|
Post by dannycater on May 19, 2023 13:49:23 GMT
Here is another thing that is even more evident on B's--Look at the Boychuk-Chara factor with Seidenberg...big guys who were physical and could boom shots from the point--like Florida did. B's became finesse in more recent years. But they addressed it by getting taller Lindholm and bigger Orlov...but one was broken foot and the other I don't know what he was doing at times.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on May 19, 2023 14:12:11 GMT
Yah Boychuk was awesome his last two shifts of the 2013 finals.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on May 19, 2023 14:16:06 GMT
Yah Boychuk was awesome his last two shifts of the 2013 finals. in 2011, he was impactful. The 13 team's exit was still to this day one of the oddest, strangest finishes. Rask was having the best playoff other than TT's 11 in maybe B's playoff history as a goalie, the B's were in a tough battle with Chicago, but winning game 6, I really felt they would then win in game 7 and go on to win the Cup. Then the fastest turnaround and Chicago is turning the Gahden into a Cup party. Arggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggh!
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on May 19, 2023 14:17:17 GMT
Can I just say that sandog and 50 are gonna send me back to the bottle with these reminders of horrors past....not that I need a reason to go to the bottle or that I don't already do that nightly.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 19, 2023 16:17:16 GMT
Ya?? I'm sure you are right, but you'd figure the own part would indicate the party had ownership of... English is a goofy langue! I keep forgetting that it's not your first language, English. But he's the world's foremost spoken word artist in "Sizz".
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on May 19, 2023 16:30:41 GMT
I keep forgetting that it's not your first language, English. But he's the world's foremost spoken word artist in "Sizz". He also is the best tipster as far as finding rogue goalies at golf courses. Even those that aren't there.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 19, 2023 16:36:38 GMT
I am so sick of the B's reputation now...Playoff Soft...they just are always the softer team. Can't beat Tampa-Soft. Can't beat Islanders-Soft. Can't beat Canes-Soft. Can't beat Panthers-Soft. Can't beat Blues in 19-Soft. I give up....2011 was the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE..PHYSICAL ALWAYS THE MORE PHYSICAL TEAM AND GUYS WHO WERE PHYSICAL. Yup. And in 2019, there were more than a few of us saying how much it sucked that the Bruins were acting like the Canucks. Oh no, the evil refs have swallowed their whistles because of the sinister Craig Berube's mind games, and now the Bruins are getting mugged and there's no powerplay for us to use as payback. I don't think the Bruins are "soft". That's like saying all of the guys ranked 2-10 in the heavyweight division are soft because they aren't #1. "Soft" to me means unwilling to pay a price, easily convinced that there must be a better way that doesn't hurt as much. The Bruins weren't soft when they lost in 7 to the Whalercanes last year. But they did get beat by a team that could always take back momentum by winning the physical game. Some of this is just the old boxing cliche that a good big man will always beat a good smaller man. The Bruins haven't been big enough or played big enough to beat Tampa (especially after they loaded up for exactly this reason), the Isles (their whole identity) and the Canes. Part of the problem is when you have some size, but it doesn't have the talent to be top six or top four. Last year against the Canes, Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak, DeBrusk and Haula were all top six and under 200lbs. Hall was the outlier, and remind yourself that he is a 210lb player. Coyle was the only other regular top 9F over 200. Same problem the year before but swap in DK for Haula. They tried to address it with Milkshakes but he was a bust. This core isn't physical enough to score at ES when the going gets tough in the playoffs. Not any more.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 19, 2023 16:49:16 GMT
it's really reactionary to go back there...but consider this. leaders lose the room for only a couple reasons. the right one, or the wrong one. i think our woke society kinda forgets that. we don't know which 50% of the room he lost...and why he lost it. if he lost the room because he wasn't willing to accept what we saw in round one...multiple brain farts, one after the other, then somebody shoulda stepped in, told the players to shut their fuckin mouths and bear down. the higher ups should have backed Cassidy, then he would never have lost the room. leaders and managers usually lose their troops, because the troops figure out there's no downside to standing up to and going against them. who knows? I like Monty. Everyone loves a story of redemption, and I'm glad he got the chance. But Bruce got schooled before in the playoffs. We all pointed those foibles out. Monty's foibles are much worse.Wouldn't be right to send him packin, so we just have to hope it's a growing lesson. this is the worst snafu in Bruin history. worse than Philly, worse than 71. worse than st Loo On the bold...it's another reason why the common practice of firing the coach makes less sense than you'd hope. Let's take a coach who has learned some things by getting schooled and let him go to another team where they can benefit from what he's learned. Let's instead replace him with a guy who has two playoff series of head coaching experience, both in the same year. I think if I felt I had the right coach, I would make it very clear to the players how secure he was, and if they had a problem with that, they could tell me and if I could find a deal I liked for them, they could go blame their poor play on a different coach and on a different team. So yes, if the reason Cassidy "lost the room" was because was doing what needed to be done to fix the very problems we're still lamenting, then Neely in particular cocked it. I wonder if there's some incremental risk here when your higher ups are former players.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on May 20, 2023 19:15:23 GMT
