|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 29, 2023 17:16:55 GMT
40-1 for Evason eh'? I coulda made a haul, he was on shakey footing after such a bad start. The thing that's surprising is Lex luthor is back coaching, not bad for a guy who can't seem to coach. He wastes too much time trying to take down Superman. So, the BookSportsBook is always about the hedge. Odds likely shifted when both Woodcroft and Evason did exactly the thing that could get them fired. Woody: things had to go waaaaay off the rails, said the prognostication staff at BSB.com.net. It did. Evason: safe if the kids progress and they don't lose ground. Boldy's been hurt, Rossi was slow to start and Kaprisov has had D issues to go with slower production. And they backslid hard. 2 up on the Haks and 4 up on the Sharks. Not good. Those season opening odds probably paid less by the time they were canned
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Nov 30, 2023 14:02:51 GMT
40-1 for Evason eh'? I coulda made a haul, he was on shakey footing after such a bad start. The thing that's surprising is Lex luthor is back coaching, not bad for a guy who can't seem to coach. He wastes too much time trying to take down Superman. So, the BookSportsBook is always about the hedge. Odds likely shifted when both Woodcroft and Evason did exactly the thing that could get them fired. Woody: things had to go waaaaay off the rails, said the prognostication staff at BSB.com.net. It did. Evason: safe if the kids progress and they don't lose ground. Boldy's been hurt, Rossi was slow to start and Kaprisov has had D issues to go with slower production. And they backslid hard. 2 up on the Haks and 4 up on the Sharks. Not good. Those season opening odds probably paid less by the time they were canned Yep, as the season wore on the odds got narrower for sure, then when Guerin said his job was safe about 2 weeks ago you knew he was a goner.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Nov 30, 2023 17:56:14 GMT
He wastes too much time trying to take down Superman. So, the BookSportsBook is always about the hedge. Odds likely shifted when both Woodcroft and Evason did exactly the thing that could get them fired. Woody: things had to go waaaaay off the rails, said the prognostication staff at BSB.com.net. It did. Evason: safe if the kids progress and they don't lose ground. Boldy's been hurt, Rossi was slow to start and Kaprisov has had D issues to go with slower production. And they backslid hard. 2 up on the Haks and 4 up on the Sharks. Not good. Those season opening odds probably paid less by the time they were canned Yep, as the season wore on the odds got narrower for sure, then when Guerin said his job was safe about 2 weeks ago you knew he was a goner. The old vote of confidence can be the kiss of death.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Dec 13, 2023 11:58:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fiberglassmask on Dec 13, 2023 14:56:13 GMT
Was watching this game.
Reminded me how much I loathe the fucking Blues and how psychologically broken I was by that Game 7 loss. I will never get over it.
It’s nice seeing them blow a third period lead and lose at home. It was even better when I realized they fired Berube.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Dec 13, 2023 14:59:13 GMT
I always felt like this guy must have picked a four-leaf clover before the Bruins-Blues Stanley Cup Final. I just can't believe how he out-maneuvered Cassidy and somehow got an officiating shift in place that benefitted a Blues team (that seemed like they had no discipline at all). I still can't believe we lost to that guy, in that way. How did he catch lightning? You just knew it was a one-time run, and he'd be a dope of a coach after that. Just like his head-case, childish, goalie. I'm surprised he made it four years before being fired and looking totally incompetent. I will always feel that Bergeron-Chara-Rask-McAvoy-Marchand-Krejci lost to a lesser opponent, with that cement-head in charge. Just brutal.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Dec 13, 2023 17:23:31 GMT
How bout 6 of the 10 head coaches in Stanley Cup Finals since 2018 are no longer their teams head coaches...6! You are hired to be fired. Cup success or finals success or not. Cassidy of course gets to win Cup elsewhere after firing.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Dec 13, 2023 17:27:43 GMT
The 2019 final changed the moment Berube cried about the officiating. I really believe it turned the tide overall.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Dec 13, 2023 21:24:13 GMT
I always felt like this guy must have picked a four-leaf clover before the Bruins-Blues Stanley Cup Final. I just can't believe how he out-maneuvered Cassidy and somehow got an officiating shift in place that benefitted a Blues team (that seemed like they had no discipline at all). I still can't believe we lost to that guy, in that way. How did he catch lightning? You just knew it was a one-time run, and he'd be a dope of a coach after that. Just like his head-case, childish, goalie. I'm surprised he made it four years before being fired and looking totally incompetent. I will always feel that Bergeron-Chara-Rask-McAvoy-Marchand-Krejci lost to a lesser opponent, with that cement-head in charge. Just brutal. I never get to heart broken with Bs SC failures. The bold is the one thing I do get a bit perturbed over. The officiating changed right after the famous press conference by Berube. It was if the NHL was involved, of which it was not. The Bs lost their verve.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Dec 13, 2023 21:25:59 GMT
