|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 17, 2024 14:30:22 GMT
You didn't make any points. Except that your pissed off about the Bs being inconsistent but everyone knows that already. The Bs are a flawed team. bullshit. i countered yours, and you don't have the courage to stay on topic. if you want to argue, and insult, at least have the decency to back up your own flawed points. you've cluttered the page with nothing more than childish pivots Nothing started off worse than Steve's passive/aggressive attempt to bring "woke". And you call others childish. Get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 17, 2024 14:39:54 GMT
you got this all backwards sandog. it didn't help last year. it didn't hurt either. it had dik all to do with anything that happened post season. they won regularly last year.."the stretch" didn't mean jack you and some others are proclaiming otherwise. it's a ridiculous assumption for an adult It doesn't matter if a team wins alot down the stretch or doesn't. A great team can still get bounced in the 1st round. Getting mad about a couple of losses at the end is not worth a moments time. The Bruins were awful down the stretch in 2010. But then shocked all of the NHL media and fans by taking out a 100+ point team in Buffalo. Who many thought could go all the way. You are getting worked up about nothing. If Toronto wins the series it's because they played better like Florida last spring. stop the blatant dishonesty. whose mad? you made that up where did I say it's important to win down the stretch? you made that up. where did I say a great team can't get bounced? you made that up. where did I say the Bruins were anything in 2010? who in their right mind is going to reach so far to exaggerate "SHOCK". absolutely brainless, not to mention disengenous to go back 14 years, and cite a 91 point team beating a 100 point team as shocking. where is it apparent I'm getting worked up? I'm not, you're making that up because you can't back up your own claims, and you're too insecure and chicken shit to stay on topic.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 17, 2024 14:40:38 GMT
bullshit. i countered yours, and you don't have the courage to stay on topic. if you want to argue, and insult, at least have the decency to back up your own flawed points. you've cluttered the page with nothing more than childish pivots Nothing started off worse than Steve's passive/aggressive attempt to bring "woke". And you call others childish. Get a grip. dodgeball. exhibit 342a
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 17, 2024 14:43:20 GMT
Blah blah blah but if Zacha (twice) or McAvoy had popped a hims tonight, the B's would have won this game. C'est le hockey. On to the real stuff. yup. onward. but these last 2 games really drive home how very un-elite this team has been since the new year. every game matters and means something. blowing what should have been a cakewalk division championship isn't good news. the team goes deep, it's erased. a first round exit, and it's a bigger disaster. if I were a boston bruin..I would be quite pissed at this moment, and I would be embarrassed. hopefully those 2 emotions would instill some extra defiance and hunger going into the weekend. ^^made nothing up^^
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 17, 2024 14:45:03 GMT
It doesn't matter if a team wins alot down the stretch or doesn't. A great team can still get bounced in the 1st round. Getting mad about a couple of losses at the end is not worth a moments time. The Bruins were awful down the stretch in 2010. But then shocked all of the NHL media and fans by taking out a 100+ point team in Buffalo. Who many thought could go all the way. You are getting worked up about nothing. If Toronto wins the series it's because they played better like Florida last spring. stop the blatant dishonesty. whose mad? you made that up where did I say it's important to win down the stretch? you made that up. where did I say a great team can't get bounced? you made that up. where did I say the Bruins were anything in 2010? who in their right mind is going to reach so far to exaggerate "SHOCK". absolutely brainless, not to mention disengenous to go back 14 years, and cite a 91 point team beating a 100 point team as shocking. where is it apparent I'm getting worked up? I'm not, you're making that up because you can't back up your own claims, and you're too insecure and chicken shit to stay on topic. Going to 2010 is a great example. Saying because it was too far back is hilarious. You wanted a reply to your drivel then you dismiss it.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 17, 2024 14:52:04 GMT