it's really reactionary to go back there...but consider this. leaders lose the room for only a couple reasons. the right one, or the wrong one. i think our woke society kinda forgets that. we don't know which 50% of the room he lost...and why he lost it. if he lost the room because he wasn't willing to accept what we saw in round one...multiple brain farts, one after the other, then somebody shoulda stepped in, told the players to shut their fuckin mouths and bear down. the higher ups should have backed Cassidy, then he would never have lost the room. leaders and managers usually lose their troops, because the troops figure out there's no downside to standing up to and going against them. who knows? I like Monty. Everyone loves a story of redemption, and I'm glad he got the chance. But Bruce got schooled before in the playoffs. We all pointed those foibles out. Monty's foibles are much worse.Wouldn't be right to send him packin, so we just have to hope it's a growing lesson. this is the worst snafu in Bruin history. worse than Philly, worse than 71. worse than st Loo On the bold...it's another reason why the common practice of firing the coach makes less sense than you'd hope. Let's take a coach who has learned some things by getting schooled and let him go to another team where they can benefit from what he's learned. Let's instead replace him with a guy who has two playoff series of head coaching experience, both in the same year. I think if I felt I had the right coach, I would make it very clear to the players how secure he was, and if they had a problem with that, they could tell me and if I could find a deal I liked for them, they could go blame their poor play on a different coach and on a different team. So yes, if the reason Cassidy "lost the room" was because was doing what needed to be done to fix the very problems we're still lamenting, then Neely in particular cocked it. I wonder if there's some incremental risk here when your higher ups are former players. Agreed and well said. The players are running the asylum it seems under Monty's watch thus far. That has to stop next season.
|
|
|
Post by davinator on May 21, 2023 0:46:26 GMT
On the bold...it's another reason why the common practice of firing the coach makes less sense than you'd hope. Let's take a coach who has learned some things by getting schooled and let him go to another team where they can benefit from what he's learned. Let's instead replace him with a guy who has two playoff series of head coaching experience, both in the same year. I think if I felt I had the right coach, I would make it very clear to the players how secure he was, and if they had a problem with that, they could tell me and if I could find a deal I liked for them, they could go blame their poor play on a different coach and on a different team. So yes, if the reason Cassidy "lost the room" was because was doing what needed to be done to fix the very problems we're still lamenting, then Neely in particular cocked it. I wonder if there's some incremental risk here when your higher ups are former players. Agreed and well said. The players are running the asylum it seems under Monty's watch thus far. That has to stop next season. ?!? Players running the asylum? Is this based on rumors that Bergeron insisted that he played game 5? Maybe Ullmark downplaying his injury so Essensa would recommend he's ok?
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 22, 2023 12:56:35 GMT
I am so sick of the B's reputation now...Playoff Soft...they just are always the softer team. Can't beat Tampa-Soft. Can't beat Islanders-Soft. Can't beat Canes-Soft. Can't beat Panthers-Soft. Can't beat Blues in 19-Soft. I give up....2011 was the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE..PHYSICAL ALWAYS THE MORE PHYSICAL TEAM AND GUYS WHO WERE PHYSICAL. The 2011 winning team lost the 2013 Cup to the Hawks, basically was the same team correct? I' don't know, the Bruins have lost the most Cup finals of any team in the NHL. I have no idea what's up with that stat but it sucks. They've had alot of great teams that were beaten by lesser team, at least on paper they were better but the game is played on ice. Not quite. IMHO Tuukka never seemed quite as determined as TT. TT never had the natural talent Tuukka had, but he made up for that in the willpower department, he never gave up on a play - and he never called in sick either, until he "went into politics"... TT's determination is one of the keys to the cup win in 2011 to me. That element was never really replaced, and neither was Dr. Recchi - Jagr was a steep step down from him, too bad they got Jaromir instead of Jarome - is it okay to say Jagr was at that stage of his career only an over-the-hill mercenary?
