Do the Bruins Make the Playoffs?

[burstnbloom]

I've thought about this quite a bit and come down to this: The Boston Bruins organization has been highly successful in the NHL for the majority of the time this group has been together. I think it is both unfair and unwise to break up this group after one season that went significantly below expectations when injuries, player performance, and scheduling all played a role in shaping that outcome. That's not to say it's been a perfect hand for management, clearly not, but after years of deep playoff runs, father time and the grind of long seasons with shorter summers was going to catch up with the organization eventually.
 
You can't bury these guys after multiple cup appearances, a win, and President's trophy. Multiple down years merits a total overhaul of the management, but I think one bad year merits a more serious retooling of the roster before you make changes at the top.

 
 
This is where I want to be, but emotionally, I'm struggling with it.  I think Chia gets a lot of unnecessary heat and people don't remember what its like around here when you really have a BAD GM, but he certainly has made some errors in judgement.  I'm not talking about Seguin either.  That was an organizational decision from Cam on down.  It's not right to put that on Chia solely.  That said there needs to be an improvement in his performance, if he gets a shot at it. 
 
My real problem is with Julien.  I think he's a very good coach and will have a job days after he is let go from this one, but his inability to get his team up for some of the biggest games of the year has been infuriating.  That is probably the player's fault and not his, but at some point, a new voice is necessary and I think we are there. 
 
This is sad.  End of the most successful Bruins era of my lifetime.  

 

[smastroyin]

Chia's biggest problem has been drafting.  The biggest problem this team has faced is that the core was built from drafts 8-10 years ago.  
 
If you accept getting only little pieces of help in the time since, I think Chia has done a good job.  So it really comes down to how much blame he gets for all of those picks generating little talent.  The other stuff, including being backed into his own corner with the Seguin stuff, is worht debating but probably doesn't come out on the side of fire (I hate hate hated and still do the Seguin trade BTW).  So, if all you do is put a new GM up there and it is the same system otherwise for scouting and selection...I'll just say I'm not completely convinced the new guy would do much better.  The flip side of this argument is that Chia got so much value out of those core guys when they were cheap that it made his job easier and he has sucked since having to start making any hard decisions.
 
That said, I think people tend to based judgement on the end of the season.  So, we go from Game 6 of the SC Finals (a SC Finals they could have won if Chris fucking Kelly could hit an open net (sorry I know this isn't rational and there were other issues but it's my personal irrational diatribe)) to getting bounced in the second round by the Canadiens in a GFIN year, to being out of the playoffs, and it looks a lot like they are headed in the wrong direction.  There are of course personnel issues there too that a new GM isn't going to really be able to deal with either.

 

[kenneycb]

I prefer to lay blame at the feet of Kaspers Daugivans.  Asshole.

 

[RIFan]

Chia's biggest problem has been drafting.  The biggest problem this team has faced is that the core was built from drafts 8-10 years ago.  
 
If you accept getting only little pieces of help in the time since, I think Chia has done a good job.  So it really comes down to how much blame he gets for all of those picks generating little talent.  

He did reorganize the scouting department a few years ago under Gretzky.  Early returns on those drafts are promising, so would this really be a reason to give him the boot now?

 

[Haunted]

If one goes, the other should go with him.
 
If you're going in a new direction, go in a new direction. Don't half ass it.
 
Chiarelli didn't build a great team, but Julien didn't help him out any. With the talent on this team, they shouldn't be fighting for a playoff spot - but with this talent you can't expect the team to seriously contend for the Cup.
 
They both failed, they both failed to live up to expectations.
 
And that's not even taking the players into consideration. Yes - the coach should motivate and put the team in the best position to succeed. But the players are the ones that need to execute. 
If this team needs a culture change - fire Chia, fire Claude, and make some leadership/personnel changes on the roster. 

I agree with this fully.  Everyone shares the blame here.  Time for many changes.  Hopefully all the NMCs don't hamstring them too much moving forward.

 

[RedOctober3829]

 

Joe McDonald ‏@ESPNJoeyMac  35s35 seconds ago
Peter Chiarelli said Bruins haven't had that "killer instinct. . . I don't see the will."

 
 

Joe McDonald ‏@ESPNJoeyMac  43s43 seconds ago
Chiarelli: "Everyone is to blame.

 
 

Joe Haggerty ‏@HackswithHaggs  19s20 seconds ago
Chiarelli on situation: "It's a disappointment. But it doesn't mean you throw it all out. Sometimes you fall off the horse & U get back on"
 

 

[Ritmo]

In evaluating the nature and extent of changes to be made, part of the problem is the maddening inconsistency, the streakiness that makes this team look either dangerous or awful, and ultimately adds up to mediocre.  It would be easy to overreact and make counterproductive changes.  I think that would be a mistake.  That being said, I’d hate a prolonged situation in which the team is not good enough to contend for the cup, and not bad enough to warrant a major shakeup.  That’s where we seem to have arrived, and it’s critical that it doesn't persist.
 