Was watching this game. Reminded me how much I loathe the fucking Blues and how psychologically broken I was by that Game 7 loss. I will never get over it. It’s nice seeing them blow a third period lead and lose at home. It was even better when I realized they fired Berube. Yep, that Game 7 loss and the infamous "too many men on the ice" game are the two toughest losses i've ever experienced case closed , nothing comes close in my B's fandom. In both cases the Cup was what was waiting, a slam dunk , the B's would have swept the Rags in 79' and against an inferior Blues team i couldn't believe it was even going 7 games much less lose to them on home ice. I will never understood both losses then and now and all the time in between, both very bitter bitter losses, keereist, unreal. Oh to be blessed a B's fan.......sigh. To top it off both of my kids are because of me and as i told them once they were old enough to understand, welcome to a life of fan misery, be forewarned. At least they saw a Cup in 2011, as much as i hope it won't be,it will likely be a long long wait until another.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Dec 13, 2023 21:31:08 GMT
I always felt like this guy must have picked a four-leaf clover before the Bruins-Blues Stanley Cup Final. I just can't believe how he out-maneuvered Cassidy and somehow got an officiating shift in place that benefitted a Blues team (that seemed like they had no discipline at all). I still can't believe we lost to that guy, in that way. How did he catch lightning? You just knew it was a one-time run, and he'd be a dope of a coach after that. Just like his head-case, childish, goalie. I'm surprised he made it four years before being fired and looking totally incompetent. I will always feel that Bergeron-Chara-Rask-McAvoy-Marchand-Krejci lost to a lesser opponent, with that cement-head in charge. Just brutal. Exactly. It was one of the few championships where i believe the best team didn't win, rather the best team lost it. It all seemed to change on the Berube press conference whining, which is sad that it had that much influence. I know it's sour grapes now from a bruins fan but it's what i believe. I also put the most blame though on my beloved team for choking away a home Game 7, you don't get that chance every day. In fact it never ever should have gone 7 games.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Dec 13, 2023 21:49:49 GMT
How bout 6 of the 10 head coaches in Stanley Cup Finals since 2018 are no longer their teams head coaches...6! You are hired to be fired. Cup success or finals success or not. Cassidy of course gets to win Cup elsewhere after firing. And Sully just got the ol' vote of (no) confidence.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Dec 13, 2023 21:51:30 GMT
Was watching this game. Reminded me how much I loathe the fucking Blues and how psychologically broken I was by that Game 7 loss. I will never get over it. It’s nice seeing them blow a third period lead and lose at home. It was even better when I realized they fired Berube. Yep, that Game 7 loss and the infamous "too many men on the ice" game are the two toughest losses i've ever experienced case closed , nothing comes close in my B's fandom. In both cases the Cup was what was waiting, a slam dunk , the B's would have swept the Rags in 79' and against an inferior Blues team i couldn't believe it was even going 7 games much less lose to them on home ice. I will never understood both losses then and now and all the time in between, both very bitter bitter losses, keereist, unreal. Oh to be blessed a B's fan.......sigh. To top it off both of my kids are because of me and as i told them once they were old enough to understand, welcome to a life of fan misery, be forewarned. At least they saw a Cup in 2011, as much as i hope it won't be,it will likely be a long long wait until another. Petr Klima still high up on that list for me. I firmly believe they could have won that series if they win that game.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Dec 13, 2023 21:53:53 GMT
Yep, that Game 7 loss and the infamous "too many men on the ice" game are the two toughest losses i've ever experienced case closed , nothing comes close in my B's fandom. In both cases the Cup was what was waiting, a slam dunk , the B's would have swept the Rags in 79' and against an inferior Blues team i couldn't believe it was even going 7 games much less lose to them on home ice. I will never understood both losses then and now and all the time in between, both very bitter bitter losses, keereist, unreal. Oh to be blessed a B's fan.......sigh. To top it off both of my kids are because of me and as i told them once they were old enough to understand, welcome to a life of fan misery, be forewarned. At least they saw a Cup in 2011, as much as i hope it won't be,it will likely be a long long wait until another. Petr Klima still high up on that list for me. I firmly believe they could have won that series if they win that game. Still the worst loss in Boston history for me as a fan. That game.