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on May 22, 2023 14:10:15 GMT
The 2011 winning team lost the 2013 Cup to the Hawks, basically was the same team correct? I' don't know, the Bruins have lost the most Cup finals of any team in the NHL. I have no idea what's up with that stat but it sucks. They've had alot of great teams that were beaten by lesser team, at least on paper they were better but the game is played on ice. Not quite. IMHO Tuukka never seemed quite as determined as TT. TT never had the natural talent Tuukka had, but he made up for that in the willpower department, he never gave up on a play - and he never called in sick either, until he "went into politics"... TT's determination is one of the keys to the cup win in 2011 to me. That element was never really replaced, and neither was Dr. Recchi - Jagr was a steep step down from him, too bad they got Jaromir instead of Jarome - is it okay to say Jagr was at that stage of his career only an over-the-hill mercenary?Ok, so other than the tending and aging vet it was pretty much the same. My most painful memory of that finla other than losing, was Jagr and Segzy contributing absolutely nothing on the scoresheet after getting lots of icetime, PP's etc, they did nothing. Because of that putrid performance neither returned. I thought Rask was good enough to win and it was mostly the aforementioned players, bad bounce of Ference's skate in game #2 and injuries to Bergy of course. Ahh, sigh.........
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 22, 2023 14:18:04 GMT
The 2011 winning team lost the 2013 Cup to the Hawks, basically was the same team correct? I' don't know, the Bruins have lost the most Cup finals of any team in the NHL. I have no idea what's up with that stat but it sucks. They've had alot of great teams that were beaten by lesser team, at least on paper they were better but the game is played on ice. Not quite. IMHO Tuukka never seemed quite as determined as TT. TT never had the natural talent Tuukka had, but he made up for that in the willpower department, he never gave up on a play - and he never called in sick either, until he "went into politics"... TT's determination is one of the keys to the cup win in 2011 to me. That element was never really replaced, and neither was Dr. Recchi - Jagr was a steep step down from him, too bad they got Jaromir instead of Jarome - is it okay to say Jagr was at that stage of his career only an over-the-hill mercenary?we base a lot of stuff out of thin air. TT is the poster child. had he lost one game in 2011, would most of us still feel that way? jagr still had a little left in the tank...his cap hit didn't suggest he was still much of an impact player...but the kind of guy who could end up being a kind of Ryder...the kind of guy who could come up with some big plays in a tight sample. he just didn't in that one.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 22, 2023 14:33:31 GMT
I am so sick of the B's reputation now...Playoff Soft...they just are always the softer team. Can't beat Tampa-Soft. Can't beat Islanders-Soft. Can't beat Canes-Soft. Can't beat Panthers-Soft. Can't beat Blues in 19-Soft. I give up....2011 was the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE..PHYSICAL ALWAYS THE MORE PHYSICAL TEAM AND GUYS WHO WERE PHYSICAL. Yup. And in 2019, there were more than a few of us saying how much it sucked that the Bruins were acting like the Canucks. Oh no, the evil refs have swallowed their whistles because of the sinister Craig Berube's mind games, and now the Bruins are getting mugged and there's no powerplay for us to use as payback. I don't think the Bruins are "soft". That's like saying all of the guys ranked 2-10 in the heavyweight division are soft because they aren't #1. "Soft" to me means unwilling to pay a price, easily convinced that there must be a better way that doesn't hurt as much. The Bruins weren't soft when they lost in 7 to the Whalercanes last year. But they did get beat by a team that could always take back momentum by winning the physical game. Some of this is just the old boxing cliche that a good big man will always beat a good smaller man. The Bruins haven't been big enough or played big enough to beat Tampa (especially after they loaded up for exactly this reason), the Isles (their whole