Game 7 - Montreal @ Boston - Protect the Civic

[catomatic]

The mental game, in general, is mostly locker room prep. There on ice stuff but that generally refers to keeping your cool and those things. You are saying they didn't get into the correct state if mind. IMO, and in my personal experience, that comes with getting yourself right leading up to the game. Putting the burden of proof on me to prove they didn't want it is dumb because it's an unanswerable question. They're pro athletes and are more competitive than 99.9% of the population. They also have three of the most well respected players in the game (Z, Bergy, Iggy) as well as a bunch of hour guys like Thornton, Campbell and an injured Kelly. Oh and Humpty Dumpty behind the bench and a mother fucking crazy man in the executive suites. Now I can't quantify desire, nor can you, but I can look at these qualitative factors, as well as the games, and say I think your point is overblown.

The mental game shows up in reacting to bad shit happening in the game—not in the locker room. They didn't have enough resilience (save for 2 games, really) in this series. I haven't said word one about blowing up the team or wholesale changes whatsoever—not a single thing. I happen to hold the opinion that, as human beings, they are subject to such dynamics as a level of desire insufficient to the task. I don't imagine them eating twinkles on the couch and hopping into the cab at the last minute to get to the rink, I'm talking about the percentage of desire that is just beyond our will's ability to manufacture it. Resilience is a good litmus of this critical percentage. For whatever reason, it wasn't there enough in this series. I don't think that's a particularly controversial assertion after watching all 420 minutes of this series.

 

[Frank McBain]

fuck

 

[kenneycb]

The mental game shows up in reacting to bad shit happening in the gamenot in the locker room. They didn't have enough resilience (save for 2 games, really) in this series. I haven't said word one about blowing up the team or wholesale changes whatsoevernot a single thing. I happen to hold the opinion that, as human beings, they are subject to such dynamics as a level of desire insufficient to the task. I don't imagine them eating twinkles on the couch and hopping into the cab at the last minute to get to the rink, I'm talking about the percentage of desire that is just beyond our will's ability to manufacture it. Resilience is a good litmus of this critical percentage. For whatever reason, it wasn't there enough in this series. I don't think that's a particularly controversial assertion after watching all 420 minutes of this series.

So you're willing to make an opinion based on 420 minutes while ignoring the previous 87 x 60 minutes? Gotcha.

 

[Frank McBain]

asshole pussy fuck weenis

 

[Frank McBain]

there is no god.

 

[Frank McBain]

beside the god that i war against.

 

[Frank McBain]

in my pee pee butthole #truth

 

[Frank McBain]

The previous posts don't reflect my views.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

How are we feeling if they didn't make that comeback for the ages last year in Game 7 against Toronto, in which they just narrowly and miraculously escaped an embarrassing first round exit to an inferior team after taking a 3 games to 1 series lead?  And you know, they were a hair from being bounced in the first round in their 2011 Cup-winning year, and that was one year removed from the 2010 debacle against the Flyers.  Also, they should have advanced past the first round in 2012 against Washington and didn't.    
 
I love this team and this core of guys have been exciting to watch the past 4-5 years, but it seems like they have a tendency to underachieve, and when they do enjoy success, it's through great struggle and by the thinnest of margins.
 
EDIT: Of course, I'm talking about their performance only in the playoffs.

 

[catomatic]

So you're willing to make an opinion based on 420 minutes while ignoring the previous 87 x 60 minutes? Gotcha.

Ok, you win. And the Yankees have 27 championships, right? What a nice, cushy fall-back position. Ok, you answer me; why did the Bruins make a spectacular number of uncharacteristic errors in this series—without Canadiens skaters nearby? I say uncharacteristic because I watched a very large portion of those 87X60 minutes myself.
 
Canadiens played with house money, Bruins played scared.
 
One of these mindsets is characterized by desire and the other is not. Not so tough an argument to understand, nor one that is particularly controversial. That sucked monkey balls. 'Night all.

 

[veritas]

kenneycb is making more sense than everyone here. And I'm probably going to reiterate a lot of what he's said, but here's what my drunk ass needs to pontifiacte:
 
This year feels very similar to last year's elimination game as far as everyone's reaction. Last year I got home from the game and was a huge asshole to everyone who said anything bad about the Bruins' effort, character, ability, anything really. Because being a Nancy after losing in game 6 of the Stanley Cup is the epitome of Nancy-ing. And I stand by my being an asshole, because last year's team was one of my favorite teams ever in any Boston sport, and not winning the Cup really didn't change that all that much.
 
This year, I'm similarly supportive of the team, but much more understanding of people being critical. And to be honest, some of the criticism is fully warranted and I'm probably an overly sentimental fan.
 