Playoffs or no, I think this group – the core players, coach, and GM – absolutely deserves a limited benefit of the doubt and a chance to return to form.  See what can be accomplished with the roster in the offseason.  It doesn’t need a drastic overhaul, just a couple of good decisions.  That being said, don’t shy away from a major move if something becomes available, a Taylor Hall or similar player.  A couple of months into next season, if things are still going the same as this season has, then go ahead and make a coaching change [though if Babcock or a similar caliber coach becomes available this offseason, then certainly at least consider it].  By this time next year, if the season is not a clear success and the team is not strong and pointed in the right direction, then sure, bring in a new GM and fire away.
 
I don’t expect perfection, I know there will be mistakes and injuries and any combination of factors that can derail a season.  It happens.  This Bruins era has been phenomenal – I started watching in ’82, and while there have been many teams and great players over the years that I’ve loved, I’ve never enjoyed being a Bruins fan more than during this Chiarelli/Julien era.  This has been the least enjoyable season in that time, but in the overall context I’d take it without hesitation.  I’d give them the chance to prove this season to be the outlier. 

 

[RetractableRoof]

They say a good coach can adapt to situations and get the most of his team in the circumstances of the moment. I have 2 problems with Julien; 1) He didn't adapt enough within the injury streak(s) to steal the necessary game or three. Maybe my memory is failing but I don't recall a game this year where he outcoached the other coach and got them points they probably didn't deserve. 2) He doesn't develop youth. Great coaches/teams evolve over the course of a season and get better as they go. They develop/integrate youth and/or new players. Part of that is instilling confidence in young players and putting them in a position to succeed, giving them a chance to grow and fail while becoming the players you need them to be. Julien seems to send the message that the young players need to be 100% mature with little room for error before he will let them play. Spooner hasn't likely developed much more in Providence between earlier in the year and now - I think the difference is his perception that he had more rope - maybe because of the desperate state of the team.

Those 2 things leave him one a bit dimensional in my mind. If he has 4 solid lines, with a heavy defense and defensive minded centers/forwards and a strong goalie he can get it done. Opportunistic offensive skills within that and he can compete for a cup. Anything less in those areas and he doesn't seem to be able to make lemonade out of lemons.

I see him as a very good coach versus a great coach - and this year needed a great coach.

ETA: And he may have cost them a game in Edmonton trying to play goalie whisperer when he had no backup available for Tuukka. (And I'd ask if his usage patterns with the goalies caused his backup to be rusty/lose confidence to begin with.)

 

[In my lifetime]

 
We've solved the mystery! Man, this whole time I thought it had more to do with injuries to Chara, Krejci and Hamilton, trading Boychuk, Claude's ridiculous ice time allocation and refusal to play Spooner, no viable backup goalie leading to burnout for your goaltender, and a general malaise that has hung over the whole team all year where they lacked focus and drive at key moments. 
 
But, no, you're right, it was become some posters listed players they wanted rested after they clinched. Fucking genius.

You do realize I was kidding, right?

 

[RIFan]

They say a good coach can adapt to situations and get the most of his team in the circumstances of the moment. I have 2 problems with Julien; 1) He didn't adapt enough within the injury streak(s) to steal the necessary game or three. Maybe my memory is failing but I don't recall a game this year where he outcoached the other coach and got them points they probably didn't deserve. 

Or maybe he squeezed 95 points out of a team that skated 4 Bottom 6 D on most nights even and was missing their top center most of the season.  This realistically could have been an 80-85 point season.  
 

" 2) He doesn't develop youth. Great coaches/teams evolve over the course of a season and get better as they go. They develop/integrate youth and/or new players. Part of that is instilling confidence in young players and putting them in a position to succeed, giving them a chance to grow and fail while becoming the players you need them to be:"  
 

This has been repeatedly debunked over and over.  It's really a tiresome argument that's more for talk radio than anyone who actually pays attention.   You realize that Krejci, Bergeron, Marchand, Lucic, Boychuck, McQuaid, Krug, etc etc etc have all developed under Claude.  Hell, Kessel had a 36 goal season in his 3rd year and Seguin had 29 in his 2nd.  Spooner struggled out the beginning of the season and sometimes it's on the player.  He went down did his work and came back.  How many players have flamed out here and gone onto more success elsewhere?