Ask the Blues, ask the Panthers...both were fucking dreadful for long stretches in reg. season. Didn't matter playoff time. the Blues were the best team in hockey, post christmas the Panthers were reigning best regular season team in the league. they went into the playoffs with a solid last 10 games record. those things do matter. we don't know how much, but saying what someone has done...is totally irrelevant moving forward..is crazy talk. we can debate how much it matters...that could be a sensible conversation...but insisting it means absolutely nothing is insane.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 17, 2024 14:55:56 GMT
yup. onward. but these last 2 games really drive home how very un-elite this team has been since the new year. every game matters and means something. blowing what should have been a cakewalk division championship isn't good news. the team goes deep, it's erased. a first round exit, and it's a bigger disaster. if I were a boston bruin..I would be quite pissed at this moment, and I would be embarrassed. hopefully those 2 emotions would instill some extra defiance and hunger going into the weekend. ^^made nothing up^^ why would you quate something I said to socca instead of those things between you and i. exhibit 343a
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 17, 2024 15:01:44 GMT
stop the blatant dishonesty. whose mad? you made that up where did I say it's important to win down the stretch? you made that up. where did I say a great team can't get bounced? you made that up. where did I say the Bruins were anything in 2010? who in their right mind is going to reach so far to exaggerate "SHOCK". absolutely brainless, not to mention disengenous to go back 14 years, and cite a 91 point team beating a 100 point team as shocking. where is it apparent I'm getting worked up? I'm not, you're making that up because you can't back up your own claims, and you're too insecure and chicken shit to stay on topic. Going to 2010 is a great example. Saying because it was too far back is hilarious. You wanted a reply to your drivel then you dismiss it. example 244a this is too easy. you're friggin serial dishonest. no one is this stupid. I didn't say your example was brain dead because it goes back 14 years. I said it was brain dead to go back 14 years and cite a 91 point team beating a 100 point team as "shocking". it isn't, by any sensible hockey standard. and you sign off with another lie, calling me dismissive.
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on Apr 17, 2024 15:04:35 GMT
Look, let's stop the Matthews hate...it's not fair to anyone to be compared to Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr...also shave that fucking mustache! Agree, #s 4, 99 and 66 along with Pat Roy are hockey’s Mount Rushmore…. to me anyway….
|
|
|
Post by davinator on Apr 17, 2024 16:13:01 GMT
Knew it all along...I just needed a way to think positively after the last 2. Also, part of me says to be careful what you wish for.. There is a steep drop off after the Top 6 in the Eastern conference,.and unfortunately, 4 of those teams are in the Atlantic, so no easy outs. You always have a preference and mine was the Laffs…. We’ll never know if the B’S would’ve beat the Bolts but we’re about to find out if they can beat the Laffs…. ...and then we'll see how they handle the Lightning.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 17, 2024 16:31:25 GMT
65 2011-03-05 Pittsburgh Penguins 2 3 L OT 38 19 8 L 1 66 2011-03-08 @ Montreal Canadiens 1 4 L 38 20 8 L 2 67 2011-03-10 Buffalo Sabres 3 4 L OT 38 20 9 L 3 68 2011-03-11 @ New York Islanders 2 4 L 38 21 9 L 4 69 2011-03-15 @ Columbus Blue Jackets 3 2 W SO 39 21 9 W 1 70 2011-03-17 @ Nashville Predators 3 4 L OT 39 21 10 L 1 71 2011-03-19 @ Toronto Maple Leafs 2 5 L 39 22 10 L 2 72 2011-03-22 New Jersey Devils 4 1 W 40 22 10 W 1 73 2011-03-24 Montreal Canadiens 7 0 W 41 22 10 W 2 74 2011-03-26 New York Rangers 0 1 L 41 23 10 L 1 75 2011-03-27 @ Philadelphia Flyers 2 1 W 42 23 10 W 1 GP Date Opponent GF GA W L OL Streak 76 2011-03-29 Chicago Blackhawks 3 0 W 43 23 10 W 2 77 2011-03-31 Toronto Maple Leafs 3 4 L SO 43 23 11 L 1 78 2011-04-02 Atlanta Thrashers 3 2 W 44 23 11 W 1 79 2011-04-04 @ New York Rangers 3 5 L 44 24 11 L 1 80 2011-04-06 New York Islanders 3 2 W 45 24 11 W 1 81 2011-04-09 Ottawa Senators 3 1 W 46 24 11 W 2 82 2011-04-10 @ New Jersey Devils 2 3 L 46 25 11 L 1 From March 5 to the end of the reg. season..B's were 8-10...8 wins in 18 games...and won the Cup...point being, REGULAR SEASON DOES NOT MEAN SHIT! You mean a team can still win a playoff round after having a mediocre end to the season ?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 17, 2024 17:02:53 GMT
