[Sandman]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

If your definition of a true contender equates to strong regular season success, then you are 100% correct (even if that success was never sustained year-to-year, those were definitely fun regular seasons).



I just don't attribute regular season success with being a contender - you don't know that a team is a contender or a pretender until... they actually contend, no?



Don't misunderstand me - those seasons are still fun seasons, and of course it is better to have regular season success than not. I just think a SCF is much more important than a divisional win, or finishing 1st in the west and then imploding in the playoffs in the first round. Can you really say that the Flames were contenders when you bow out in the first round, or only manage to win 1 game in the 2nd round? I can't. That's the point. Contenders actually contend, not just put up dazzling regular season stats.


Flames never contended for a cup in the last decade. They didn't even manage to be a consistent playoff team. A couple of fantastic regular season finishes doesn't make for a contender in my eyes. I myself THOUGHT that they were contenders, but with hindsight, can you really look back and say that they were contenders? I can't, which is why I stick to my definition. I understand why you stick to yours. Agree to disagree.

Once again, 100% C4L!!!!