 

[NYCSox]

I wonder how less disheartening this would be had they not lost control of the Hawks series or not shat over themselves against Montreal last year and won the Cup?
 
I'll bet Kings fans are a lot less upset with two Cups under their belts.

 

[TSC]

Part of that is HOW they lost to Chicago.

Fuck you, Kasper Daugavins.

 

[smastroyin]

In the modern internet, any post that mentions Daugavins should have a trigger warning.

 

[The Long Tater]

M

 

[Red Right Ankle]

No it was N's fault

 

[Myt1]

This team was built with a defensive mentality. For years, its dominant defensive game translated into a potent offense, but that hasn't been the case this season.
 
"Our game is predicated on strong defensive play and strong breakout, and one thing has to happen first before the next thing," Chiarelli said. "There's been a weak spot in the first part -- strong defensive play -- so subsequently the break-out hasn't been the same. Historically, we've been one of the best breaking-out teams in the league and we haven't had that."

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruins/post/_/id/18453/bruins-alive-but-gm-calls-season-failure
 
They traded away a top 4 defenseman; one of their others not only didn't return to form and never will but is a husk of an NHL player; their best defenseman and captain got badly injured and has been playing on one leg since; and their young wunderkind regressed a little bit in the consistency of his decision making (but showed flashes of even more offensive potential than before; I think he was just trying to do too much) before getting hurt for the stretch run.  Thank Christ for Krug.
 
That's pretty much the story.  Even for the years they were a top 3 team in the league, when their breakout was stymied, especially by a strong two man forecheck, they'd struggle.  They're just not equipped offensively to create from a standstill in the neutral zone.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Or maybe he squeezed 95 points out of a team that skated 4 Bottom 6 D on most nights even and was missing their top center most of the season.  This realistically could have been an 80-85 point season.  
 

This has been repeatedly debunked over and over.  It's really a tiresome argument that's more for talk radio than anyone who actually pays attention.   You realize that Krejci, Bergeron, Marchand, Lucic, Boychuck, McQuaid, Krug, etc etc etc have all developed under Claude.  Hell, Kessel had a 36 goal season in his 3rd year and Seguin had 29 in his 2nd.  Spooner struggled out the beginning of the season and sometimes it's on the player.  He went down did his work and came back.  How many players have flamed out here and gone onto more success elsewhere?

re:1) I can see this point of view. I don't agree with it though. I could point to a number of games this year where they were scored on with less than 2 minutes left in the period - which to me screams lack of focus. A couple that seemed to turn the game. Maybe there are more in game subtleties that I'm not appreciating as much as you do. I see an over-reliance on Campbell, riding Chara and Seidenberg into the ground when neither are playing well, too many games where key players are invisible.

re:2) Developing a player doesn't mean letting a player who is obviously ready play. Of that list, they all came out of the gate pretty well. Not a whole lot of struggling. Boychuck and McQuaid had some growing pains, but it was clear they belonged at this level. Krug struggled the most of your list, and still does defensively. His lack of size shows defensively, but he forced himself into the lineup because the team needed a defensemen, and he caught fire offensively. I think Lucic has regressed in the last couple of years. Marchand has underperformed this year and for part of last year. You want to give him credit for 'developing' 2 players who were taken top 5 in the draft - as offensive gifted as any players recently drafted? I'd argue the rigidity of his system handcuffed both Seguin and Kessel. To be fair Seguin did show development but again I think most coaches wouldn't struggle 'developing' top 5 offensively gifted players.

There is a difference between playing a young player who obviously belongs and developing a borderline player into a solid contributing player. My complaint is that the only players who seem to work for Julien are those who are ready to go - like almost every player you named. Tell me which players you think Julien has 'developed'? Not simply played, but developed.

I can only express it in baseball terms I guess. Pedroia came up and struggled his rookie year. I feel like under Julien he would have been sent back down. I know the analogy doesn't hold water for more than a second...

Finally, I said he was a very good but not great coach in a year that the team would have needed a great coach. You can disagree (and might even be right), but that isn't exactly talk show crap.


ETA: move stuff out of quoted area

 

[RetractableRoof]

Why is allowing a goal with 2 minutes or less in the period a result of lack of focus? I agree that the Bruins seemed to allow too many of those such goals- but no idea how they compare to other teams in such a stat, nor the significance of such a stat. Ultimately, the Bruins seemed streaky and inconsistent and in the end will finish as a .500 team.
The team was flawed but the organization has had a pretty good run. Changing the GM and coach and just assuming that makes everything better seems like an overreaction; I think they deserve another year at least.