Knew it all along...I just needed a way to think positively after the last 2. Also, part of me says to be careful what you wish for.. There is a steep drop off after the Top 6 in the Eastern conference,.and unfortunately, 4 of those teams are in the Atlantic, so no easy outs. you made fair points. mine are simple. you have to beat good teams to win. something about avoiding Tampa doesn't sit well with me. backing into a different seed doesn't sit well. losing to play to a perceived favorable opponent is spitting at the gods. I'll take TO. We can beat TO. I just don't like the notion that "things are working out nicely". We can beat Tampa too, and we damn well should be expected to, if we face them. We know this Bruins team CAN beat any team in the league. Regular season is great proof of concept. Everyone's getting all bent about what they should had shouldn't. That's where there's a burden to back up the reasoning for the "should". There's always reasoning, it's just that some of that reasoning can't carry the weight it's being asked to carry. We like to look for patterns that allow us to project future outcomes based on past performance. Bruins are 4-0 against the Leafs, including back to back thumpings right in the middle of some of their worst hockey of the year. Bruins and Lightning went to OT twice and split two - take the OT result out of the equation and go back to the era where that was a tie and boom - even. Bruins have looked listless down the stretch, but they've also looked pretty listless against non-playoff teams or bubble teams all year while dominating the playoff teams with the exception of the Rangers and the Canes. Either there's a common denominator with the non-playoff teams, like they tend to be younger with a lot of skill but not a lot of consistency or goaltending, but if they pull their shit together, they can beat anyone in a one game series...OR the Bruins have not been emotionally engaged against losers since late November. The eye test tends to support the latter; the Bruins team that curb-stomped the Laffs twice in one week looked like a different squad entirely compared to the way they played going into that series. So what do these patterns actually mean? Not a lot. Not unless you can identify something causal that has not changed and so is a reasonable anchor for a prediction that results won't change. You're worried about the glee club that doesn't see anything serious in the way they played down the stretch. I'm more inclined to be tired of the doomsayers with a heavy recency bias. Yes, the Bruins have been among the least successful playoff teams since Feb 1, but they're there with Vancouver and Colorado and I'm not hearing anyone say Vancouver and Colorado should be embarrassed or that they'll get swept. Why? Honestly, I think half the answer is marketing. MacKinnon is a Hart candidate; a team with Mackinnon should be a Cup contender, therefore no matter what the regular season suggests, Colorado remains a key contender for the Cup. Matthews might get 70. Surely that means his team is a contender, regardless of where they finish or how they finish. The Bruins don't get the same treatment, which might mean people don't see Pastrnak as in that same class of player despite a Hart finalist turn last year. More, though, the Bruins lost their most recognizable stars in Bergeron and Krejci so the expectation going into the season is that they will have trouble scoring. They didn't, but now that they're struggling, there's a strong bias toward thinking they are finally becoming what people incorrectly predicted because they didn't expect that Zacha and Coyle could step up. I come back to three things. They constructed this team with size up front and playoff grind in mind. It produced during the regular season and now we get to see if it's a more successful strategy than building a regular season, PP driven scoring machine that doesn't work in the playoffs. They have the best tandem in the league, meaning that short of injuries and stupid management of their assets, they have as good a chance as any team to be the squad that rides hot goaltending in the playoffs. They have shown that they can raise their game and play at a playoff level of intensity, but they haven't shown they can maintain it for 16W. Everything else is speculation based on limited evidence.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 17, 2024 17:43:26 GMT