But I'll just throw out a few things to put things in perspective:
 
1) The Blackhawks lost in the first round twice between cups. They are the best team over that span, the Bruins by most measurements are probably 2nd.
2) The best team usually doesn't win the Cup. It takes a lot of luck, and while the Bruins didn't play well this series by their standards, they also had some bad luck
3) The Bruins' didn't trade any future assets at the deadline for marginal upgrades that wouldn't have made much of a difference. Unlike the Penguins who are a dumpster fire at the moment, the Bruins are returning most of their regulars and have a shitload of talent in the minors waiting to fill bottom 6 roles for minimum salary, opening up space to help the rest of the team.
4) Credit the Canadiens. They coached and played amazingly. Ex: what they did to the (I've always refused to call them 1st) Lucic-Krecji-Iginla line I'm surprised no one ever really did before. That line seriously lacks speed and quickness, and looked pedestrian when pressed in their defensive end and neutral zone.
5) My mom, Nancy, if she read this thread would say, "why do you waste your time talking to all those Nancies on the internet"
 
edit: catomatic is a huge Nancy, go fuck yourself

 

[lars10]

kenneycb is making more sense than everyone here. And I'm probably going to reiterate a lot of what he's said, but here's what my drunk ass needs to pontifiacte:
 
This year feels very similar to last year's elimination game as far as everyone's reaction. Last year I got home from the game and was a huge asshole to everyone who said anything bad about the Bruins' effort, character, ability, anything really. Because being a Nancy after losing in game 6 of the Stanley Cup is the epitome of Nancy-ing. And I stand by my being an asshole, because last year's team was one of my favorite teams ever in any Boston sport, and not winning the Cup really didn't change that all that much.
 
This year, I'm similarly supportive of the team, but much more understanding of people being critical. And to be honest, some of the criticism is fully warranted and I'm probably an overly sentimental fan.
 
But I'll just throw out a few things to put things in perspective:
 
1) The Blackhawks lost in the first round twice between cups. They are the best team over that span, the Bruins by most measurements are probably 2nd.
2) The best team usually doesn't win the Cup. It takes a lot of luck, and while the Bruins didn't play well this series by their standards, they also had some bad luck
3) The Bruins' didn't trade any future assets at the deadline for marginal upgrades that wouldn't have made much of a difference. Unlike the Penguins who are a dumpster fire at the moment, the Bruins are returning most of their regulars and have a shitload of talent in the minors waiting to fill bottom 6 roles for minimum salary, opening up space to help the rest of the team.
4) Credit the Canadiens. They coached and played amazingly. Ex: what they did to the (I've always refused to call them 1st) Lucic-Krecji-Iginla line I'm surprised no one ever really did before. That line seriously lacks speed and quickness, and looked pedestrian when pressed in their defensive end and neutral zone.
5) My mom, Nancy, if she read this thread would say, "why do you waste your time talking to all those Nancies on the internet"
 
edit: catomatic is a huge Nancy, go fuck yourself

Veritas speaks truth... Especially about catomatic.

Edit: but here's the main problem I saw... The bruins like to play a physical game... Montreal plays the absolute opposite... Never challenge,always flop at minimum contact.... I feel like it lead to the B's playing a totally different game. Congrats to the habs but I think it's the opposite of hockey.

 

[SoFloSoxFan]

I hate when there's no more Bruins hockey to watch

 
Sigh. Me too.

 

[octoberaroma]

The Bruins got beat by beating themselves. Way to many puck mishaps by young, inexperienced defensemen is where part of the blame goes.
Offensively, the countless open net misses was off the charts. I am shocked at how poorly this team played given how well the regular season went.
Lootch is turning into a douche bag too.

 

[Frank McBain]

Fuckin Lou Reed motherfuckers
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKFJb181bVM

 

[ivanvamp]

 
How solid can this team be when they didn't bother to show up in Game 6 and then played sloppy, tight, nervous hockey in Game 7? I'm serious. Montreal played well, but the Bruins had their heads up their asses the whole series. Mental and physical mistakes galore. The President's Trophy is nice, but it don't mean shit if they can't beat the fucking Canadiens in the playoffs.
 
I think they need changes. They need to get faster. Much faster. They skated in cement this whole series.

 
Because last year they came within a hair of winning the Cup, and this year they were the best team in the league over the course of a season, and in the playoffs they dusted Detroit and, despite playing *horribly*, still pushed a very good Canadiens squad to 7 games.
 
Did they play a crappy series?  Absolutely, without question - a colossal disappointment.  But you can't accomplish what this group has accomplished the past two years and not be really solid.  

 

[Titoschew]

After being able to sleep on it I can still only hang my hat on disappointment. Yes, they were the better team and should have found a way to overcome but they didn't and that's disappointing. Major outages from top performers was frustrating. But seemingly lost in this is what Montreal did. They transformed their game away from the flops and dramatics and sold out for shot blocking and sagging low on defense, sticks in the lanes all the time. No one here thought they could do that for 7 games. Maybe the Bruins inability to adapt to it contributed to montreal's success with it, but either way it was a major change in their dynamic.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
Because last year they came within a hair of winning the Cup, and this year they were the best team in the league over the course of a season, and in the playoffs they dusted Detroit and, despite playing *horribly*, still pushed a very good Canadiens squad to 7 games.
 