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Dec 13, 2023 21:56:18 GMT
The 2019 final changed the moment Berube cried about the officiating. I really believe it turned the tide overall. can the firing be made retroactive to 2019?
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Dec 13, 2023 21:56:29 GMT
Yep, that Game 7 loss and the infamous "too many men on the ice" game are the two toughest losses i've ever experienced case closed , nothing comes close in my B's fandom. In both cases the Cup was what was waiting, a slam dunk , the B's would have swept the Rags in 79' and against an inferior Blues team i couldn't believe it was even going 7 games much less lose to them on home ice. I will never understood both losses then and now and all the time in between, both very bitter bitter losses, keereist, unreal. Oh to be blessed a B's fan.......sigh. To top it off both of my kids are because of me and as i told them once they were old enough to understand, welcome to a life of fan misery, be forewarned. At least they saw a Cup in 2011, as much as i hope it won't be,it will likely be a long long wait until another. Petr Klima still high up on that list for me. I firmly believe they could have won that series if they win that game. It was a tough loss but the B's lost in 5 games so it's hard for me to believe they would have won it all even with that game.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Dec 13, 2023 22:32:52 GMT
Petr Klima still high up on that list for me. I firmly believe they could have won that series if they win that game. Still the worst loss in Boston history for me as a fan. That game. It’s a bad one, and Glen Wesley made me despise all gingers, but the game 7 loss to Philly hurts the most.3 game lead then the 3-0 game 7 lead.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Dec 13, 2023 23:19:29 GMT
Still the worst loss in Boston history for me as a fan. That game. It’s a bad one, and Glen Wesley made me despise all gingers, but the game 7 loss to Philly hurts the most.3 game lead then the 3-0 game 7 lead. I felt in that one that no Krejci, B's had little chance to go farther had they beaten Philly. The Klima Triple OT as was said, you win that game, all the momentum B's and they had everything working for them at that point. Losing was the killer, losing on a shitty goal worse, and losing to Oilers in that manner even worse.
|
|
|
Post by fiberglassmask on Dec 14, 2023 4:12:52 GMT
I went to Game 3 in St Louis. The Bruins destroyed them like they were children. Bennington was the ECHLer he is. I actually was embarrassed for the St Louis fans. Watched that presser and thought, “wouldnt it be something if the refs DID stop calling penalties on these dirty fucks ? That Coach would be the MVP” Never believed it would actually happen. Though the Bs struggled, I STILL thought they would pull it out. Right up until: I saw him get tripped and then they scored and I turned the TV off. Never watched another minute. I realized they were actually going to lose. That series loss still really bothers my soul. Even worse than 1972 or last year. Those fucking fans celebrated that missed trip call more than that goal. They knew how outrageous it was.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Dec 14, 2023 18:20:16 GMT
Petr Klima still high up on that list for me. I firmly believe they could have won that series if they win that game. It was a tough loss but the B's lost in 5 games so it's hard for me to believe they would have won it all even with that game. Maybe, based on how the series played out in reality, but once you start playing with the counter-factuals, I think there's a path that's not crazy. The Bruins were 11 points better than the Oilers in the regular season, and while we know that means nothing, it suggests they weren't Cinderella over-staying their welcome at the party. The case against: 1. Neely had 0 goals, Janney 0 points, and the Bruins had a total of 8 goals in the series and the first three came from Ray. The forwards had 4 goals in 5 games. Neely at least managed 4 assists and even. How were the Bruins going to win if they couldn't score? 2. The Oilers had no problem scoring, winning game 2 7-1, game 4 5-1 and game 5 4-1. 