you made fair points. mine are simple. you have to beat good teams to win. something about avoiding Tampa doesn't sit well with me. backing into a different seed doesn't sit well. losing to play to a perceived favorable opponent is spitting at the gods. I'll take TO. We can beat TO. I just don't like the notion that "things are working out nicely". We can beat Tampa too, and we damn well should be expected to, if we face them. We know this Bruins team CAN beat any team in the league. Regular season is great proof of concept. Everyone's getting all bent about what they should had shouldn't. That's where there's a burden to back up the reasoning for the "should". There's always reasoning, it's just that some of that reasoning can't carry the weight it's being asked to carry. We like to look for patterns that allow us to project future outcomes based on past performance. Bruins are 4-0 against the Leafs, including back to back thumpings right in the middle of some of their worst hockey of the year. Bruins and Lightning went to OT twice and split two - take the OT result out of the equation and go back to the era where that was a tie and boom - even. Bruins have looked listless down the stretch, but they've also looked pretty listless against non-playoff teams or bubble teams all year while dominating the playoff teams with the exception of the Rangers and the Canes. Either there's a common denominator with the non-playoff teams, like they tend to be younger with a lot of skill but not a lot of consistency or goaltending, but if they pull their shit together, they can beat anyone in a one game series...OR the Bruins have not been emotionally engaged against losers since late November. The eye test tends to support the latter; the Bruins team that curb-stomped the Laffs twice in one week looked like a different squad entirely compared to the way they played going into that series. So what do these patterns actually mean? Not a lot. Not unless you can identify something causal that has not changed and so is a reasonable anchor for a prediction that results won't change. You're worried about the glee club that doesn't see anything serious in the way they played down the stretch. I'm more inclined to be tired of the doomsayers with a heavy recency bias. Yes, the Bruins have been among the least successful playoff teams since Feb 1, but they're there with Vancouver and Colorado and I'm not hearing anyone say Vancouver and Colorado should be embarrassed or that they'll get swept. Why? Honestly, I think half the answer is marketing. MacKinnon is a Hart candidate; a team with Mackinnon should be a Cup contender, therefore no matter what the regular season suggests, Colorado remains a key contender for the Cup. Matthews might get 70. Surely that means his team is a contender, regardless of where they finish or how they finish. The Bruins don't get the same treatment, which might mean people don't see Pastrnak as in that same class of player despite a Hart finalist turn last year. More, though, the Bruins lost their most recognizable stars in Bergeron and Krejci so the expectation going into the season is that they will have trouble scoring. They didn't, but now that they're struggling, there's a strong bias toward thinking they are finally becoming what people incorrectly predicted because they didn't expect that Zacha and Coyle could step up. I come back to three things. They constructed this team with size up front and playoff grind in mind. It produced during the regular season and now we get to see if it's a more successful strategy than building a regular season, PP driven scoring machine that doesn't work in the playoffs. They have the best tandem in the league, meaning that short of injuries and stupid management of their assets, they have as good a chance as any team to be the squad that rides hot goaltending in the playoffs. They have shown that they can raise their game and play at a playoff level of intensity, but they haven't shown they can maintain it for 16W. Everything else is speculation based on limited evidence. everyones having fun(me especially) poking holes in cliche logic(or no logic at all), as being the only way to consume this stuff. Plenty are saying Vancouver is a long shot. difference between the doomsayers and the glee club? only a couple doomsayers, and they seem mostly content to suggest it's simply their opinion. the gleeclubbers want to engage by introducing notions that don't add up, and they're intent on doubling down. of course it's mostly speculation, and opinion. the thing about opinion, is that ferreting things down to the why, takes us from subjectivity, to objectivity, if we care to play in good faith. one can have a fair opinion, but finding out the actual logic behind that opinion, can change things night and day. my unsubstantiated opinion, is that most publications will favour the Bruins to win. Obviously that isn't important, and won't dictate what happens on the ice. I may have great respect for one article, and be disgusted with another that comes to the same conclusion. It's because of the why. And if someone points out info stating most publications "don't" favour the Bruins, I have a responsibility to update my opinion. I mentioned earlier, not sure if a qualified tandem is a positive, or a negative. like to read some thoughts on that
