|
Post by brewwins on Jul 17, 2023 17:20:08 GMT
I think the Bruins are going to win the Cup in a year you least expect it. Sort of like when you're not really looking to date anyone and this cute babe comes into your life.
|
|
|
Post by brewwins on Jul 17, 2023 17:22:33 GMT
I figured you spent a lot of time at the whinery I'm not even the one who has whined at all about the B's in 22-23...I enjoyed the entire regular season...great memories for me. You've had your monents we all have. Sizz went off the deep end after this season and took over being pissed about it for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jul 17, 2023 17:28:51 GMT
I'm not even the one who has whined at all about the B's in 22-23...I enjoyed the entire regular season...great memories for me. You've had your monents we all have. Sizz went off the deep end after this season and took over being pissed about it for all of us. I was upset as everyone about the choke, but I think I've been more of the voice of reason when it comes to the 22-23 B's..I just am not as broken up over it as others. All of my rage came pretty much occurred during the playoffs duration. By the time, Vegas won Cup I was mostly looking back at things as shit happens.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jul 17, 2023 17:36:52 GMT
Perspective. That's a great idea. Since the first expansion, the Bruins are 3-7 in 10 Finals appearances. Ouch. In that time, the Bruins have had 100 more regular season wins than any other team. They have 200 more points. They have almost 500 more goals than Montreal in second, the best goals for per game and the second best goals against per game (Montreal beats them 2.83 to 2.86) if you take out the recent expansion teams who didn't have to live through the go-go 70s and 80s. The Bruins have been the best regular season team over the last 50+ years. That is at least 50% of our frustration as fans - best regular season team; can't close the deal. But it's not like they haven't been good in the playoffs. No franchise has played more playoff games. Only Montreal has more playoff wins, and so logically no team has more goals for than the Bruins. They simply lost series for a whole host of reasons that mostly reflect the difference between measuring quality as a consistent level of excellence over a sustained period vs. having the highest ceiling possible and being able to reach it consistently over short periods. But there are no trophies for best franchise over 50+ years. All the trophies are for seasons, and in many of the individual seasons where the Bruins have been obvious contenders, one of the NHL's greatest dynasties has also been in play. The loss to rookie Dryden aside, the 5 straight Canadiens of the late 70s can credibly claim to be the best team of all time. If they hadn't been there, the Bruins might have won two or three Cups in that era with Park and Cheevers and Ratelle and Middleton. Then in the early 80s, it was the Islanders - a baton pass with no windows in between. They were still a good team then, with 96 then 110 then 104 point seasons. Then they took a bit of a step back while the Islanders passed the baton to the Gretzky Oilers, who then won 5 of the next 7...including two over the resurgent Bruins. Good reason to think that if the Oilers had stumbled in either 1988 or 1990 that the Bruins win at least one of those series. So from 1975 to 1990, three franchises won the Cup every year except for 1989 when Calgary finally broke through with Gretzky in LA. Everyone else got to watch for 16 saesons. Philly got to share some of the Bruins' pain by making it to the Finals 4 times and losing after beating the Bruins in their first appearance. Push it out to 1994, and you have the best of the Mario years - a short lived dynasty thanks to cancer. Now Chicago has made it three times and lost each time. Minnesota made it twice and lost both times. STL made it three in a row at the beginning of expansion and then nothing. None of the other WHA teams got a sniff. Rangers lost twice, and eventually broke through in 1994 which remains their only win since 1940. Wings didn't make the Finals at all in that era. Leafs...LOL. Those dynasty teams had a higher ceiling than the Bruins teams - and any other team - in those seasons. Not much you can do about that. I think you can make a similar argument about 94 to the lockout, except there were three or four teams that were head and shoulders above the rest of the league in terms of playing the game the way it was played in the 90s. The Devils, the Wings, the Avs and the Stars. And they traded off the Cup for that period. That period coincides with a down period for the Bruins with the exception of a short but disappointing window with JTS. Since the Cap came into play, it's been largely two things: The Crosby Era and Chicago. LA had a short, brilliant run. Three things - the Bolts in the last 5-7 years since they made it and lost to the end of the Hawks in 2015. It's the reality for most of the league that very few teams actually complete the trick. And that's the reality for some very, very good teams along the way. Vancouver's been three times and never won (LOL). San Jose was a dominant team with JTS for nearly a decade - made one Final and lost. In the Cap era, the Bruins have the most regular season wins and one Cup (and two losses in the Finals). Pitt is next (3 Cups, 1 Finals Loss). Then Washington with one Cup, but then Nashville (0-1 in the Finals), SJ, and the Rangers (0-1) before the Bolts. The Wild (no record) and Stars (0-1) come before the Blues (1-0). Carolina won the first Cup of the Cap era, but has never been back. Anaheim won the second and has never been back. They're 12 and 11 in regular season wins. Detroit rode the previous generation's stars to a 1-1 record early in the era, but has been awful for 15 years. Colorado won last year after a long period of frustration as one of the worst teams in the league. LA has two Cups but are 19th in regular season performance over the last 20 years. No one else has won. Most of the league, including Montreal and Toronto and Philly - proud franchises with big money - and Edmonton, Buffalo and Arizona - two proud franchises who tried the draft rebuild like Arizona and are still waiting...and waiting.... Perspective is that the Bruins have given themselves a better chance to win year after year after year, but the alchemy to be that team that pulls it off is very, very difficult to find. Most of the league would love to trade places with the Bruins. I was at a winery and ran into a Hawks fan (fuck can't get away from those Chicago hosers)....but you know he agreed with me that it's better to be a B's fan. It comes down to winning every year--winning in the sense that the B's are always competitive, always 100 points or more for the most part--really incredibly consistent despite some changeovers in rosters, goalie changes, youth coming in, veterans/free agents going out...the B's simply are more a team that as a fan you appreciate the "chase" even if the end result isn't a Cup....it's incredibly hard to win the Cup...multiple Cups like Hawks did even more incredible...then you add this part in--what if you win the Cups like ChiTown then you fall on hard times and then you become kind of a joke the last few years? I can tell you this if this happened in to the Old Towne team, you would see fire this, trade that and crucify everyone including nightly booing as the team went off after a NHL regular season loss....the B's fans wouldn't tolerate it and I think it's a driving factor in how the B's refuse to let the Cap, allow for PB,DK,TR to come back or do what they want on their own time tables (and in return get these sweet late-career salaries that few players ever would do for their home team)....bottom line, B's hockey just is a better product as book's stats tell you---t hat the B's can't "finish" is unfortunately the down side of all of this. So what? It's just not that easy to win the Cup. I think part of my point is that the Bruins are NOT unusually bad at finishing. They are EXCEPTIONAL at producing opportunities to finish. The Bruins have been the Finals 20 times, including 3 in this generation, 2 in the Bourque era, and 5 in the 70s. They played in half of the Finals for a decade. Only Montreal was better at getting there; only Philly matched the Bruins with 2 wins. Only Montreal and Toronto have had more chances, and most of their advantage was pre-expansion. The Leafs made the Finals 21 times before 1968; 0 times since. Boston made the Finals 10 times before expansion and 10 times since. Identical 3-7 records. Montreal has made 1 Final since 1993 and lost. They had been 23 times before expansion, only two more than Toronto. They've been 12 times since. Unfortunately, they remain the gold standard for Cup success, but they're just 1-2 in their last three appearances since 1987, and not in any position to improve. Since expansion, only Montreal has gone to the Finals more than the Bruins. 10 trips to the big dance is a lot of putting most of the field behind you. But look at it this way. Since expansion, Montreal has won 10 times keyed by their 5 in a row dynasty in the 70s; the Oil has won 5 times keyed by the Gretzky years in the 80s; the Pens 5 keyed by Mario in the 90s and Sid, Malkin and Letang in the post-Cap world; the Isles and the Wings have won 4 times - the Isles 4 in a row with basically the same roster; the Wings with their 4 over the course of a decade, but mostly with the Yzerman-led group and then the one with a few consistent pieces including Lidstrom and Osgood, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Maltby and Draper. Then there's the Bruins, in a group with the Devils and Colorado as teams with 3. Only 5 teams have won the Cup more than the Bruins in the expansion era - now 55 years and counting. In a 32 team league, that's 25 jealous teams and 2 anxious to beat them to their next ring. It only matters that they made the Finals and didn't win because it is so hard to get there, and you get so invested in playoff runs, and when you've seen them have a great regular season before that, it feels like it's in their grasp. Then it's not. But honestly, as a fan, would you rather be Detroit and have about a decade of lights out elite hockey to watch, and then a plethora of DNQs over three decades? Or Edmonton? Come in, win 5 Cups in your first 11 years, then not even make the playoffs in 18 of the next 32 years? Detroit missed the playoffs for 13 of the first 15 years after expansion, and didn't advance a round for another 3 years. Then another decade before they had their first title since 1954-55. The Pens were out for 7 of the 8 years before Mario won, and only won 4 playoff series in their entire history to that point. I know, too, that there's a dimension of "yeah, but it's the WAY they lose!" And I get it. They laid an egg in game 7 against the Blues...though they came out like a house on fire and dominated until the Blues got a bounce and took a one goal lead. Then Marchand got caught as a result of extended offensive pressure where they were so close to getting that tying goal, then didn't, and then Pietrangelo was able to walk around him and go in to score the killer goal. The bad bounces that cost them Finals games against Chicago - the worst of which was Oduya's shot going wide then glancing off of Ference's skate that ultimately cost them a key win. The offensive blackout against Montreal in 2014. 