3. The Oilers didn't play up to their potential; 1990 Hart winner Messier was held without a goal. Kid line sniper and future 50 goal man Graves only had 2 goals and 2 points. Klima went back into the funk after his OT winner. The case for: The Bruins won the only game where they scored first; John Byce 10 seconds in. Their defensive strategy against the high-flying Oil was a version of bend but don't break. They bent to give up the two goal lead in game one, but came back to tie in the third thanks to Ray. A win there is huge in terms of completing the comeback. Especially because in game 2, the Oil also went up 2-0 and then here comes Ray with a goal and an assist to tie the game. Then Jari Kurri took over with 2-2-4, but the issue was the D breaking at the end of the second when it was just 3-2. 3 goals in less than four minutes and partly because they started to press. Oil got a 3rd period goal from Kurri on the PP, but it's not crazy to imagine that, with different momentum based on game 1 falling to Boston, the home team doesn't surrender the third goal just minutes after they tied it and instead makes Edmonton recognize that leads aren't safe. More materially, if things had gone exactly the same way except for a different OT result, the Bruins are up 2-1 after 3 games. No worse than tied after 4 going back to Boston. How different is that in terms of mental environment? Win 3-2 in 3OT (or less); Lose 7-2 after coming back from 2-0 down; Win 2-1. You're up 2-1 with 1 goal from the forwards (assuming Wesley gets the game 1 winner...). The story of the series is Ray. The less of the first three games for Boston is to continue to play solid D, keep the games close, and if you can, stop playing from behind. A lot of thinking they could have done something very different is in that mental impact. Ranford was now an unbeatable wall, and that tends to be how we remember him in that playoffs, but against the Hawks, his s% was sub .900 (.883) and he gave up 20 goals in 6 games (3.33). They swept the Kings in the second round, and he was great in games 1 and 2 giving up 1 goal on 69 shots, but over the last two he gave up 9 goals and his s% was .897 and .872. And the Jets took them to 7 games (up 3-1 after 4) in round one with Ranford giving up 21 goals, 14 in those first 4 games. Stop me if you've heard this before; Boston made him look better than he had been against the other opponents. Take away that feeling of invincibility after that game 1. Take away that frustration of 52 shots over nearly 6 periods with only two Bourque goals to show. Now the story is that Ranford's played his best hockey of the playoffs, and the Bruins are still up 2-1. And he's due for a stinker. I don't think they had a chance in 1988. Too much Wayne. In 1990, they were who we thought they were...and weletemoffthehook!
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on Dec 15, 2023 6:22:49 GMT
It was a tough loss but the B's lost in 5 games so it's hard for me to believe they would have won it all even with that game. Maybe, based on how the series played out in reality, but once you start playing with the counter-factuals, I think there's a path that's not crazy. The Bruins were 11 points better than the Oilers in the regular season, and while we know that means nothing, it suggests they weren't Cinderella over-staying their welcome at the party. The case against: 1. Neely had 0 goals, Janney 0 points, and the Bruins had a total of 8 goals in the series and the first three came from Ray. The forwards had 4 goals in 5 games. Neely at least managed 4 assists and even. How were the Bruins going to win if they couldn't score? 2. The Oilers had no problem scoring, winning game 2 7-1, game 4 5-1 and game 5 4-1. 3. The Oilers didn't play up to their potential; 1990 Hart winner Messier was held without a goal. Kid line sniper and future 50 goal man Graves only had 2 goals and 2 points. Klima went back into the funk after his OT winner. The case for: The Bruins won the only game where they scored first; John Byce 10 seconds in. Their defensive strategy against the high-flying Oil was a version of bend but don't break. They bent to give up the two goal lead in game one, but came back to tie in the third thanks to Ray. A win there is huge in terms of completing the comeback. Especially because in game 2, the Oil also went up 2-0 and then here comes Ray with a goal and an assist to tie the game. Then Jari Kurri took over with 2-2-4, but the issue was the D breaking at the end of the second when it was just 3-2. 