identity) and the Canes. Part of the problem is when you have some size, but it doesn't have the talent to be top six or top four. Last year against the Canes, Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak, DeBrusk and Haula were all top six and under 200lbs. Hall was the outlier, and remind yourself that he is a 210lb player. Coyle was the only other regular top 9F over 200. Same problem the year before but swap in DK for Haula. They tried to address it with Milkshakes but he was a bust. This core isn't physical enough to score at ES when the going gets tough in the playoffs. Not any more. you don't make these kind of danny/sandog proclamations very often. that's a wise strategy. I don't think that's anywhere near a black and white reality(I know...it's mostly an opinion). Assuming the core is who you mention above...there was plenty of potential to surround them with more muscle. "scoring" in the "playoffs", didn't do them in. being out muscled didn't do them in. big difference between an unforced error, and losing the puck because you're trying to pick yourself back up off the ice while looking for your teeth. they played bad...were not well prepared, got outcoached, had less good fortune than the opponent, didn't get great goaltending and had an excess of serious injuries. any 3 of those is usually enough to send you packing well before game 7. the fact they laid an egg in all 6 categories simply shows how good they were, and why it's so disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 22, 2023 14:38:24 GMT
Not quite. IMHO Tuukka never seemed quite as determined as TT. TT never had the natural talent Tuukka had, but he made up for that in the willpower department, he never gave up on a play - and he never called in sick either, until he "went into politics"... TT's determination is one of the keys to the cup win in 2011 to me. That element was never really replaced, and neither was Dr. Recchi - Jagr was a steep step down from him, too bad they got Jaromir instead of Jarome - is it okay to say Jagr was at that stage of his career only an over-the-hill mercenary? we base a lot of stuff out of thin air. TT is the poster child. had he lost one game in 2011, would most of us still feel that way? jagr still had a little left in the tank...his cap hit didn't suggest he was still much of an impact player...but the kind of guy who could end up being a kind of Ryder...the kind of guy who could come up with some big plays in a tight sample. he just didn't in that one. just one of those OT games and history wouldn't even have played out closely to what it did. what would have happened if management reacted to 2010 Philly...the same way they did to 14/15? 11 and 12 woulda probably looked a lot more like 16 and 17.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on May 22, 2023 18:17:14 GMT
Not quite. IMHO Tuukka never seemed quite as determined as TT. TT never had the natural talent Tuukka had, but he made up for that in the willpower department, he never gave up on a play - and he never called in sick either, until he "went into politics"... TT's determination is one of the keys to the cup win in 2011 to me. That element was never really replaced, and neither was Dr. Recchi - Jagr was a steep step down from him, too bad they got Jaromir instead of Jarome - is it okay to say Jagr was at that stage of his career only an over-the-hill mercenary? we base a lot of stuff out of thin air. TT is the poster child. had he lost one game in 2011, would most of us still feel that way? jagr still had a little left in the tank...his cap hit didn't suggest he was still much of an impact player...but the kind of guy who could end up being a kind of Ryder...the kind of guy who could come up with some big plays in a tight sample. he just didn't in that one. TT had a bad season in 09-10. He came back determined to be much better, and he won both the Vezina and the Conn Smythe in '11. His performance in game 2 vs the Flyers was almost unreal, and he held the fort in games 7 against Tampa Bay and Vancouver. IMHO he deserved all the praise he got, until he decided to go apeshit.
Jagr was a shadow of his former self, he had one good sequence against the Pingu, that was it, and it was Julien's mistake IMHO to push Seguin down the ladder to accommodate the most famous Czech mullet.