1979. 3-0, 3-0, uh-oh. Literally no other scoring options with Neely shadowed by the Tik. Glen Wesley. Petr Klima. But on the flip side, there is no connection whatsoever - not in the coaching philosophy, the organizational design, the arena, the players, the equipment...not even the damn puck is the same as it was in 1971 when a juggernaut Bruins team lost to a rookie goalie who was once Bruins property. A ton of turnover by 1979 - too much to say that whatever ailed them in 1971 was the same in 1979. No one from the 1979 team on the 1988 and 1990 teams. No one from those teams on the roster for the JTS led first round collapses after 100 point seasons let alone for Scott Walker and then the 3-0 blow. Only a very few holdovers from the 2012, 2013 and 2014 teams (each with their own painful way of losing) to the 2019 team souped up with McAvoy and Carlo, Pastrnak and Krug, Coyle and MarJo. So unless you're going to bring out the Ouija board or hold a seance, these events have little to do with one another. They all happened to us as fans, but there's no common cause, and so no value in losing sleep over how THEY have failed. Used to be that the answer to this was that the ownership wouldn't do what was necessary to get them over the hump. Hindsight makes me think that was never true. I'm not sure there was a path for the Bruins to win in the dynasty eras by making just that one more move. Or two, or five. And we've seen you can make all the right moves in the corner office and still watch your brilliant machine fall apart for no reason anyone can understand. It hurts. It sucks. Fans of almost any team in the league other than the ones with the last two Cups will probably tell you to shut up if you're a Bruins fan because they have it a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jul 17, 2023 17:38:10 GMT
I think the Bruins are going to win the Cup in a year you least expect it. Sort of like when you're not really looking to date anyone and this cute babe comes into your life. So begins every story of marital infidelity....
|
|
|
Post by brewwins on Jul 17, 2023 17:41:42 GMT
You've had your monents we all have. Sizz went off the deep end after this season and took over being pissed about it for all of us. I was upset as everyone about the choke, but I think I've been more of the voice of reason when it comes to the 22-23 B's..I just am not as broken up over it as others. All of my rage came pretty much occurred during the playoffs duration. By the time, Vegas won Cup I was mostly looking back at things as shit happens. Even though they won game 1 you could just see Florida was going to get every break in the book. To me this was the worst loss ever for the Bruins. 1. 2023 Bruins Florida round 1 choke game 7. 2. 2019 Bruins St Louis Finals choke game 7. 3. 1974 Bruins Philadelphia Finals choke game 6. 4. 2013 Bruins Chicago Finals choke game 6. 5. 1971 Bruins Montreal round 1 choke game 7. Honorable mention 2014 Bruins Montreal round 2 choke game 7.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jul 17, 2023 17:44:50 GMT
I was at a winery and ran into a Hawks fan (fuck can't get away from those Chicago hosers)....but you know he agreed with me that it's better to be a B's fan. It comes down to winning every year--winning in the sense that the B's are always competitive, always 100 points or more for the most part--really incredibly consistent despite some changeovers in rosters, goalie changes, youth coming in, veterans/free agents going out...the B's simply are more a team that as a fan you appreciate the "chase" even if the end result isn't a Cup....it's incredibly hard to win the Cup...multiple Cups like Hawks did even more incredible...then you add this part in--what if you win the Cups like ChiTown then you fall on hard times and then you become kind of a joke the last few years? I can tell you this if this happened in to the Old Towne team, you would see fire this, trade that and crucify everyone including nightly booing as the team went off after a NHL regular season loss....the B's fans wouldn't tolerate it and I think it's a driving factor in how the B's refuse to let the Cap, allow for PB,DK,TR to come back or do what they want on their own time tables (and in return get these sweet late-career salaries that few players ever would do for their home team)....bottom line, B's hockey just is a better product as book's stats tell you---t hat the B's can't "finish" is unfortunately the down side of all of this. So what? It's just not that easy to win the Cup. I think part of my point is that the Bruins are NOT unusually bad at finishing. They are EXCEPTIONAL at producing opportunities to finish. The Bruins have been the Finals 20 times, including 3 in this generation, 2 in the Bourque era, and 5 in the 70s. They played in half of the Finals for a decade. Only Montreal was better at getting there; only Philly matched the Bruins with 2 wins. Only Montreal and Toronto have had more chances, and most of their advantage was pre-expansion. The Leafs made the Finals 21 times before 1968; 0 times since. Boston made the Finals 10 times before expansion and 10 times since. Identical 3-7 records. Montreal has made 1 Final since 1993 and lost. They had been 23 times before expansion, only two more than Toronto. They've been 12 times since. Unfortunately, they remain the gold standard for Cup success, but they're just 1-2 in their last three appearances since 1987, and not in any position to improve. Since expansion, only Montreal has gone to the Finals more than the Bruins. 10 trips to the big dance is a lot of putting most of the field behind you. But look at it this way. Since expansion, Montreal has won 10 times keyed by their 5 in a row dynasty in the 70s; the Oil has won 5 times keyed by the Gretzky years in the 80s; the Pens 5 keyed by Mario in the 90s and Sid, Malkin and Letang in the post-Cap world; the Isles and the Wings have won 4 times - the Isles 4 in a row with basically the same roster; the Wings with their 4 over the course of a decade, but mostly with the Yzerman-led group and then the one with a few consistent pieces including Lidstrom and Osgood, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Maltby and Draper. Then there's the Bruins, in a group with the Devils and Colorado as teams with 3. Only 5 teams have won the Cup more than the Bruins in the expansion era - now 55 years and counting. In a 32 team league, that's 25 jealous teams and 2 anxious to beat them to their next ring. It only matters that they made the Finals and didn't win because it is so hard to get there, and you get so invested in playoff runs, and when you've seen them have a great regular season before that, it feels like it's in their grasp. Then it's not. But honestly, as a fan, would you rather be Detroit and have about a decade of lights out elite hockey to watch, and then a plethora of DNQs over three decades? Or Edmonton? Come in, win 5 Cups in your first 11 years, then not even make the playoffs in 18 of the next 32 years? Detroit missed the playoffs for 13 of the first 15 years after expansion, and didn't advance a round for another 3 years. Then another decade before they had their first title since 1954-55. The Pens were out for 7 of the 8 years before Mario won, and only won 4 playoff series in their entire history to that point. I know, too, that there's a dimension of "yeah, but it's the WAY they lose!" And I get it. They laid an egg in game 7 against the Blues...though they came out like a house on fire and dominated until the Blues got a bounce and took a one goal lead. Then Marchand got caught as a result of extended offensive pressure where they were so close to getting that tying goal, then didn't, and then Pietrangelo was able to walk around him and go in to score the killer goal. The bad bounces that cost them Finals games against Chicago - the worst of which was Oduya's shot going wide then glancing off of Ference's skate that ultimately cost them a key win. The offensive blackout against Montreal in 2014. 1979. 3-0, 3-0, uh-oh. Literally no other scoring options with Neely shadowed by the Tik. Glen Wesley. Petr Klima. But on the flip side, there is no connection whatsoever - not in the coaching philosophy, the organizational design, the arena, the players, the equipment...not even the damn puck is the same as it was in 1971 when a juggernaut Bruins team lost to a rookie goalie who was once Bruins property. A ton of turnover by 1979 - too much to say that whatever ailed them in 1971 was the same in 1979. No one from the 1979 team on the 1988 and 1990 teams. No one from those teams on the roster for the JTS led first round collapses after 100 point seasons let alone for Scott Walker and then the 3-0 blow. Only a very few holdovers from the 2012, 2013 and 2014 teams (each with their own painful way of losing) to the 2019 team souped up with McAvoy and Carlo, Pastrnak and Krug, Coyle and MarJo. So unless you're going to bring out the Ouija board or hold a seance, these events have little to do with one another. They all happened to us as fans, but there's no common cause, and so no value in losing sleep over how THEY have failed. Used to be that the answer to this was that the ownership wouldn't do what was necessary to get them over the hump. Hindsight makes me think that was never true. I'm not sure there was a path for the Bruins to win in the dynasty eras by making just that one more move. Or two, or five. And we've seen you can make all the right moves in the corner office and still watch your brilliant machine fall apart for no reason anyone can understand. It hurts. It sucks. Fans of almost any team in the league other than the ones with the last two Cups will probably tell you to shut up if you're a Bruins fan because they have it a lot worse.1,000 percent.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jul 17, 2023 17:46:12 GMT
I was upset as everyone about the choke, but I think I've been more of the voice of reason when it comes to the 22-23 B's..I just am not as broken up over it as others. All of my rage came pretty much occurred during the playoffs duration. By the time, Vegas won Cup I was mostly looking back at things as shit happens. Even though they won game 1 you could just see Florida was going to get every break in the book. To me this was the worst loss ever for the Bruins. 1. 2023 Bruins Florida round 1 choke game 7. 2. 2019 Bruins St Louis Finals choke game 7. 3. 1974 Bruins Philadelphia Finals choke game 6. 4. 2013 Bruins Chicago Finals choke game 6. 5. 1971 Bruins Montreal round 1 choke game 7. Honorable mention 2014 Bruins Montreal round 2 choke game 7. nah, 2010 was the worst choke in NHL history...it's just not even close...
