Absolutely they were knowingly conserving energy. Happens all the time in hockey and in sports. Are you telling me that stopping skating is not conserving energy. How does that happen? By accident? LOL

Are you telling me that in the final games of the season, when a #1 seed in the conference has a game against a bottom feeder and there is nothing to be gained in the game, that the team doesn't consciously come into the game thinking that they're just going to play out the game, not get too intense, avoid injury and conserve energy and get ready for the playoffs? Of course they do! Why is there a clear and discernable difference between early season October hockey and the level of intensity of games in March and April. In large part due to players know that they can't go balls out every game for 82 games. It's not the only reason but a big reason.

Apparently it's very complicated for you.
- MJL

This argument makes no sense. Of course coming down the stretch of the season teams will take their foot off the gas when they have spots clinched in the playoffs. Last night was a completely different scenario for the Flyers. Everything you just said is wrong. I probably used the wrong phrase when I said that they stopped skating. They sat back and tried to protect a big lead. Your analogy holds no water.

This argument makes no sense. Of course coming down the stretch of the season teams will take their foot off the gas when they have spots clinched in the playoffs. Last night was a completely different scenario for the Flyers. Everything you just said is wrong. I probably used the wrong phrase when I said that they stopped skating. They sat back and tried to protect a big lead. Your analogy holds no water.
- Phillywhiteout

First you say it makes no sense and then you say of course what I said is correct basically. You have no clue what you're even saying. I have no issue if you think I'm wrong but this is now 3 or 4 posts where you've shown that you're incapable of articulating why you think I'm wrong. You're basically just saying I'm wrong to say it. What I'm saying makes perfect sense and is really painfully obvious. I didn't make any analogies. I offered real life examples. What are you talking about? As usual, you have no idea. Why did they sit back instead of continuing to play like they did to get the 4-0 lead? You failed to address any of the examples I posted. You don't seem capable.

First you say it makes no sense and then you say of course what I said is correct basically. You have no clue what you're even saying. I have no issue if you think I'm wrong but this is now 3 or 4 posts where you've shown that you're incapable of articulating why you think I'm wrong. You're basically just saying I'm wrong to say it. What I'm saying makes perfect sense and is really painfully obvious. I didn't make any analogies. I offered real life examples. What are you talking about? As usual, you have no idea. Why did they sit back instead of continuing to play like they did to get the 4-0 lead? You failed to address any of the examples I posted. You don't seem capable.
- MJL

Because they were ahead in that game and didn’t think they had to work hard to close it out. They were complacent. The idea that they are trying to save some in the tank for next Tuesday or the rest of the season is the silliest thing you’ve ever said

Because they were ahead in that game and didn’t think they had to work hard to close it out. They were complacent. The idea that they are trying to save some in the tank for next Tuesday or the rest of the season is the silliest thing you’ve ever said
- anti-lame

Oh my god, you are both arguing the same thing. Bottom line is that whether or not you say they were complacent, or he says they were conserving energy, they are not talented enough to win anything unless they are going balls to the wall. Call it what you will, the overall point stands.