|
|
|
Post by davinator on May 22, 2023 23:39:02 GMT
Yup. And in 2019, there were more than a few of us saying how much it sucked that the Bruins were acting like the Canucks. Oh no, the evil refs have swallowed their whistles because of the sinister Craig Berube's mind games, and now the Bruins are getting mugged and there's no powerplay for us to use as payback. I don't think the Bruins are "soft". That's like saying all of the guys ranked 2-10 in the heavyweight division are soft because they aren't #1. "Soft" to me means unwilling to pay a price, easily convinced that there must be a better way that doesn't hurt as much. The Bruins weren't soft when they lost in 7 to the Whalercanes last year. But they did get beat by a team that could always take back momentum by winning the physical game. Some of this is just the old boxing cliche that a good big man will always beat a good smaller man. The Bruins haven't been big enough or played big enough to beat Tampa (especially after they loaded up for exactly this reason), the Isles (their whole identity) and the Canes. Part of the problem is when you have some size, but it doesn't have the talent to be top six or top four. Last year against the Canes, Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak, DeBrusk and Haula were all top six and under 200lbs. Hall was the outlier, and remind yourself that he is a 210lb player. Coyle was the only other regular top 9F over 200. Same problem the year before but swap in DK for Haula. They tried to address it with Milkshakes but he was a bust. This core isn't physical enough to score at ES when the going gets tough in the playoffs. Not any more. you don't make these kind of danny/sandog proclamations very often. that's a wise strategy. I don't think that's anywhere near a black and white reality(I know...it's mostly an opinion). Assuming the core is who you mention above...there was plenty of potential to surround them with more muscle. "scoring" in the "playoffs", didn't do them in. being out muscled didn't do them in. big difference between an unforced error, and losing the puck because you're trying to pick yourself back up off the ice while looking for your teeth. they played bad...were not well prepared, got outcoached, had less good fortune than the opponent, didn't get great goaltending and had an excess of serious injuries. any 3 of those is usually enough to send you packing well before game 7. the fact they laid an egg in all 6 categories simply shows how good they were, and why it's so disappointing. And still, the Bruins were 59sec from sending the Pathers to the golf course earlier. And most of these discussions would be moot and we could just concentrate on next year's players and the Cap. P.S. the Panthers took Ullmark's early Christmas gift in game 5 and started playing over their heads, with nothing to lose and playing with house money. Bruins just needed a clear and/or an EN goal to shut Tkachuk, Cousins, Montour's collective yaps.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on May 23, 2023 2:13:19 GMT
you don't make these kind of danny/sandog proclamations very often. that's a wise strategy. I don't think that's anywhere near a black and white reality(I know...it's mostly an opinion). Assuming the core is who you mention above...there was plenty of potential to surround them with more muscle. "scoring" in the "playoffs", didn't do them in. being out muscled didn't do them in. big difference between an unforced error, and losing the puck because you're trying to pick yourself back up off the ice while looking for your teeth. they played bad...were not well prepared, got outcoached, had less good fortune than the opponent, didn't get great goaltending and had an excess of serious injuries. any 3 of those is usually enough to send you packing well before game 7. the fact they laid an egg in all 6 categories simply shows how good they were, and why it's so disappointing. And still, the Bruins were 59sec from sending the Pathers to the golf course earlier. And most of these discussions would be moot and we could just concentrate on next year's players and the Cap. P.S. the Panthers took Ullmark's early Christmas gift in game 5 and started playing over their heads, with nothing to lose and playing with house money. Bruins just needed a clear and/or an EN goal to shut Tkachuk, Cousins, Montour's collective yaps. Can’t get that vision out of my head of Linus flopping around like a Beluga out of water on that unacceptable snafu which turned the series around….
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 23, 2023 6:08:03 GMT
Yup. And in 2019, there were more than a few of us saying how much it sucked that the Bruins were acting like the Canucks. Oh no, the evil refs have swallowed their whistles because of the sinister Craig Berube's mind games, and now the Bruins are getting mugged and there's no powerplay for us to use as payback. I don't think the Bruins are "soft". That's like saying all of the guys ranked 2-10 in the heavyweight division are soft because they aren't #1. "Soft" to me means unwilling to pay a price, easily convinced that there must be a better way that doesn't hurt as much. The Bruins weren't soft when they lost in 7 to the Whalercanes last year. But they did get beat by a team that could always take back momentum by winning the physical game. Some of this is just the old boxing cliche that a good big man will always beat a good smaller man. The Bruins haven't been big enough or played big enough to beat Tampa (especially after they loaded up for exactly this reason), the Isles (their whole identity) and the Canes. Part of the problem is when you have some size, but it doesn't have the talent