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jul 17, 2023 19:41:13 GMT
Even though they won game 1 you could just see Florida was going to get every break in the book. To me this was the worst loss ever for the Bruins. 1. 2023 Bruins Florida round 1 choke game 7. 2. 2019 Bruins St Louis Finals choke game 7. 3. 1974 Bruins Philadelphia Finals choke game 6. 4. 2013 Bruins Chicago Finals choke game 6. 5. 1971 Bruins Montreal round 1 choke game 7. Honorable mention 2014 Bruins Montreal round 2 choke game 7. nah, 2010 was the worst choke in NHL history...it's just not even close... OK, I'm going to nerd out on this for a second (shut up.). One of the podcasts I like is "Cautionary Tales" by the economist Tim Harford. It is, like most things economics, really interesting until it proposes conclusions that just don't follow from the evidence given in the story. It's like someone telling you the Aesop fable about sour grapes and concluding that the moral of the story is that wine prices correlate to fox income. But the stories and arguments can be interesting. He recently did a story that was about choking - sort of. He drew a parallel between Rudyard Kipling's poem "If" - which is often cited as among the most popular in England - and tennis player Jana Novotna who famously choked away a huge lead in the final at Wimbledon to Steffi Graf (Novotna eventually did win a Wimbledon, so not that different from the 2010 Bruins). The jumping off point is that a line from the poem about taking both victory and defeat equally in stride is etched over the entry to centre court at Wimbledon. To summarize, the point was that the man who inspired Kipling to write the poem led a disastrous attempted coup in South Africa by refusing to change in the face of a changing environment around him. One of the general assumptions about how you avoid a choke in sports is exactly that. Something goes wrong, you forget about it, and "play your game". Elite athletes practice so hard and play so instinctively that the instantaneous delay caused by trying to make a decision that goes counter to "playing your game" makes you vulnerable. So don't do that. But in real life, where there are very few things you do with that level of intentional practice in order to do it at high speed and under pressure? That's probably not great advice. It wasn't battlefield tactics that hurt the coup, just to be clear. Made me wonder about how far that whole "play your game" thing actually goes in sports. If Novotna's about to hit a volley and has a split second hesitation thinking "no! let it bounce!" but then goes back to volley only to hit it when it's too low and send it into the net, sure. If instinct says volley, you volley. But if the reason she was choking was that Graf started over-playing the serve to her backhand so that Novotna had to be more fine with it or accept a forehand return, and if that meant that the rest of each rally, she was less able to attack, then...play your game isn't going to help. And all three of the Bruins' most recent coaches are disciples of "play our game." In Julien's case, I think it was important stability after an absolute shitshow for two plus years and what, 987 coaches over the previous 5-6 seasons? I remember writing that I understood Julien not juggling lines because his philosophy was that the lines he was using gave the team the best chance to win. Nothing changed in game to alter that assessment, so you were attempting to get better results with worse lines in the hope of finding some spark that apparently didn't exist in practice or the previous however many games. Cassidy watched the Blues throw a blanket over the BLiH and did nothing. Montgomery...well he tried that stupid opening lineup in game 5. So I'll give him that. He tried something. And Cassidy was the one who put Bergeron with marchand and Pastrnak and then pulled it apart with excellent team results both times. I think in most of the cases where we really hate the Bruins choking, there's some element of the opponent overplaying the serve to the backhand. In the Chicago series, the Bruins could have won that series in 5 if not for some bad breaks, and they lost it in six in part because the Hawks figured out how to attack the Bruins D with big bodies first in to tie up Chara, Seidenberg, Boychuk and then in comes the playmaker like Toews to get the puck before the Bruins' second man. Julien never altered his strategy to account for that change. Just trusted that Chara would figure it out. In 2010, without Krejci, the Flyers figured out how to attack the Bruins so that they had trouble scoring, and took advantage of counter attacks. The Bruins changed nothing as far as I could see even though they lost their leading playoff scorer. We forget, when we think about that series, that that Bruins team was absolutely anemic offensively. They scored fewer than 200 goals and had the worst goals for in the league, the 26th worst 82 game total in the Cap era. Bergeron and Krejci led the team in scoring with just 52 points. Sturm was the only guy on the team with 20+ goals. They made the playoffs with just 91 points. Without Krejci, they reverted to what they had been all year. I submit that "play your game" has been at the root of every one of the chokes we've debated here. They needed to make smart, strategic changes. Coaching fail 75%, players fail 20% and management 5%.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jul 17, 2023 20:25:40 GMT
nah, 2010 was the worst choke in NHL history...it's just not even close... OK, I'm going to nerd out on this for a second (shut up.). One of the podcasts I like is "Cautionary Tales" by the economist Tim Harford. It is, like most things economics, really interesting until it proposes conclusions that just don't follow from the evidence given in the story. It's like someone telling you the Aesop fable about sour grapes and concluding that the moral of the story is that wine prices correlate to fox income. But the stories and arguments can be interesting. He recently did a story that was about choking - sort of. He drew a parallel between Rudyard Kipling's poem "If" - which is often cited as among the most popular in England - and tennis player Jana Novotna who famously choked away a huge lead in the final at Wimbledon to Steffi Graf (Novotna eventually did win a Wimbledon, so not that different from the 2010 Bruins). The jumping off point is that a line from the poem about taking both victory and defeat equally in stride is etched over the entry to centre court at Wimbledon. To summarize, the point was that the man who inspired Kipling to write the poem led a disastrous attempted coup in South Africa by refusing to change in the face of a changing environment around him. One of the general assumptions about how you avoid a choke in sports is exactly that. Something goes wrong, you forget about it, and "play your game". Elite athletes practice so hard and play so instinctively that the instantaneous delay caused by trying to make a decision that goes counter to "playing your game" makes you vulnerable. So don't do that. But in real life, where there are very few things you do with that level of intentional practice in order to do it at high speed and under pressure? That's probably not great advice. It wasn't battlefield tactics that hurt the coup, just to be clear. Made me wonder about how far that whole "play your game" thing actually goes in sports. If Novotna's about to hit a volley and has a split second hesitation thinking "no! let it bounce!" but then goes back to volley only to hit it when it's too low and send it into the net, sure. If instinct says volley, you volley. But if the reason she was choking was that Graf started over-playing the serve to her backhand so that Novotna had to be more fine with it or accept a forehand return, and if that meant that the rest of each rally, she was less able to attack, then...play your game isn't going to help. And all three of the Bruins' most recent coaches are disciples of "play our game." In Julien's case, I think it was important stability after an absolute shitshow for two plus years and what, 987 coaches over the previous 5-6 seasons? I remember writing that I understood Julien not juggling lines because his philosophy was that the lines he was using gave the team the best chance to win. Nothing changed in game to alter that assessment, so you were attempting to get better results with worse lines in the hope of finding some spark that apparently didn't exist in practice or the previous however many games. Cassidy watched the Blues throw a blanket over the BLiH and did nothing. Montgomery...well he tried that stupid opening lineup in game 5. So I'll give him that. He tried something. And Cassidy was the one who put Bergeron with marchand and Pastrnak and then pulled it apart with excellent team results both times. I think in most of the cases where we really hate the Bruins choking, there's some element of the opponent overplaying the serve to the backhand. In the Chicago series, the Bruins could have won that series in 5 if not for some bad breaks, and they lost it in six in part because the Hawks figured out how to attack the Bruins D with big