3 goals in less than four minutes and partly because they started to press. Oil got a 3rd period goal from Kurri on the PP, but it's not crazy to imagine that, with different momentum based on game 1 falling to Boston, the home team doesn't surrender the third goal just minutes after they tied it and instead makes Edmonton recognize that leads aren't safe. More materially, if things had gone exactly the same way except for a different OT result, the Bruins are up 2-1 after 3 games. No worse than tied after 4 going back to Boston. How different is that in terms of mental environment? Win 3-2 in 3OT (or less); Lose 7-2 after coming back from 2-0 down; Win 2-1. You're up 2-1 with 1 goal from the forwards (assuming Wesley gets the game 1 winner...). The story of the series is Ray. The less of the first three games for Boston is to continue to play solid D, keep the games close, and if you can, stop playing from behind. A lot of thinking they could have done something very different is in that mental impact. Ranford was now an unbeatable wall, and that tends to be how we remember him in that playoffs, but against the Hawks, his s% was sub .900 (.883) and he gave up 20 goals in 6 games (3.33). They swept the Kings in the second round, and he was great in games 1 and 2 giving up 1 goal on 69 shots, but over the last two he gave up 9 goals and his s% was .897 and .872. And the Jets took them to 7 games (up 3-1 after 4) in round one with Ranford giving up 21 goals, 14 in those first 4 games. Stop me if you've heard this before; Boston made him look better than he had been against the other opponents. Take away that feeling of invincibility after that game 1. Take away that frustration of 52 shots over nearly 6 periods with only two Bourque goals to show. Now the story is that Ranford's played his best hockey of the playoffs, and the Bruins are still up 2-1. And he's due for a stinker. I don't think they had a chance in 1988. Too much Wayne. In 1990, they were who we thought they were...and weletemoffthehook! The Bruins couldn't score because they were basically (as later B's editions as well) a one-line team. So the Oilers focused on Janney, who was supposed to feed Neely, and once they had accomplished taking him out of the games completely (he had to have an IV after game one) by Tikkanen pestering him, the Bruins had few options left on offense. Another quality center was one of the missing ingredients for the B's. If they could have acquired Adam Oates two years before they eventually did without giving up Janney...
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on Dec 15, 2023 6:33:57 GMT
I always felt like this guy must have picked a four-leaf clover before the Bruins-Blues Stanley Cup Final. I just can't believe how he out-maneuvered Cassidy and somehow got an officiating shift in place that benefitted a Blues team (that seemed like they had no discipline at all). I still can't believe we lost to that guy, in that way. How did he catch lightning? You just knew it was a one-time run, and he'd be a dope of a coach after that. Just like his head-case, childish, goalie. I'm surprised he made it four years before being fired and looking totally incompetent. I will always feel that Bergeron-Chara-Rask-McAvoy-Marchand-Krejci lost to a lesser opponent, with that cement-head in charge. Just brutal. Exactly. It was one of the few championships where i believe the best team didn't win, rather the best team lost it. It all seemed to change on the Berube press conference whining, which is sad that it had that much influence. I know it's sour grapes now from a bruins fan but it's what i believe. I also put the most blame though on my beloved team for choking away a home Game 7, you don't get that chance every day. In fact it never ever should have gone 7 games. The Blues fans I know (my wife's cousin and that cousin's husband and sons) all believe that BeerLeagueBinnington was the difference. Not one word about St.Louis having been favored by the refs when they weren't anywhere close to the Bruins' talent level. No, because the Bruins have Marchand, "who is the dirtiest player in the league" (and probably was Lee Harvey Oswald in his previous life...)