to be top six or top four. Last year against the Canes, Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak, DeBrusk and Haula were all top six and under 200lbs. Hall was the outlier, and remind yourself that he is a 210lb player. Coyle was the only other regular top 9F over 200. Same problem the year before but swap in DK for Haula. They tried to address it with Milkshakes but he was a bust. This core isn't physical enough to score at ES when the going gets tough in the playoffs. Not any more. you don't make these kind of danny/sandog proclamations very often. that's a wise strategy. I don't think that's anywhere near a black and white reality(I know...it's mostly an opinion). Assuming the core is who you mention above...there was plenty of potential to surround them with more muscle. "scoring" in the "playoffs", didn't do them in. being out muscled didn't do them in. big difference between an unforced error, and losing the puck because you're trying to pick yourself back up off the ice while looking for your teeth. they played bad...were not well prepared, got outcoached, had less good fortune than the opponent, didn't get great goaltending and had an excess of serious injuries. any 3 of those is usually enough to send you packing well before game 7. the fact they laid an egg in all 6 categories simply shows how good they were, and why it's so disappointing. You're violating your own point about sample size. This team has not been able to score at even strength in the playoffs in any kind of reliable way in its current window with Pastrnak as a lead horse. Killed them in 2019. Killed them in 2020. Killed them last year. And while there are always other things you can say if that hadn't happened it wouldn't have mattered, it is also true that if this team wasn't so dependent on the PP, they could have overcome some of those things. Maybe most of them. Thinking about the series as a whole, they were lucky the Panthers PK was so bad or they would have been as flattened as Toronto and Carolina.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 23, 2023 12:23:06 GMT
you don't make these kind of danny/sandog proclamations very often. that's a wise strategy. I don't think that's anywhere near a black and white reality(I know...it's mostly an opinion). Assuming the core is who you mention above...there was plenty of potential to surround them with more muscle. "scoring" in the "playoffs", didn't do them in. being out muscled didn't do them in. big difference between an unforced error, and losing the puck because you're trying to pick yourself back up off the ice while looking for your teeth. they played bad...were not well prepared, got outcoached, had less good fortune than the opponent, didn't get great goaltending and had an excess of serious injuries. any 3 of those is usually enough to send you packing well before game 7. the fact they laid an egg in all 6 categories simply shows how good they were, and why it's so disappointing. You're violating your own point about sample size. This team has not been able to score at even strength in the playoffs in any kind of reliable way in its current window with Pastrnak as a lead horse. Killed them in 2019. Killed them in 2020. Killed them last year. And while there are always other things you can say if that hadn't happened it wouldn't have mattered, it is also true that if this team wasn't so dependent on the PP, they could have overcome some of those things. Maybe most of them. Thinking about the series as a whole, they were lucky the Panthers PK was so bad or they would have been as flattened as Toronto and Carolina. How am I violating my point about sample size? I'm not. i'm simply replying to your assertions that the "core" isn't "physical" enough to score "5 on 5"....in the "playoffs" It's ridiculous to make 5 on 5 scoring the watershed metric when reviewing this series. That would only make sense, in this example..if it was generally agreed that the Bruins didn't get nearly enough goals. Since they did, it's best for the glare to shine elsewhere. Not that I don't agree 5 on 5 scoring is important overall,....generally...is just isn't specifically...in this instance. I'm also not sure it's a lack of "physicality" that's doing them in either. I used to argue Louis E. He was a non traditional example of physically tough, when he was delivering to his A game. He wasn't punishing. He wasn't intimidating...he just came out of the corner with the puck a lot. He separated the man from the puck well. few better at that still....than Bergeron. He steals, and keeps the puck...a lot. I agree though...a few more pricks is a good idea. As far as scoring and the core is concerned....Marchand and Pastr got plenty enough points. DK did. Hall did. Bergeron didn't. 1 anomaly of 4 is to be expected in one playoff series. Sample size has nothing to do with what you were responding to. I just feel anything to do with scoring is tertiary when it comes to this series.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 23, 2023 22:09:27 GMT