bodies first in to tie up Chara, Seidenberg, Boychuk and then in comes the playmaker like Toews to get the puck before the Bruins' second man. Julien never altered his strategy to account for that change. Just trusted that Chara would figure it out. In 2010, without Krejci, the Flyers figured out how to attack the Bruins so that they had trouble scoring, and took advantage of counter attacks. The Bruins changed nothing as far as I could see even though they lost their leading playoff scorer. We forget, when we think about that series, that that Bruins team was absolutely anemic offensively. They scored fewer than 200 goals and had the worst goals for in the league, the 26th worst 82 game total in the Cap era. Bergeron and Krejci led the team in scoring with just 52 points. Sturm was the only guy on the team with 20+ goals. They made the playoffs with just 91 points. Without Krejci, they reverted to what they had been all year. I submit that "play your game" has been at the root of every one of the chokes we've debated here. They needed to make smart, strategic changes. Coaching fail 75%, players fail 20% and management 5%. I'm going to disagree on 2010. Here's why...THE B'S HAD A 3-0 LEAD IN THE FIRST PERIOD OF GAME 7...Agree with everything said about how the B's were anemic offensively, over-relied on DK and that the team started folding its tent after the injury....and still, AHEAD 3-0 IN GAME 7...it's a choke. It's not just a choke, IT'S A MONUMENTAL, ALL-TIME CHOKE...Where's the defense? Where's the goaltending? Where's the PK?...bottom line you have a 3-0 lead in a game 7 and you lose...IN REGULATION EVEN! CHOKE, ALL-TIME FUCKING CHOKE..Without a doubt, up 3 games 0, lose 4 straight...that is not a "reverted to what they had been all year" scenario...it's a choke.
|
|
|
Post by mdsizzle on Jul 17, 2023 20:52:47 GMT
OK, I'm going to nerd out on this for a second (shut up.). One of the podcasts I like is "Cautionary Tales" by the economist Tim Harford. It is, like most things economics, really interesting until it proposes conclusions that just don't follow from the evidence given in the story. It's like someone telling you the Aesop fable about sour grapes and concluding that the moral of the story is that wine prices correlate to fox income. But the stories and arguments can be interesting. He recently did a story that was about choking - sort of. He drew a parallel between Rudyard Kipling's poem "If" - which is often cited as among the most popular in England - and tennis player Jana Novotna who famously choked away a huge lead in the final at Wimbledon to Steffi Graf (Novotna eventually did win a Wimbledon, so not that different from the 2010 Bruins). The jumping off point is that a line from the poem about taking both victory and defeat equally in stride is etched over the entry to centre court at Wimbledon. To summarize, the point was that the man who inspired Kipling to write the poem led a disastrous attempted coup in South Africa by refusing to change in the face of a changing environment around him. One of the general assumptions about how you avoid a choke in sports is exactly that. Something goes wrong, you forget about it, and "play your game". Elite athletes practice so hard and play so instinctively that the instantaneous delay caused by trying to make a decision that goes counter to "playing your game" makes you vulnerable. So don't do that. But in real life, where there are very few things you do with that level of intentional practice in order to do it at high speed and under pressure? That's probably not great advice. It wasn't battlefield tactics that hurt the coup, just to be clear. Made me wonder about how far that whole "play your game" thing actually goes in sports. If Novotna's about to hit a volley and has a split second hesitation thinking "no! let it bounce!" but then goes back to volley only to hit it when it's too low and send it into the net, sure. If instinct says volley, you volley. But if the reason she was choking was that Graf started over-playing the serve to her backhand so that Novotna had to be more fine with it or accept a forehand return, and if that meant that the rest of each rally, she was less able to attack, then...play your game isn't going to help. And all three of the Bruins' most recent coaches are disciples of "play our game." In Julien's case, I think it was important stability after an absolute shitshow for two plus years and what, 987 coaches over the previous 5-6 seasons? I remember writing that I understood Julien not juggling lines because his philosophy was that the lines he was using gave the team the best chance to win. Nothing changed in game to alter that assessment, so you were attempting to get better results with worse lines in the hope of finding some spark that apparently didn't exist in practice or the previous however many games. Cassidy watched the Blues throw a blanket over the BLiH and did nothing. Montgomery...well he tried that stupid opening lineup in game 5. So I'll give him that. He tried something. And Cassidy was the one who put Bergeron with marchand and Pastrnak and then pulled it apart with excellent team results both times. I think in most of the cases where we really hate the Bruins choking, there's some element of the opponent overplaying the serve to the backhand. In the Chicago series, the Bruins could have won that series in 5 if not for some bad breaks, and they lost it in six in part because the Hawks figured out how to attack the Bruins D with big bodies first in to tie up Chara, Seidenberg, Boychuk and then in comes the playmaker like Toews to get the puck before the Bruins' second man. Julien never altered his strategy to account for that change. Just trusted that Chara would figure it out. In 2010, without Krejci, the Flyers figured out how to attack the Bruins so that they had trouble scoring, and took advantage of counter attacks. The Bruins changed nothing as far as I could see even though they lost their leading playoff scorer. We forget, when we think about that series, that that Bruins team was absolutely anemic offensively. They scored fewer than 200 goals and had the worst goals for in the league, the 26th worst 82 game total in the Cap era. Bergeron and Krejci led the team in scoring with just 52 points. Sturm was the only guy on the team with 20+ goals. They made the playoffs with just 91 points. Without Krejci, they reverted to what they had been all year. I submit that "play your game" has been at the root of every one of the chokes we've debated here. They needed to make smart, strategic changes. Coaching fail 75%, players fail 20% and management 5%. I'm going to disagree on 2010. Here's why...THE B'S HAD A 3-0 LEAD IN THE FIRST PERIOD OF GAME 7...Agree with everything said about how the B's were anemic offensively, over-relied on DK and that the team started folding its tent after the injury....and still, AHEAD 3-0 IN GAME 7...it's a choke. It's not just a choke, IT'S A MONUMENTAL, ALL-TIME CHOKE...Where's the defense? Where's the goaltending? Where's the PK?...bottom line you have a 3-0 lead in a game 7 and you lose...IN REGULATION EVEN! CHOKE, ALL-TIME FUCKING CHOKE..Without a doubt, up 3 games 0, lose 4 straight...that is not a "reverted to what they had been all year" scenario...it's a choke. I'm going to dissagree, but take it with a grain of salt... Gm7 2011 I was watching from a hotel room on a little laptop on a shady website... Don't remember much, but remember just shutting it all down after goal 2 because I couldn't bear to watch... But the difference to me is, ya, it's more of a collapse than a choke... Dk got blasted, taken out and the tides turned... I'm not going to beat the 2023 dead horse much more, but it was self inflicted.. B's stupid plays cost them over and over... That to me is the definition of a choke... Not the other team turning it around, but they choked... When expectations could not have been higher.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Jul 17, 2023 21:26:35 GMT
Would I be more happy with Sheifele or Lindholm at center heading into this upcoming season ? Yup Bergeron, Zacha, Coyle and whomever gets the 4th line. Fine with Brown, Geekie or Frederic being the 4th line center. Brown is awful. 4th line should be Geekie between Lucic and Greer. I like Geekie on the 3rd line.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Jul 18, 2023 2:03:43 GMT