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 17, 2024 17:58:26 GMT
65 2011-03-05 Pittsburgh Penguins 2 3 L OT 38 19 8 L 1 66 2011-03-08 @ Montreal Canadiens 1 4 L 38 20 8 L 2 67 2011-03-10 Buffalo Sabres 3 4 L OT 38 20 9 L 3 68 2011-03-11 @ New York Islanders 2 4 L 38 21 9 L 4 69 2011-03-15 @ Columbus Blue Jackets 3 2 W SO 39 21 9 W 1 70 2011-03-17 @ Nashville Predators 3 4 L OT 39 21 10 L 1 71 2011-03-19 @ Toronto Maple Leafs 2 5 L 39 22 10 L 2 72 2011-03-22 New Jersey Devils 4 1 W 40 22 10 W 1 73 2011-03-24 Montreal Canadiens 7 0 W 41 22 10 W 2 74 2011-03-26 New York Rangers 0 1 L 41 23 10 L 1 75 2011-03-27 @ Philadelphia Flyers 2 1 W 42 23 10 W 1 GP Date Opponent GF GA W L OL Streak 76 2011-03-29 Chicago Blackhawks 3 0 W 43 23 10 W 2 77 2011-03-31 Toronto Maple Leafs 3 4 L SO 43 23 11 L 1 78 2011-04-02 Atlanta Thrashers 3 2 W 44 23 11 W 1 79 2011-04-04 @ New York Rangers 3 5 L 44 24 11 L 1 80 2011-04-06 New York Islanders 3 2 W 45 24 11 W 1 81 2011-04-09 Ottawa Senators 3 1 W 46 24 11 W 2 82 2011-04-10 @ New Jersey Devils 2 3 L 46 25 11 L 1 From March 5 to the end of the reg. season..B's were 8-10...8 wins in 18 games...and won the Cup...point being, REGULAR SEASON DOES NOT MEAN SHIT! You mean a team can still win a playoff round after having a mediocre end to the season ? of course they can. no one is suggesting otherwise. they're simply suggesting..it is not a positive. more importantly, they're saying any notion the above validates the point that the regular season means shit(and screaming it btw), fails to meet the threshold of kindergarten logic. in order to make this point with any level of persuasion, or accuracy, one would have to show, the majority of playoff teams who only win 8 of their last 18...win their series. you've done a small percent of the required work. if you did what you should have, I expect the sample size would be too small to make a sensible conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by nitelite on Apr 17, 2024 18:23:58 GMT
I don't care who the B's play. From what I seen since Christmas & the other 15 that are in? I don't see the B's winning 16 out of a possible 28 games. I don't care about how much bigger they are in comparison to last year. The players that are bigger outside of Maroon don't use their size enough to match playoff hockey imo. They have little to no snarl which has been an issue recently. Now they may not need the snarl against the Leafs, but I don't think they have enough fire power, their PP doesn't scare anyone & they don't defend well enough & haven't been getting the saves needed in order to stop the Leafs. Can that change? OF COURSE, but there's nothing that's been shown to me where I have confidence that they can pull anything off except a 1st Rd exit.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 17, 2024 19:40:34 GMT
I don't care who the B's play. From what I seen since Christmas & the other 15 that are in? I don't see the B's winning 16 out of a possible 28 games. I don't care about how much bigger they are in comparison to last year. The players that are bigger outside of Maroon don't use their size enough to match playoff hockey imo. They have little to no snarl which has been an issue recently. Now they may not need the snarl against the Leafs, but I don't think they have enough fire power, their PP doesn't scare anyone & they don't defend well enough & haven't been getting the saves needed in order to stop the Leafs. Can that change? OF COURSE, but there's nothing that's been shown to me where I have confidence that they can pull anything off except a 1st Rd exit. I long ago gave up having confidence that a team was going to win a championship. The Bruins could invent a time machine, bring back vintage Orr, Shore, Chara, Bourque and every forward you want, and play them against the little sisters of the poor and I'd still have part of my brain going "oh crap, this is going to be so embarrassing if they lose!" I love the game because you rarely know anything for certain, and certainly not as a result of the usual metrics we get fed. The 1990 Bruins were a 101 point team, 11 points better than the Oilers, but it was pretty clear after game two that the Bruins had no answers for the Oilers. I'm not sure who I think the favourite is this year. Dallas is popular but I don't trust DeBoer teams, and Oettinger hasn't been great. Vancouver looks like they had their hot run and now they can't find it. Winnipeg has been the best and the worst team in the NHL for weeks at a time. Colorado has flashy talent and terrible goalies. Vegas is somehow the 1967 Leafs held together by band-aids and Ben Gay. Toronto is a one line team with shaky D and no goalie. Florida can be had if you stay out of the box, and Maurice's track record is one big run