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Dec 15, 2023 12:55:22 GMT
Exactly. It was one of the few championships where i believe the best team didn't win, rather the best team lost it. It all seemed to change on the Berube press conference whining, which is sad that it had that much influence. I know it's sour grapes now from a bruins fan but it's what i believe. I also put the most blame though on my beloved team for choking away a home Game 7, you don't get that chance every day. In fact it never ever should have gone 7 games. The Blues fans I know (my wife's cousin and that cousin's husband and sons) all believe that BeerLeagueBinnington was the difference. Not one word about St.Louis having been favored by the refs when they weren't anywhere close to the Bruins' talent level. No, because the Bruins have Marchand, "who is the dirtiest player in the league" (and probably was Lee Harvey Oswald in his previous life...)Two sides on the officiating. One was it premeditated. I doubt it, unless each crew was spoken to individually each game after the Berube conference. Or was it the simple power of suggestion. With Butch not really answering for Berube's accusation. For some reason I lean towards the latter.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Dec 15, 2023 15:29:34 GMT
It was a tough loss but the B's lost in 5 games so it's hard for me to believe they would have won it all even with that game. Maybe, based on how the series played out in reality, but once you start playing with the counter-factuals, I think there's a path that's not crazy. The Bruins were 11 points better than the Oilers in the regular season, and while we know that means nothing, it suggests they weren't Cinderella over-staying their welcome at the party. The case against: 1. Neely had 0 goals, Janney 0 points, and the Bruins had a total of 8 goals in the series and the first three came from Ray. The forwards had 4 goals in 5 games. Neely at least managed 4 assists and even. How were the Bruins going to win if they couldn't score? 2. The Oilers had no problem scoring, winning game 2 7-1, game 4 5-1 and game 5 4-1. 3. The Oilers didn't play up to their potential; 1990 Hart winner Messier was held without a goal. Kid line sniper and future 50 goal man Graves only had 2 goals and 2 points. Klima went back into the funk after his OT winner. The case for: The Bruins won the only game where they scored first; John Byce 10 seconds in. Their defensive strategy against the high-flying Oil was a version of bend but don't break. They bent to give up the two goal lead in game one, but came back to tie in the third thanks to Ray. A win there is huge in terms of completing the comeback. Especially because in game 2, the Oil also went up 2-0 and then here comes Ray with a goal and an assist to tie the game. Then Jari Kurri took over with 2-2-4, but the issue was the D breaking at the end of the second when it was just 3-2. 3 goals in less than four minutes and partly because they started to press. Oil got a 3rd period goal from Kurri on the PP, but it's not crazy to imagine that, with different momentum based on game 1 falling to Boston, the home team doesn't surrender the third goal just minutes after they tied it and instead makes Edmonton recognize that leads aren't safe. More materially, if things had gone exactly the same way except for a different OT result, the Bruins are up 2-1 after 3 games. No worse than tied after 4 going back to Boston. How different is that in terms of mental environment? Win 3-2 in 3OT (or less); Lose 7-2 after coming back from 2-0 down; Win 2-1. You're up 2-1 with 1 goal from the forwards (assuming Wesley gets the game 1 winner...). The story of the series is Ray. The less of the first three games for Boston is to continue to play solid D, keep the games close, and if you can, stop playing from behind. A lot of thinking they could have done something very different is in that mental impact. Ranford was now an unbeatable wall, and that tends to be how we remember him in that playoffs, but against the Hawks, his s% was sub .900 (.883) and he gave up 20 goals in 6 games (3.33). They swept the Kings in the second round, and he was great in games 1 and 2 giving up 1 goal on 69 shots, but over the last two he gave up 9 goals and his s% was .897 and .872. And the Jets took them to 7 games (up 3-1 after 4) in round one with Ranford giving up 21 goals, 14 in those first 4 games. Stop me if you've heard this before; Boston made him look better than he had been against the other opponents. Take away that feeling of invincibility after that game 1. Take away that frustration of 52 shots over nearly 6 periods with only two Bourque goals to show. Now the story is that Ranford's played his best hockey of the playoffs, and the Bruins are still up 2-1. And he's due for a stinker. I don't think they had a chance in 1988. Too much Wayne. In 1990, they were who we thought they were...and weletemoffthehook!The trouble with the Bruins teams through this era was always depth and as we know now a team needs that to win, the B's teams in 88' & 90' didn't have that, they were over matched. The Oil had Messier, Anderson, Kurri, Gelinas, Graves, MacTavish, Tikkanen up front and Lowe, Gregg, Huddy, Ruotsalainen & Muni on the back end, Rannford in net. The B's had Bourque, Neely, Janney and a bunch of plumbers who worked hard. Harry did add Poulin & Propp but they were past their best due date although still serviceable. I was hopefull when it started as the Oil had traded Gretzky but as it unfolded i knew a B's win wasn't happening. If the Bruins had won the 1st game maybe the outcome would have been prolonged but in reality i don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on Dec 15, 2023 16:46:25 GMT