We're all frustrated moog. Your points are valid. This has been a really good team for an awfully long time. Management screwed that up, by over reacting to a once in a lifetime snafu in 14/15, but absolutely, this team has been the best team in hockey over the last 14 or 15 years. Absolutely, 1 cup isn't near good enough. But 2 cups from 69-75 wasn't near good enough either. Everybody was winning 3 or 4 or 5 in a row. You mention Pittsburgh. What about them getting embarassed by the Bruins 4 straight? That's also about as big a shit-show as I've seen. What about 19? One of the biggest factors in that underwhelming post season, was nothing more than all the other big dogs....all of them...shit the bed.."gifting", in the words of most hockey scribes and professionals...the Bruins a cup on a silver platter. Get some perspective people. Stop seeing the hockey universe, in the same wide eyed narrative you saw Adam West in. Nobody is arguing the fact they shit themselves. And they've shit themselves multiple times. And yes, you only get so many cracks at the big prize,,,then you probably decline for a while then start back up the ladder. It's frustrating. It's frustrating enough, without constantly reading stupid shit regarding why, that doesn't equate to a standard of, kindergarten-hockey-shit for dummies. Opinions and thoughts don't matter. It's only the "why" that makes a thought or opinion worth listening to. I'm all for criticism, and speaking up, and calling a spade a spade. But if someone wants to grab a public megaphone, and criticize and whine and wail...they godamn well better have some backup to share and debate. A lot smarter people than me, have thoroughly countered everything that i'm speaking to. Several times. We're well past the point of needing to either explain it..or read it. Who are you yelling at? I'm not
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Jul 18, 2023 2:28:34 GMT
I was upset as everyone about the choke, but I think I've been more of the voice of reason when it comes to the 22-23 B's..I just am not as broken up over it as others. All of my rage came pretty much occurred during the playoffs duration. By the time, Vegas won Cup I was mostly looking back at things as shit happens. Even though they won game 1 you could just see Florida was going to get every break in the book. To me this was the worst loss ever for the Bruins. 1. 2023 Bruins Florida round 1 choke game 7. 2. 2019 Bruins St Louis Finals choke game 7. 3. 1974 Bruins Philadelphia Finals choke game 6. 4. 2013 Bruins Chicago Finals choke game 6. 5. 1971 Bruins Montreal round 1 choke game 7. Honorable mention 2014 Bruins Montreal round 2 choke game 7. I thought 04 should get a mention. For me anyway, I thought this was the first time since the mid 70, that the Bruins were plenty good enough, to get the job done. We're always hoping...knowing anything can happen, but the 04 team was a powerhouse. Didn't need luck, it just had to perform...somewhat Up 3 games to one, going home, everyone said it was definitely "ovah". The next 2 games we got pounded, then shut out in game 7. That was by far imo, the most underwhelming playoff since 71 to that point.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jul 18, 2023 2:40:26 GMT
Even though they won game 1 you could just see Florida was going to get every break in the book. To me this was the worst loss ever for the Bruins. 1. 2023 Bruins Florida round 1 choke game 7. 2. 2019 Bruins St Louis Finals choke game 7. 3. 1974 Bruins Philadelphia Finals choke game 6. 4. 2013 Bruins Chicago Finals choke game 6. 5. 1971 Bruins Montreal round 1 choke game 7. Honorable mention 2014 Bruins Montreal round 2 choke game 7. I thought 04 should get a mention. For me anyway, I thought this was the first time since the mid 70, that the Bruins were plenty good enough, to get the job done. We're always hoping...knowing anything can happen, but the 04 team was a powerhouse. Didn't need luck, it just had to perform...somewhat Up 3 games to one, going home, everyone said it was definitely "ovah". The next 2 games we got pounded, then shut out in game 7. That was by far imo, the most underwhelming playoff since 71 to that point. Huge letdown after getting Nylander and Gonchar (sound familiar?) at trade deadline. B's were loaded.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Jul 18, 2023 2:42:33 GMT
Ole Joe and his broken ribs derailed things. That was possibly my lowest point as a Bruins fan. It was also the Dead Puck era, and the game had become almost unbearable to watch.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Jul 18, 2023 2:43:48 GMT
I figured you spent a lot of time at the whinery I'm not even the one who has whined at all about the B's in 22-23...I enjoyed the entire regular season...great memories for me. Yeah, it's Sizzle that's in the ally right now with his paper bag of Whine.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Jul 18, 2023 2:52:24 GMT
I was at a winery and ran into a Hawks fan (fuck can't get away from those Chicago hosers)....but you know he agreed with me that it's better to be a B's fan. It comes down to winning every year--winning in the sense that the B's are always competitive, always 100 points or more for the most part--really incredibly consistent despite some changeovers in rosters, goalie changes, youth coming in, veterans/free agents going out...the B's simply are more a team that as a fan you appreciate the "chase" even if the end result isn't a Cup....it's incredibly hard to win the Cup...multiple Cups like Hawks did even more incredible...then you add this part in--what if you win the Cups like ChiTown then you fall on hard times and then you become kind of a joke the last few years? I can tell you this if this happened in to the Old Towne team, you would see fire this, trade that and crucify everyone including nightly booing as the team went off after a NHL regular season loss....the B's fans wouldn't tolerate it and I think it's a driving factor in how the B's refuse to let the Cap, allow for PB,DK,TR to come back or do what they want on their own time tables (and in return get these sweet late-career salaries that few players ever would do for their home team)....bottom line, B's hockey just is a better product as book's stats tell you---t hat the B's can't "finish" is unfortunately the down side of all of this. So what? It's just not that easy to win the Cup. I think part of my point is that the Bruins are NOT unusually bad at finishing. They are EXCEPTIONAL at producing opportunities to finish. The Bruins have been the Finals 20 times, including 3 in this generation, 2 in the Bourque era, and 5 in the 70s. They played in half of the Finals for a decade. Only Montreal was better at getting there; only Philly matched the Bruins with 2 wins. Only Montreal and Toronto have had more chances, and most of their advantage was pre-expansion. The Leafs made the Finals 21 times before 1968; 0 times since. Boston made the Finals 10 times before expansion and 10 times since. Identical 3-7 records. Montreal has made 1 Final since 1993 and lost. They had been 23 times before expansion, only two more than Toronto. They've been 12 times since. Unfortunately, they remain the gold standard for Cup success, but they're just 1-2 in their last three appearances since 1987, and not in any position to improve. Since expansion, only Montreal has gone to the Finals more than the Bruins. 10 trips to the big dance is a lot of putting most of the field behind you. But look at it this way. Since expansion, Montreal has won 10 times keyed by their 5 in a row dynasty in the 70s; the Oil has won 5 times keyed by the Gretzky years in the 80s; the Pens 5 keyed by Mario in the 90s and Sid, Malkin and Letang in the post-Cap world; the Isles and the Wings have won 4 times - the Isles 4 in a row with basically the same roster; the Wings with their 4 over the course of a decade, but mostly with the Yzerman-led group and then the one with a few consistent pieces including Lidstrom and Osgood, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Maltby and Draper. Then there's the Bruins, in a group with the Devils and Colorado as teams with 3. Only 5 teams have won the Cup more than the Bruins in the expansion era - now 55 years and counting. In a 32 team league, that's 25 jealous teams and 2 anxious to beat them to their next ring. It only matters that they made the Finals and didn't win because it is so hard to get there, and you get so invested in playoff runs, and when you've seen them have a great regular season before that, it feels like it's in their grasp. Then it's not. But honestly, as a fan, would you rather be Detroit and have about a decade of lights out elite hockey to watch, and then a plethora of DNQs over three decades? Or Edmonton? Come in, win 5 Cups in your first 11 years, then not even make the playoffs in 18 of the next 32 years? Detroit missed the playoffs for 13 of the first 15 years after expansion, and didn't advance a round for another 3 years. Then another decade before they had their first title since 1954-55. The Pens were out for 7 of the 8 years before Mario won, and only won 4 playoff series in their entire history to that point. I know, too, that there's a dimension of "yeah, but it's the WAY they lose!" And I get it. They laid an egg in game 7 against the Blues...though they came out like a house on fire and dominated until the Blues got a bounce and took a one goal lead. Then Marchand got caught as a result of extended offensive pressure where they were so close to getting that tying goal, then didn't, and then Pietrangelo was able to walk around him and go in to score the killer goal. The bad bounces that cost them Finals games against Chicago - the worst of which was Oduya's shot going wide then glancing off of Ference's skate that ultimately cost them a key win. The offensive blackout against Montreal in 2014. 1979. 