and then he's out or one and done. And I don't trust Bob. Tampa's faded glory without their old depth, though still dangerous on any given night. The Rangers are out to prove underlying numbers are just lying numbers, or they will crash. Carolina is hot or cold with nothing in between. The Islanders were out before the teams ahead of them hit the wall and the Caps are a bubble team now unless Ovi and Oshie find the fountain of youth. I have no expectations, but I know that on any given night, this Bruins team can beat any team in the league, because they have. They've played their best against the best - except the Rangers. They slept through those games. As for snarl and using your size, don't forget that size is a passive virtue as well as an active one. To borrow a phrase from Co-Pilot Roger Murdock, if you're trying to move 218lb Coyle or 208lb Zacha all over the ice all night, you're going to get fatigued. Those guys don't need to use their size to be nasty. They need to use it a la John Leclair - get inside, stay inside, win puck battles, score playoff goals. You saw it in the third last night when they decided hey, maybe we should try! Over and over again they got to the net. They had multiple bodies hunting rebounds. They dominated the Senators, imposed their will on them. I think if they don't pull the goalie and let the PP continue, they might have tied that game and won it in OT or SO. And Forsberg had to be out of his freaking mind to keep them from winning that game as it was. The team that played in the third - take away the stupid pass ENG - doesn't lose if they're there for 3 periods, and the fact they weren't had nothing to do with how Ottawa played. They mailed the first two. So yeah, I'm going to watch all the games and hope they play like they're awake. I'm going to expect that they can win every game, and criticize their play based on how they did in each game. And if they win a Cup, I'll be surprised and if they don't I won't because it's always such a hugely unlikely thing that you'll win it all. Again, historically, the number one team in the regular season wins once every five years. But the one thing I will say about the coming series is I have complete faith that Toronto will shit the bed.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Apr 17, 2024 19:49:17 GMT
I mentioned earlier, not sure if a qualified tandem is a positive, or a negative. like to read some thoughts on that I posted something recently to the effect that the positive of playing them in a rotation is you maintain what's familiar for them in their rhythm of play and recovery, whereas if you deviate, you have one guy who might fatigue or try to play through injury and another guy who just gets cold and so is more of a risk if your top guy falters or gets injured. So you maintain the right to choose one or the other until you absolutely need to and perpetuate the advantage that rotation has given you over the course of the year. And that reduces the risk that your goalie gets beat up and fatigued over a long run...if you make a long run. The risk is that you might make it harder for one of them to get hot in the way that goalies can get hot and carry teams. Harder to build that momentum.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Apr 17, 2024 21:19:58 GMT
You mean a team can still win a playoff round after having a mediocre end to the season ? of course they can. no one is suggesting otherwise. they're simply suggesting..it is not a positive. more importantly, they're saying any notion the above validates the point that the regular season means shit(and screaming it btw), fails to meet the threshold of kindergarten logic. in order to make this point with any level of persuasion, or accuracy, one would have to show, the majority of playoff teams who only win 8 of their last 18...win their series. you've done a small percent of the required work. if you did what you should have, I expect the sample size would be too small to make a sensible conclusion. You just contradicted yourself again.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Apr 17, 2024 22:41:31 GMT
of course they can. no one is suggesting otherwise. they're simply suggesting..it is not a positive. more importantly, they're saying any notion the above validates the point that the regular season means shit(and screaming it btw), fails to meet the threshold of kindergarten logic. in order to make this point with any level of persuasion, or accuracy, one would have to show, the majority of playoff teams who only win 8 of their last 18...win their series. you've done a small percent of the required work. if you did what you should have, I expect the sample size would be too small to make a sensible conclusion. You just contradicted yourself again. example 245
|
|