To my eyes it shows a lack of something. Mental discipline, focus, killer instinct, something. Good teams seem to play to the whistle or the last out. And I don't have a sense of other teams this year im the same regard - just seems like the attention to detail is a characteristic of winning teams. One small symptom to be noted with the other symptoms of the season. A contributing factor to your 'inconsistency' label.

As to changing the coach/GM. I would apportion a lot more blame for the current situation to the GM. I've only been speaking about Julien because his work right now is still in play. I don't think changing either or both will make a difference the coming year given the cap situation. I am not advocating to change either position - given the chamges in the scouting department, I think being patient one or two more years is the best bet.

 

[kenneycb]

Boychuk was an AHL forward for a lot of his tenure so, no, he did not belong.

Edit: Shitty should be added there. That's a whole lot of growing pains. Clear to say he's better than Hendricks, who is Paille 2.0 with face offs. So Soupy 1.0. Or some other shitty 4th liner.

Edit 2: Mild sobriety will lead me to rational discourse manana.

 

[RIFan]

re:1) I can see this point of view. I don't agree with it though. I could point to a number of games this year where they were scored on with less than 2 minutes left in the period - which to me screams lack of focus. A couple that seemed to turn the game. Maybe there are more in game subtleties that I'm not appreciating as much as you do. I see an over-reliance on Campbell, riding Chara and Seidenberg into the ground when neither are playing well, too many games where key players are invisible.

re:2) Developing a player doesn't mean letting a player who is obviously ready play. Of that list, they all came out of the gate pretty well. Not a whole lot of struggling. Boychuck and McQuaid had some growing pains, but it was clear they belonged at this level. Krug struggled the most of your list, and still does defensively. His lack of size shows defensively, but he forced himself into the lineup because the team needed a defensemen, and he caught fire offensively. I think Lucic has regressed in the last couple of years. Marchand has underperformed this year and for part of last year. You want to give him credit for 'developing' 2 players who were taken top 5 in the draft - as offensive gifted as any players recently drafted? I'd argue the rigidity of his system handcuffed both Seguin and Kessel. To be fair Seguin did show development but again I think most coaches wouldn't struggle 'developing' top 5 offensively gifted players.

There is a difference between playing a young player who obviously belongs and developing a borderline player into a solid contributing player. My complaint is that the only players who seem to work for Julien are those who are ready to go - like almost every player you named. Tell me which players you think Julien has 'developed'? Not simply played, but developed.

I can only express it in baseball terms I guess. Pedroia came up and struggled his rookie year. I feel like under Julien he would have been sent back down. I know the analogy doesn't hold water for more than a second...

Finally, I said he was a very good but not great coach in a year that the team would have needed a great coach. You can disagree (and might even be right), but that isn't exactly talk show crap.


ETA: move stuff out of quoted area

I don't see how your making your point. Who outside of Kessel, Seguin, and Dougie were player who "obviously" belonged. Marchand was a wreck in his 1st season. He's developed into a solid two way player. I don't think defense is a core part of his DNA, yet he's been coached to be above average. Lucic was a one dimensional player when he came in. Some of the best hopes for him was to be a contributing bottom 6 enforcer, not a 30 goal scorer. Further to your point on both of them, they are veteran players now. Them underperforming or regressing doesn't provide support to the argument that Claude doesn't develop young players. Paille and Campbell were fringe NHL players that played significant roles on a Stanley Cup Winner. Good chance they wouldn't have been in the league if it wasn't for the Bruins (leaving aside the argument that they stayed 1 year too many). Boychuk, McQuaid, and Miller were all long time AHL player that have stuck in the NHL. The Bruins roster is filled with players who weren't obviously going to be solid NHL players. The "doesn't develop young players" meme is definitely a talk show topic and not one grounded in reality.

It's also true that his system handcuffed Kessel and Seguin. I don't see their teams contending for a cup despite the lack of handcuffs.


I said it before, maybe a new voice is needed and Claude's tenure has run it's course. He'll be unemployed all of about 30 seconds because he is an elite coach.

 

[soxfan121]

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruins/post/_/id/18453/bruins-alive-but-gm-calls-season-failure
 
They traded away a top 4 defenseman; one of their others not only didn't return to form and never will but is a husk of an NHL player; their best defenseman and captain got badly injured and has been playing on one leg since; and their young wunderkind regressed a little bit in the consistency of his decision making (but showed flashes of even more offensive potential than before; I think he was just trying to do too much) before getting hurt for the stretch run.  Thank Christ for Krug.
 
That's pretty much the story.  Even for the years they were a top 3 team in the league, when their breakout was stymied, especially by a strong two man forecheck, they'd struggle.  They're just not equipped offensively to create from a standstill in the neutral zone.