3-0, 3-0, uh-oh. Literally no other scoring options with Neely shadowed by the Tik. Glen Wesley. Petr Klima. But on the flip side, there is no connection whatsoever - not in the coaching philosophy, the organizational design, the arena, the players, the equipment...not even the damn puck is the same as it was in 1971 when a juggernaut Bruins team lost to a rookie goalie who was once Bruins property. A ton of turnover by 1979 - too much to say that whatever ailed them in 1971 was the same in 1979. No one from the 1979 team on the 1988 and 1990 teams. No one from those teams on the roster for the JTS led first round collapses after 100 point seasons let alone for Scott Walker and then the 3-0 blow. Only a very few holdovers from the 2012, 2013 and 2014 teams (each with their own painful way of losing) to the 2019 team souped up with McAvoy and Carlo, Pastrnak and Krug, Coyle and MarJo. So unless you're going to bring out the Ouija board or hold a seance, these events have little to do with one another. They all happened to us as fans, but there's no common cause, and so no value in losing sleep over how THEY have failed. Used to be that the answer to this was that the ownership wouldn't do what was necessary to get them over the hump. Hindsight makes me think that was never true. I'm not sure there was a path for the Bruins to win in the dynasty eras by making just that one more move. Or two, or five. And we've seen you can make all the right moves in the corner office and still watch your brilliant machine fall apart for no reason anyone can understand. It hurts. It sucks. Fans of almost any team in the league other than the ones with the last two Cups will probably tell you to shut up if you're a Bruins fan because they have it a lot worse. Interesting that since he took over as GM, the Bruins have the best record in the League under Donnie. Hard to say he hasn't done his job as GM and had them in contention. My biggest knock in him as been a failure to get guys who go to the net up front, and prevent guys from going to the net in back, particularly for the depth roles. I felt he finally got the memo this year and they were built to win, but alas it wasn't to be. On a semi-related note, with the discussions around this team's character, I think one guy that gets looked over a lot in terms of leadership is Lucic. Bergeron's a great leader and glue guy, and great under pressure. But he's not a true rah rah guy, run through the end of the boards to win kind of player. Looking back at '11 and '13 the guy that has always stood out to me is Milan. Taking the '13 Leafs comeback as a great example, yes Patrice scored a couple goals and was awesome, but it was Lucic who stood up on the bench when they were down 4-1 in the third and said "Calm down guys, we just need to get one before the 10min mark. Only think about that, then the game is in reach." He not only said it, but went in, pounded players and set up that goal at the 10 min mark. I don't know how much he has left in the tank, but I think his swagger will be a great addition this year.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Jul 18, 2023 11:24:16 GMT
I think part of my point is that the Bruins are NOT unusually bad at finishing. They are EXCEPTIONAL at producing opportunities to finish. The Bruins have been the Finals 20 times, including 3 in this generation, 2 in the Bourque era, and 5 in the 70s. They played in half of the Finals for a decade. Only Montreal was better at getting there; only Philly matched the Bruins with 2 wins. Only Montreal and Toronto have had more chances, and most of their advantage was pre-expansion. The Leafs made the Finals 21 times before 1968; 0 times since. Boston made the Finals 10 times before expansion and 10 times since. Identical 3-7 records. Montreal has made 1 Final since 1993 and lost. They had been 23 times before expansion, only two more than Toronto. They've been 12 times since. Unfortunately, they remain the gold standard for Cup success, but they're just 1-2 in their last three appearances since 1987, and not in any position to improve. Since expansion, only Montreal has gone to the Finals more than the Bruins. 10 trips to the big dance is a lot of putting most of the field behind you. But look at it this way. Since expansion, Montreal has won 10 times keyed by their 5 in a row dynasty in the 70s; the Oil has won 5 times keyed by the Gretzky years in the 80s; the Pens 5 keyed by Mario in the 90s and Sid, Malkin and Letang in the post-Cap world; the Isles and the Wings have won 4 times - the Isles 4 in a row with basically the same roster; the Wings with their 4 over the course of a decade, but mostly with the Yzerman-led group and then the one with a few consistent pieces including Lidstrom and Osgood, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Maltby and Draper. Then there's the Bruins, in a group with the Devils and Colorado as teams with 3. Only 5 teams have won the Cup more than the Bruins in the expansion era - now 55 years and counting. In a 32 team league, that's 25 jealous teams and 2 anxious to beat them to their next ring. It only matters that they made the Finals and didn't win because it is so hard to get there, and you get so invested in playoff runs, and when you've seen them have a great regular season before that, it feels like it's in their grasp. Then it's not. But honestly, as a fan, would you rather be Detroit and have about a decade of lights out elite hockey to watch, and then a plethora of DNQs over three decades? Or Edmonton? Come in, win 5 Cups in your first 11 years, then not even make the playoffs in 18 of the next 32 years? Detroit missed the playoffs for 13 of the first 15 years after expansion, and didn't advance a round for another 3 years. Then another decade before they had their first title since 1954-55. The Pens were out for 7 of the 8 years before Mario won, and only won 4 playoff series in their entire history to that point. I know, too, that there's a dimension of "yeah, but it's the WAY they lose!" And I get it. They laid an egg in game 7 against the Blues...though they came out like a house on fire and dominated until the Blues got a bounce and took a one goal lead. Then Marchand got caught as a result of extended offensive pressure where they were so close to getting that tying goal, then didn't, and then Pietrangelo was able to walk around him and go in to score the killer goal. The bad bounces that cost them Finals games against Chicago - the worst of which was Oduya's shot going wide then glancing off of Ference's skate that ultimately cost them a key win. The offensive blackout against Montreal in 2014. 1979. 3-0, 3-0, uh-oh. Literally no other scoring options with Neely shadowed by the Tik. Glen Wesley. Petr Klima. But on the flip side, there is no connection whatsoever - not in the coaching philosophy, the organizational design, the arena, the players, the equipment...not even the damn puck is the same as it was in 1971 when a juggernaut Bruins team lost to a rookie goalie who was once Bruins property. A ton of turnover by 1979 - too much to say that whatever ailed them in 1971 was the same in 1979. No one from the 1979 team on the 1988 and 1990 teams. No one from those teams on the roster for the JTS led first round collapses after 100 point seasons let alone for Scott Walker and then the 3-0 blow. Only a very few holdovers from the 2012, 2013 and 2014 teams (each with their own painful way of losing) to the 2019 team souped up with McAvoy and Carlo, Pastrnak and Krug, Coyle and MarJo. So unless you're going to bring out the Ouija board or hold a seance, these events have little to do with one another. They all happened to us as fans, but there's no common cause, and so no value in losing sleep over how THEY have failed. Used to be that the answer to this was that the ownership wouldn't do what was necessary to get them over the hump. Hindsight makes me think that was never true. I'm not sure there was a path for the Bruins to win in the dynasty eras by making just that one more move. Or two, or five. And we've seen you can make all the right moves in the corner office and still watch your brilliant machine fall apart for no reason anyone can understand. It hurts. It sucks. Fans of almost any team in the league other than the ones with the last two Cups will probably tell you to shut up if you're a Bruins fan because they have it a lot worse. Interesting that since he took over as GM, the Bruins have the best record in the League under Donnie. Hard to say he hasn't done his job as GM and had them in contention. My biggest knock in him as been a failure to get guys who go to the net up front, and prevent guys from going to the net in back, particularly for the depth roles. I felt he finally got the memo this year and they were built to win, but alas it wasn't to be. On a semi-related note, with the discussions around this team's character, I think one guy that gets looked over a lot in terms of leadership is Lucic. Bergeron's a great leader and glue guy, and great under pressure. But he's not a true rah rah guy, run through the end of the boards to win kind of player. Looking back at '11 and '13 the guy that has always stood out to me is Milan. Taking the '13 Leafs comeback as a great example, yes Patrice scored a couple goals and was awesome, but it was Lucic who stood up on the bench when they were down 4-1 in the third and said "Calm down guys, we just need to get one before the 10min mark. Only think about that, then the game is in reach." He not only said it, but went in, pounded players and set up that goal at the 10 min mark. I don't know how much he has left in the tank, but I think his swagger will be a great addition this year. and I think all of us wanna believe that too. don't think there's any doubt, he's more excited to start a year than he's been in a few. you can't manufacture enthusiasm. when it's there, especially in older athletes, it markedly improves performance. I predict he'll be better than Nick was, on his best day...for pennies comparatively