Maybe, based on how the series played out in reality, but once you start playing with the counter-factuals, I think there's a path that's not crazy. The Bruins were 11 points better than the Oilers in the regular season, and while we know that means nothing, it suggests they weren't Cinderella over-staying their welcome at the party. The case against: 1. Neely had 0 goals, Janney 0 points, and the Bruins had a total of 8 goals in the series and the first three came from Ray. The forwards had 4 goals in 5 games. Neely at least managed 4 assists and even. How were the Bruins going to win if they couldn't score? 2. The Oilers had no problem scoring, winning game 2 7-1, game 4 5-1 and game 5 4-1. 3. The Oilers didn't play up to their potential; 1990 Hart winner Messier was held without a goal. Kid line sniper and future 50 goal man Graves only had 2 goals and 2 points. Klima went back into the funk after his OT winner. The case for: The Bruins won the only game where they scored first; John Byce 10 seconds in. Their defensive strategy against the high-flying Oil was a version of bend but don't break. They bent to give up the two goal lead in game one, but came back to tie in the third thanks to Ray. A win there is huge in terms of completing the comeback. Especially because in game 2, the Oil also went up 2-0 and then here comes Ray with a goal and an assist to tie the game. Then Jari Kurri took over with 2-2-4, but the issue was the D breaking at the end of the second when it was just 3-2. 3 goals in less than four minutes and partly because they started to press. Oil got a 3rd period goal from Kurri on the PP, but it's not crazy to imagine that, with different momentum based on game 1 falling to Boston, the home team doesn't surrender the third goal just minutes after they tied it and instead makes Edmonton recognize that leads aren't safe. More materially, if things had gone exactly the same way except for a different OT result, the Bruins are up 2-1 after 3 games. No worse than tied after 4 going back to Boston. How different is that in terms of mental environment? Win 3-2 in 3OT (or less); Lose 7-2 after coming back from 2-0 down; Win 2-1. You're up 2-1 with 1 goal from the forwards (assuming Wesley gets the game 1 winner...). The story of the series is Ray. The less of the first three games for Boston is to continue to play solid D, keep the games close, and if you can, stop playing from behind. A lot of thinking they could have done something very different is in that mental impact. Ranford was now an unbeatable wall, and that tends to be how we remember him in that playoffs, but against the Hawks, his s% was sub .900 (.883) and he gave up 20 goals in 6 games (3.33). They swept the Kings in the second round, and he was great in games 1 and 2 giving up 1 goal on 69 shots, but over the last two he gave up 9 goals and his s% was .897 and .872. And the Jets took them to 7 games (up 3-1 after 4) in round one with Ranford giving up 21 goals, 14 in those first 4 games. Stop me if you've heard this before; Boston made him look better than he had been against the other opponents. Take away that feeling of invincibility after that game 1. Take away that frustration of 52 shots over nearly 6 periods with only two Bourque goals to show. Now the story is that Ranford's played his best hockey of the playoffs, and the Bruins are still up 2-1. And he's due for a stinker. I don't think they had a chance in 1988. Too much Wayne. In 1990, they were who we thought they were...and weletemoffthehook!The trouble with the Bruins teams through this era was always depth and as we know now a team needs that to win, the B's teams in 88' & 90' didn't have that, they were over matched. The Oil had Messier, Anderson, Kurri, Gelinas, Graves, MacTavish, Tikkanen up front and Lowe, Gregg, Huddy, Ruotsalainen & Muni on the back end, Rannford in net. The B's had Bourque, Neely, Janney and a bunch of plumbers who worked hard. Harry did add Poulin & Propp but they were past their best due date although still serviceable. I was hopefull when it started as the Oil had traded Gretzky but as it unfolded i knew a B's win wasn't happening. If the Bruins had won the 1st game maybe the outcome would have been prolonged but in reality i don't think so. I agree with Book's opinion that the series takes a different turn after a Bruins win in game 1. But still, lack of depth. I remember reading an analysis about the Bruins roster and their general game plan, I think it was in the Sporting News hockey yearbook 1990-91, that read, "keep the score close and wait for a power play, a dangerous strategy". What do you do when your number 1 center gets totally eliminated by the other team's premier pest? Should they have tried to take Tikkanen out of the game (rough him up, get him to drop the gloves)?
|
|