You're violating your own point about sample size. This team has not been able to score at even strength in the playoffs in any kind of reliable way in its current window with Pastrnak as a lead horse. Killed them in 2019. Killed them in 2020. Killed them last year. And while there are always other things you can say if that hadn't happened it wouldn't have mattered, it is also true that if this team wasn't so dependent on the PP, they could have overcome some of those things. Maybe most of them. Thinking about the series as a whole, they were lucky the Panthers PK was so bad or they would have been as flattened as Toronto and Carolina. How am I violating my point about sample size? I'm not. i'm simply replying to your assertions that the "core" isn't "physical" enough to score "5 on 5"....in the "playoffs" It's ridiculous to make 5 on 5 scoring the watershed metric when reviewing this series. That would only make sense, in this example..if it was generally agreed that the Bruins didn't get nearly enough goals. Since they did, it's best for the glare to shine elsewhere. Not that I don't agree 5 on 5 scoring is important overall,....generally...is just isn't specifically...in this instance. I'm also not sure it's a lack of "physicality" that's doing them in either. I used to argue Louis E. He was a non traditional example of physically tough, when he was delivering to his A game. He wasn't punishing. He wasn't intimidating...he just came out of the corner with the puck a lot. He separated the man from the puck well. few better at that still....than Bergeron. He steals, and keeps the puck...a lot. I agree though...a few more pricks is a good idea. As far as scoring and the core is concerned....Marchand and Pastr got plenty enough points. DK did. Hall did. Bergeron didn't. 1 anomaly of 4 is to be expected in one playoff series. Sample size has nothing to do with what you were responding to. I just feel anything to do with scoring is tertiary when it comes to this series. You did it again. You said "this series". I am saying it is the constant in all of their failures over the last half decade and is the achilles heel that keeps them w overcoming their mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on May 23, 2023 22:11:43 GMT
oooh, oooh..bookboy and stevegm fighting it out...let me get the popcorn and lawn chair...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 23, 2023 22:17:58 GMT
You're violating your own point about sample size. This team has not been able to score at even strength in the playoffs in any kind of reliable way in its current window with Pastrnak as a lead horse. Killed them in 2019. Killed them in 2020. Killed them last year. And while there are always other things you can say if that hadn't happened it wouldn't have mattered, it is also true that if this team wasn't so dependent on the PP, they could have overcome some of those things. Maybe most of them. Thinking about the series as a whole, they were lucky the Panthers PK was so bad or they would have been as flattened as Toronto and Carolina. How am I violating my point about sample size? I'm not. i'm simply replying to your assertions that the "core" isn't "physical" enough to score "5 on 5"....in the "playoffs" It's ridiculous to make 5 on 5 scoring the watershed metric when reviewing this series. That would only make sense, in this example..if it was generally agreed that the Bruins didn't get nearly enough goals. Since they did, it's best for the glare to shine elsewhere. Not that I don't agree 5 on 5 scoring is important overall,....generally...is just isn't specifically...in this instance. I'm also not sure it's a lack of "physicality" that's doing them in either. I used to argue Louis E. He was a non traditional example of physically tough, when he was delivering to his A game. He wasn't punishing. He wasn't intimidating...he just came out of the corner with the puck a lot. He separated the man from the puck well. few better at that still....than Bergeron. He steals, and keeps the puck...a lot. I agree though...a few more pricks is a good idea. As far as scoring and the core is concerned....Marchand and Pastr got plenty enough points. DK did. Hall did. Bergeron didn't. 1 anomaly of 4 is to be expected in one playoff series. Sample size has nothing to do with what you were responding to. I just feel anything to do with scoring is tertiary when it comes to this series. The issue for me is "enough goals". The Bruins scored a lot ofngoals by playing a higher risk game than they usually do. False positive for total goals because they got outscred at ES. I would also say fundamentally you didn't score enough goals because you lost. You can argue that they shouldn't have given up as many as they did, but that comes back to the same players not executing defensively. I hate the argument that the number suggest they did their jobs as scorers just because they inflated their totals on the PP. Relying on the PP to score is putting your fate in thr hands of the refs to make the calls. That's about as safe as trusting your high school girlfriend was on the pill when she went to Catholic school. Yes, a lot of factors went into the Bruins losing this series. I think the one that matters from a team building standpoint is ES goals.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 23, 2023 22:19:27 GMT
oooh, oooh..bookboy and stevegm fighting it out...let me get the popcorn and lawn chair...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I know. It's the offseason. I think steve and i just need some kind of competition.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on May 23, 2023 22:27:49 GMT
And still, the Bruins were 59sec from sending the Pathers to the golf course earlier. And most of these discussions would be moot and we could just concentrate on next year's players and the Cap. P.S. the Panthers took Ullmark's early Christmas gift in game 5 and started playing over their heads, with nothing to lose and playing with house money. Bruins just needed a clear and/or an EN goal to shut Tkachuk, Cousins, Montour's collective yaps. Can’t get that vision out of my head of Linus flopping around like a Beluga out of water on that unacceptable snafu which turned the series around…. I cant get the vision of the 1st goal let in by Swayman in game 7. Bloody awful! The team together shit the bed.
|
|