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jul 18, 2023 12:18:07 GMT
Interesting that since he took over as GM, the Bruins have the best record in the League under Donnie. Hard to say he hasn't done his job as GM and had them in contention. My biggest knock in him as been a failure to get guys who go to the net up front, and prevent guys from going to the net in back, particularly for the depth roles. I felt he finally got the memo this year and they were built to win, but alas it wasn't to be. On a semi-related note, with the discussions around this team's character, I think one guy that gets looked over a lot in terms of leadership is Lucic. Bergeron's a great leader and glue guy, and great under pressure. But he's not a true rah rah guy, run through the end of the boards to win kind of player. Looking back at '11 and '13 the guy that has always stood out to me is Milan. Taking the '13 Leafs comeback as a great example, yes Patrice scored a couple goals and was awesome, but it was Lucic who stood up on the bench when they were down 4-1 in the third and said "Calm down guys, we just need to get one before the 10min mark. Only think about that, then the game is in reach." He not only said it, but went in, pounded players and set up that goal at the 10 min mark. I don't know how much he has left in the tank, but I think his swagger will be a great addition this year. and I think all of us wanna believe that too. don't think there's any doubt, he's more excited to start a year than he's been in a few. you can't manufacture enthusiasm. when it's there, especially in older athletes, it markedly improves performance. I predict he'll be better than Nick was, on his best day...for pennies comparatively I hope so. I love having him back in black and gold. He's been...humbled a bit by his time in Edmonton and Calgary. From what I've heard from friends and family in that part of the world, the rah rah is now more behind the scenes because he isn't able to back it up the same way he did in his best years in Boston. At least, he doesn't have as many ways to do it as he did. The big hits and running a guy through the boards, that is for sure still there, but there aren't many guys out there ready to drop the gloves with him, and his scoring is now a side dish. And I think the Edmonton experience kind of broke some of his enthusiasm. He went into that situation the same way Chara came to Boston - he wanted to lead by example and give that young roster that had never won a damn thing the benefit of a Cup winner's experience. I remember that first year and quotes from him regularly in Oilers stories that sounded like "things I learned in Boston" - you'll lose some games but don't let it become a streak; that's how you fall out of contention. That kind of thing. I really hope that being a Bruin again brings back that Lucic. And I think playing Bruins hockey will be good for him because "the structure" has always been good at slowing the pace of the game even against go-go teams.
|
|
|
Post by shuper on Jul 18, 2023 12:27:06 GMT
I was upset as everyone about the choke, but I think I've been more of the voice of reason when it comes to the 22-23 B's..I just am not as broken up over it as others. All of my rage came pretty much occurred during the playoffs duration. By the time, Vegas won Cup I was mostly looking back at things as shit happens. Even though they won game 1 you could just see Florida was going to get every break in the book. To me this was the worst loss ever for the Bruins. 1. 2023 Bruins Florida round 1 choke game 7. 2. 2019 Bruins St Louis Finals choke game 7. 3. 1974 Bruins Philadelphia Finals choke game 6. 4. 2013 Bruins Chicago Finals choke game 6. 5. 1971 Bruins Montreal round 1 choke game 7. Honorable mention 2014 Bruins Montreal round 2 choke game 7. Nothing tops the choke the 2010 Flyers to me. Up 3-0. Up 3-0 in game 7. That’s the worst for me. Then the team wins the cup the next year. Bruins haven’t been made to play long playoff hockey. Too soft in many positions. The def being the key to it all. No fear back there. Then look at Vegas. Tampa. Stlouis.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jul 18, 2023 12:28:58 GMT
I think part of my point is that the Bruins are NOT unusually bad at finishing. They are EXCEPTIONAL at producing opportunities to finish. The Bruins have been the Finals 20 times, including 3 in this generation, 2 in the Bourque era, and 5 in the 70s. They played in half of the Finals for a decade. Only Montreal was better at getting there; only Philly matched the Bruins with 2 wins. Only Montreal and Toronto have had more chances, and most of their advantage was pre-expansion. The Leafs made the Finals 21 times before 1968; 0 times since. Boston made the Finals 10 times before expansion and 10 times since. Identical 3-7 records. Montreal has made 1 Final since 1993 and lost. They had been 23 times before expansion, only two more than Toronto. They've been 12 times since. Unfortunately, they remain the gold standard for Cup success, but they're just 1-2 in their last three appearances since 1987, and not in any position to improve. Since expansion, only Montreal has gone to the Finals more than the Bruins. 10 trips to the big dance is a lot of putting most of the field behind you. But look at it this way. Since expansion, Montreal has won 10 times keyed by their 5 in a row dynasty in the 70s; the Oil has won 5 times keyed by the Gretzky years in the 80s; the Pens 5 keyed by Mario in the 90s and Sid, Malkin and Letang in the post-Cap world; the Isles and the Wings have won 4 times - the Isles 4 in a row with basically the same roster; the Wings with their 4 over the course of a decade, but mostly with the Yzerman-led group and then the one with a few consistent pieces including Lidstrom and Osgood, Holmstrom, Datsyuk, Maltby and Draper. Then there's the Bruins, in a group with the Devils and Colorado as teams with 3. Only 5 teams have won the Cup more than the Bruins in the expansion era - now 55 years and counting. In a 32 team league, that's 25 jealous teams and 2 anxious to beat them to their next ring. It only matters that they made the Finals and didn't win because it is so hard to get there, and you get so invested in playoff runs, and when you've seen them have a great regular season before that, it feels like it's in their grasp. Then it's not. But honestly, as a fan, would you rather be Detroit and have about a decade of lights out elite hockey to watch, and then a plethora of DNQs over three decades? Or Edmonton? Come in, win 5 Cups in your first 11 years, then not even make the playoffs in 18 of the next 32 years? Detroit missed the playoffs for 13 of the first 15 years after expansion, and didn't advance a round for another 3 years. Then another decade before they had their first title since 1954-55. The Pens were out for 7 of the 8 years before Mario won, and only won 4 playoff series in their entire history to that point. I know, too, that there's a dimension of "yeah, but it's the WAY they lose!" And I get it. They laid an egg in game 7 against the Blues...though they came out like a house on fire and dominated until the Blues got a bounce and took a one goal lead. Then Marchand got caught as a result of extended offensive pressure where they were so close to getting that tying goal, then didn't, and then Pietrangelo was able to walk around him and go in to score the killer goal. The bad bounces that cost them Finals games against Chicago - the worst of which was Oduya's shot going wide then glancing off of Ference's skate that ultimately cost them a key win. The offensive blackout against Montreal in 2014. 1979. 