while the Ducks playoff runs of the past five years are a joke.
I couldn't even make some of these arguments up if I tried.
Which California Rival is Currently More Bitter?
Started by Duckbill, Jun 22 2008 02:43 AM
11 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 22 June 2008 - 02:43 AM
#2
Posted 22 June 2008 - 05:42 AM
If you ask me, I would be more pissed if I would have followed a team like the Kings. I mean you said it yourself, 40 years and counting and still no Cup, and they've only come close once.
The Sharks on the other hand have been in this league a bit longer than the Ducks (I believe they entered the league in '91 if I recall correctly). How many of the teams, that entered the league in 1991-92 or later, have won the Stanley Cup?
Only 2 out of 8... The Sharks have nothing to be ashamed of, they have a good and competetive team. Something is missing of course but IMO it's not that much. The Kings on the other hand have nothing except talent.
The Sharks on the other hand have been in this league a bit longer than the Ducks (I believe they entered the league in '91 if I recall correctly). How many of the teams, that entered the league in 1991-92 or later, have won the Stanley Cup?
Only 2 out of 8... The Sharks have nothing to be ashamed of, they have a good and competetive team. Something is missing of course but IMO it's not that much. The Kings on the other hand have nothing except talent.
#3
Posted 22 June 2008 - 11:29 AM
I think Sharks. They actually pose a threat.
#4
Posted 22 June 2008 - 01:22 PM
The Sharks by far! Both Anaheim and San Jose will be battling for Pacific titles for years to come.
#5
Posted 22 June 2008 - 11:49 PM
QUOTE (Poker Face @ Jun 22 2008, 06:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Sharks on the other hand have been in this league a bit longer than the Ducks (I believe they entered the league in '91 if I recall correctly). How many of the teams, that entered the league in 1991-92 or later, have won the Stanley Cup?
Here's some food for thought. Interesting statistics highlighted by yours truly. these are five NHL teams from the early nineties expansion area. Since Atlanta, Minnesota, Columbus, and Nashville have not even been around for a decade yet we won't bother including them. But these three teams have all equal time to develop, the Sharks actually had an additional 1-2 seaons on the rest of their "class."
San Jose Sharks, est. 1991:
-11 playoff appearances in 16 seasons
-8 series wins in first round of playoffs
-1 win in second round of playoffs
-Sharks have never reached the Stanley Cup Finals
Ottawa Senators, est. 1992:
-11 consecutive playoff appearances in 15 seasons
-5 series wins in first round
-2 series wins second round
-1 Eastern Conference Championship (2006-2007)
Tampa Bay Lightning, est. 1992:
-5 Playoff appearances in 15 seasons
-2 series wins in first round
-1 series win in second round
-1 Eastern Conference Championship (2003-2004)
-1 Stanley Cup (2003-2004)
Florida Panthers, est 1993:
-3 playoff appearances in 14 seasons
-1 series win in first round
-1 series win in second round
-1 Eastern Conference Championship (1995-1996)
ANAHEIM DUCKS, est 1993:
-6 playoff appearances in 14 seasons
-4 series wins in first round
-3 series wins in second round
-2 Western Conference Championships (2002-2003, 2006-2007)
-1 Stanley Cup (2006-2007)
Of the five teams from this era, four of the five teams have Conference Championships, and two of them have Stanley Cup championships. San Jose is the only team of these five that has not reached the finals. San Jose has more playoff appearances than the Panthers and Lightning combined and yet the two Florida teams have still competed for Lord Stanley's Cup.
I'd be pretty jaded!
#6
Posted 23 June 2008 - 05:28 AM
Touché. I got what I deserved for bringing those teams into the discussion. But... a quick look at the stats over at hockeydb.com says that the Kings have actually never gone past the 2nd round either except for '93 when they went all the way to the finals. And that's 26 years after they entered the league, although there were only 12 teams when they got into the league.
I still hold the Kings as the more bitter ones but you make a pretty good argument too. Let's give the Sharks a few more years and see if they can do better than that
I still hold the Kings as the more bitter ones but you make a pretty good argument too. Let's give the Sharks a few more years and see if they can do better than that
#7
Posted 24 June 2008 - 12:23 PM
Of course the kings fans are more bitter. And the more bitter they are, they more merrier I will be
#8
Posted 24 June 2008 - 12:29 PM
The Queens by far are more bitter. Why? Because they suck and they know it! And because they have no goalie worth mentioning like the Sharks have.
#9
Posted 24 June 2008 - 03:59 PM
I'd say the Sharks, at least their team gives the fans some hope of competing for the cup every year.
Kings fans shouldn't be bitter. History dictates their team sucks! The joke is on them for following such mediocrity. Does that mean they can be bitter? I call it stupid. How many years can you actually throw money at a losing team?
Kings fans shouldn't be bitter. History dictates their team sucks! The joke is on them for following such mediocrity. Does that mean they can be bitter? I call it stupid. How many years can you actually throw money at a losing team?
#10
Posted 12 July 2008 - 04:26 PM
I wouldn't say the Guppies are bitter, they have achieved way more playoff success than the Queens in recent years. On the flipnote, Queens fans were seen at the Stapler wearing paper bags over their heads lol.
#11
Posted 12 July 2008 - 04:35 PM
If any team's fans are bitter, it's Columbus. They have been in the league 7 years, and not even made the postseason yet. It probably hurts to be a Jackets fan right now..
#12
Posted 12 July 2008 - 09:50 PM
this was a no brainer IMO....the queens fans are...whenever you meet someone who is a kings fan and you just mention the ducks, they immediately hate you and start to turn red with anger untill there head looks like its going to explode..IMO i wouldnt have it any other either. 40 years of never taking lord stanley for skate while your "red-headed step child" has already taken that skate will do that to you....
on a side note. I know this isnt a in-state team but, in the western conf. i think it has to be the oil.
on a side note. I know this isnt a in-state team but, in the western conf. i think it has to be the oil.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users