 
This is where I'm at, too. Though I'll add that the Seidenberg extension was ill-conceived at the time, the Boychuk trade made things exponentially worse, especially as they totally misjudged Seidenberg's health/effectiveness and the absence (for whatever reason) of Joe Morrow from the rotating cast of characters trying to fill the void hints at a misevaluation of talent (especially given Fraser's departure and Smith's smithiness). Without a defensive backbone, Claude and the forwards have been hamstrung, unable to play their game and Rask has been peppered (and forced to play too much because Svedberg is no Chad Johnson). 
 
Shitty year. Though, if it results in a GM with new ideas and a fresh voice in the locker room, it'll have been worth it. All things end. This core is young enough to have a second act...but not with this GM/coach combo. 

 

[Dummy Hoy]

The Seidenberg extension was not ill conceived...he was 32 (not a terrible age for a rock solid defenseman who used his smarts and positioning) coming off another Cup run where he was part of a shut down D pairing. Maybe the 4th year was a bit much, but to lock up a #2 D at 4bills a year looked good. then a week later his knee got turned into a pile of napkins. Seidenberg has just started to get back to form the last 2 months, but will never be what he could have if he hadn't gotten hurt.

 

[TSC]

How can you misjudge an injury that hasn't happened yet?
 
Seidenberg (pre-injury) was a GREAT contract signing, and everyone here was thrilled with it.
 
No one could have forseen him blowing his knees out and becoming useless.
 
edit: Should have refreshed before posting. But yea, what Dummy Hoy said.

 

[RedOctober3829]

OK so now there are 2 scenarios in which the Bruins can sneak in.
 
1) OTT loss in regulation and BOS win in regulation or OT
 
2) Pittsburgh loss of any kind and BOS win.
 
I believe they win the tiebreaker with Pittsburgh so even if they get a point the Bruins can sneak in with a win.  Holding out a sliver of hope still because there's still life.

 

[DJnVa]

EDIT

 

[TeddyBallgame'sDirtbagSon]

I may be wrong but I think they eould also get in with a non SO win in the case that Pitt only takes 1 point tonight.

 

[Toe Nash]

Seidenberg's possession numbers were way, way down BEFORE the injury. Can't predict the injury, but decline was predictable given his age. I also think he's always been kind of overrated because he was very good in one playoff run.
 
CFRel by year:
10-11: -3.3%
11-12: -0.6%
12-13: -1.5%
13-14: -5.2%
14-15: -5.9%
 
His is given more defensive zone starts than others, so it's ok that he's negative relative to the team, but it definitely looks like the decline began before the injury. Anyway, it doesn't matter too much at this point.
 
My main criticism of Claude is that he sticks too much with "his guys" and they tend to be "tough" defense-first guys who don't do too much to create offense (Campbell, Miller, McQuaid). At the same time guys whose primary skills are offensive (Spooner, Pastrnak) seemed to get criticized / benched way more for any defensive shortcomings than the defense-first guys get punished or called out for their offensive shortcomings.
 
Kevan Miller is a great example; he can't make a pass to save his life and may be the worst NHL skater I've ever seen (hyperbole), but he hits people and does some decent work defensively so he gets to play, even when he has one usable arm. Meanwhile no one in Providence gets a chance nor does someone get traded for even when the team is desperate for offense and desperate for the playoffs. When injuries force them to recall Trotman he generally looks competent, albeit in sheltered ice time, and scores a key goal.
 
But it can't just be Claude -- Chia is the person making these moves even if Claude is the one playing Campbell too often. Chia could just release Campbell at any point (as PSK suggested) and they'd be forced to play someone else. Likely, there is a combination of voices that is leading them to overvalue these players.
 
So, should they fire everyone? Well, I'd like to think people can learn from their shortcomings and both CJ and PC have obviously done a number of good things. If they are "retooling" that doesn't worry me -- Chia's draft record is actually not that bad if you take into account draft position, UDFA signings like Krug and Miller (ignoring my criticism earlier, he isn't a completely useless player, though he may be on one arm) and maneuvers for Wheeler. Pastrnak seems like a hit as well -- maybe the change in scouting is paying off. But they need to get over their emphasis on toughness above all else and start making some better moves on the edges, because their long-term deals for their "core" is giving them very little margin for error.

 

[Scoots McBoots]

The Penguins beat the Sabres tonight, so that answers that.

 

[BoSoxFink]

So who goes? Both? Or just one of them?

 

[Rico Guapo]

Ultimately, both. But Chia is more to blame IMO.

 

[TFP]

Start new threads for the post-mortems of the season.