3-0, 3-0, uh-oh. Literally no other scoring options with Neely shadowed by the Tik. Glen Wesley. Petr Klima. But on the flip side, there is no connection whatsoever - not in the coaching philosophy, the organizational design, the arena, the players, the equipment...not even the damn puck is the same as it was in 1971 when a juggernaut Bruins team lost to a rookie goalie who was once Bruins property. A ton of turnover by 1979 - too much to say that whatever ailed them in 1971 was the same in 1979. No one from the 1979 team on the 1988 and 1990 teams. No one from those teams on the roster for the JTS led first round collapses after 100 point seasons let alone for Scott Walker and then the 3-0 blow. Only a very few holdovers from the 2012, 2013 and 2014 teams (each with their own painful way of losing) to the 2019 team souped up with McAvoy and Carlo, Pastrnak and Krug, Coyle and MarJo. So unless you're going to bring out the Ouija board or hold a seance, these events have little to do with one another. They all happened to us as fans, but there's no common cause, and so no value in losing sleep over how THEY have failed. Used to be that the answer to this was that the ownership wouldn't do what was necessary to get them over the hump. Hindsight makes me think that was never true. I'm not sure there was a path for the Bruins to win in the dynasty eras by making just that one more move. Or two, or five. And we've seen you can make all the right moves in the corner office and still watch your brilliant machine fall apart for no reason anyone can understand. It hurts. It sucks. Fans of almost any team in the league other than the ones with the last two Cups will probably tell you to shut up if you're a Bruins fan because they have it a lot worse. Interesting that since he took over as GM, the Bruins have the best record in the League under Donnie. Hard to say he hasn't done his job as GM and had them in contention. My biggest knock in him as been a failure to get guys who go to the net up front, and prevent guys from going to the net in back, particularly for the depth roles. I felt he finally got the memo this year and they were built to win, but alas it wasn't to be. On a semi-related note, with the discussions around this team's character, I think one guy that gets looked over a lot in terms of leadership is Lucic. Bergeron's a great leader and glue guy, and great under pressure. But he's not a true rah rah guy, run through the end of the boards to win kind of player. Looking back at '11 and '13 the guy that has always stood out to me is Milan. Taking the '13 Leafs comeback as a great example, yes Patrice scored a couple goals and was awesome, but it was Lucic who stood up on the bench when they were down 4-1 in the third and said "Calm down guys, we just need to get one before the 10min mark. Only think about that, then the game is in reach." He not only said it, but went in, pounded players and set up that goal at the 10 min mark. I don't know how much he has left in the tank, but I think his swagger will be a great addition this year. I thought that was part of the plan with a lot of the players he's added. Foligno and Forbort for sure. Moving out Krug, bringing in a bigger body guy who can also move the puck like Lindholm. Coyle's got the size to get inside, Zacha's got the size to get to the net. I don't think he's missed the need; I just think those players are rarer than they were (especially the D who make it hurt to play in front of the net) and when they're depth guys, it doesn't change the mix at the top of roster. Fundamentally, the issue in terms of being able to crash the net is really only significant when the top 4-5 forwards aren't producing with their fancy hockey. Bergeron, Pastrnak, Marchand, Debrusk and Krejci are all under 200lbs and Bergeron's the only one who isn't significantly better "in space" than in tight because he's so good at that quick slip from his check to get a shot or a one touch pass. Unless you switch out one of those guys, the issue will persist even if you have all 220 lb guys in the bottom six.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jul 18, 2023 13:11:41 GMT
Even though they won game 1 you could just see Florida was going to get every break in the book. To me this was the worst loss ever for the Bruins. 1. 2023 Bruins Florida round 1 choke game 7. 2. 2019 Bruins St Louis Finals choke game 7. 3. 1974 Bruins Philadelphia Finals choke game 6. 4. 2013 Bruins Chicago Finals choke game 6. 5. 1971 Bruins Montreal round 1 choke game 7. Honorable mention 2014 Bruins Montreal round 2 choke game 7. Nothing tops the choke the 2010 Flyers to me. Up 3-0. Up 3-0 in game 7. That’s the worst for me. Then the team wins the cup the next year. Bruins haven’t been made to play long playoff hockey. Too soft in many positions. The def being the key to it all. No fear back there. Then look at Vegas. Tampa. Stlouis. The thing is even when the Bruins had the toughest team on the planet for 10 years or more they only won 1 Stanley Cup. They were also very talented to boot and yet they still only won 1 Cup, that's all they have to show for it, so being the toughest doesn't hold water for me. I blame every collapse by the B's in the playoffs on goaltending, every one but 2019 as Rask was lights out, game #7 at home and they became shrinking violets, they blew it.
|
|
|
Post by brewwins on Jul 19, 2023 4:35:03 GMT
Even though they won game 1 you could just see Florida was going to get every break in the book. To me this was the worst loss ever for the Bruins. 1. 2023 Bruins Florida round 1 choke game 7. 2. 2019 Bruins St Louis Finals choke game 7. 3. 1974 Bruins Philadelphia Finals choke game 6. 4. 2013 Bruins Chicago Finals choke game 6. 5. 1971 Bruins Montreal round 1 choke game 7. Honorable mention 2014 Bruins Montreal round 2 choke game 7. nah, 2010 was the worst choke in NHL history...it's just not even close... I didn't include the 2009-10 Bruins because they were mediocre at best in the regular season. 39-30 with a +6 goal differential. In the playoffs Krejci got hurt in game 3 against the Flyers after being up 3 games to none and they went on to lose 4 straight but I wouldn't say it was an all time choke like my top 5.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Jul 19, 2023 5:07:00 GMT
Interesting that since he took over as GM, the Bruins have the best record in the League under Donnie. Hard to say he hasn't done his job as GM and had them in contention. My biggest knock in him as been a failure to get guys who go to the net up front, and prevent guys from going to the net in back, particularly for the depth roles. I felt he finally got the memo this year and they were built to win, but alas it wasn't to be. On a semi-related note, with the discussions around this team's character, I think one guy that gets looked over a lot in terms of leadership is Lucic. Bergeron's a great leader and glue guy, and great under pressure. But he's not a true rah rah guy, run through the end of the boards to win kind of player. Looking back at '11 and '13 the guy that has always stood out to me is Milan. Taking the '13 Leafs comeback as a great example, yes Patrice scored a couple goals and was awesome, but it was Lucic who stood up on the bench when they were down 4-1 in the third and said "Calm down guys, we just need to get one before the 10min mark. Only think about that, then the game is in reach." He not only said it, but went in, pounded players and set up that goal at the 10 min mark. I don't know how much he has left in the tank, but I think his swagger will be a great addition this year. I thought that was part of the plan with a lot of the players he's added. Foligno and Forbort for sure. Moving out Krug, bringing in a bigger body guy who can also move the puck like Lindholm. Coyle's got the size to get inside, Zacha's got the size to get to the net. I don't think he's missed the need; I just think those players are rarer than they were (especially the D who make it hurt to play in front of the net) and when they're depth guys, it doesn't change the mix at the top of roster. Fundamentally, the issue in terms of being able to crash the net is really only significant when the top 4-5 forwards aren't producing with their fancy hockey. Bergeron, Pastrnak, Marchand, Debrusk and Krejci are all under 200lbs and Bergeron's the only one who isn't significantly better "in space" than in tight because he's so good at that quick slip from his check to get a shot or a one touch pass. Unless you switch out one of those guys, the issue will persist even if you have all 220 lb guys in the bottom six. Nah, your skill guys can be small-ish. I'm not actually a size-nut. I just think there is a place for it in certain roles. Specifically if you look at the loser 2019 team, you only had Chara and Carlo as the big guys on D in the final. CMac is mid, then you had Gryz, Krug and Clifton all sub 6' and dressed in the final. That's way too small. You can have some, but not 50%, especially with Charlie only 6'1". Same with forwards. Outside the big guns you had Atari, Koolman and CWags at sub 6', and Johansson, Nordstrom, and Heinen at 6'1" but made of butter. Kuraly played with jam but wouldn't scare anyone, and Coyle's not going to punish anyone. They had Backes but wouldn't play him. So that's 6+ forwards (50%) who aren't your stars but aren't big or mean. You swap out half for guys who are 6'3" and mean, and two D for guys who are 6'4" and guard the crease like a presidential bodyguard and that series was over in 5 at most, even if they aren't great players. I do think they've tried. Backes, Beleskey, etc; as well as drafting Freddie and others have tried fix the flaw. This season was the first time I thought they were truly there with 4-5D they could role out with size, and some good size and jam on the bottom lines. They were extremely well built this year, just unlucky. I'm still frustrated Gyz is still a B, but adding three forwards 6'3" for depth is a positive sign.
|
|