Did they play a crappy series?  Absolutely, without question - a colossal disappointment.  But you can't accomplish what this group has accomplished the past two years and not be really solid.  

I'll say it again: solid teams don't play this badly in the playoffs. Outscored 7-1 in the last two games. That's Canucks- level ineptitude.

Best regular season record means nothing. They got exposed in this series, by a team that they'll becseeing too much of due to the new playoff format. The 2008-09 and 2009-10 regular seasons were good too, but no one cares because of the way those playoff seasons ended. So this regular season is completely irrelevant now.

If they want to sniff postseason success going forward, they need to be retooled. Too old, too slow, no scoring...it wasn't pretty. They need significant changes.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'll say it again: solid teams don't play this badly in the playoffs. Outscored 7-1 in the last two games. That's Canucks- level ineptitude.

Best regular season record means nothing. They got exposed in this series, by a team that they'll becseeing too much of due to the new playoff format. The 2008-09 and 2009-10 regular seasons were good too, but no one cares because of the way those playoff seasons ended. So this regular season is completely irrelevant now.

If they want to sniff postseason success going forward, they need to be retooled. Too old, too slow, no scoring...it wasn't pretty. They need significant changes.

 
I think it's best to save the "what should the Bruins do to fix their problems" for a non-game thread, and really, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you.  We're all pissed off and disappointed.  I'm *really* trying to gain some perspective here after what was, frankly, a crushing defeat.
 
In 2009-10, the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup.  In 2012-13, the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup.  They had one of the best overall records in hockey over that four year span.  (also, in 2008-09, they went to the conference Finals and lost).  CLEARLY they were a solid team, and still are.  There is no rational argument that could be made that suggests that the Blackhawks, over that time period, were NOT a really, really good hockey team.  
 
And yet in-between those two championships, they were ousted in the first round of the playoffs both times.  
 
Heck, in 2011-12, they got beat in six games, losing game six at home to Phoenix 4-0.  
 
The point is this:  even really, really good teams can play lousy over short stretches, including the playoffs.  The best team in the league over the last 5 years (Chicago) has been eliminated in the first round twice.  Boston played very poorly in this series, nobody can argue otherwise.  But they *did* hit 13 frigging posts, had one goal head towards an open net and hit their own guy's skate (Marchand), had another puck going into the net but a Canadien player batted it out of the goal with his hand.  Meanwhile, Montreal last night got a goal off Chara's skate.
 
The Bruins were bad - came out with no energy in games 6-7, constantly fell behind, fell asleep on plays like Subban's goal coming out of the penalty box, etc.  However, they were also *incredibly* unlucky.  The goals (or non-goals) I just mentioned, plus one in game 6 where Rask was heading off the ice, turned to get back into the play when Montreal got the puck, but then just slipped and fell.  I mean, you've got to be kidding me with that kind of thing.
 
So yes, bad performance by a really good hockey team.  I'll save the "what should they do to fix things" discussion for the Bruins forum.

 

[Riconway3155]

Is McBain still alive? His every other post anger was my comic relief last night.

 

[SoxFan58]

There's no problem with bitching. And there will be changes because that happens every year. I take umbrage with the hyperbole and saying this was an epic choke job or something of the like. Because, at least IMO, it wasn't even close to Philly or Carolina. It wasn't a good loss but it's not anything that needs to signal widespread change or anything from a young team that was 1.5 minutes from playing in a do or die for the Cup 10 months ago.

IMO, based on the team that took the ice the last few games of this series than the last few games of the Philly series; this loss was worse. This was a much more talented team that lost as opposed to the team that blew the 3-0 lead vs the Flyers.

I think there's a lot of analogies between this team and the Pats...yes the cores of the two teams are pretty young but the two biggest pieces on each team (Brady and Chara) have a very finite window left that is closing rapidly. Will the Bs be as successful in Julien's system without the big guy back there playing 25-30 mins a game and covering a lot of mistakes?

 

[Frank McBain]

I don't know though, he's not exactly young at this point.

 

[Frank McBain]

Reign it in lucic! fucking too late

 

[Frank McBain]

I love him though haha

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I split out the Lucic discussion to the main Bruins board.

 

[Frank McBain]

Yeah, certainly. I don't love underperformance. No.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
I think it's best to save the "what should the Bruins do to fix their problems" for a non-game thread, and really, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you.  We're all pissed off and disappointed.  I'm *really* trying to gain some perspective here after what was, frankly, a crushing defeat.
 
In 2009-10, the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup.  In 2012-13, the Chicago Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup.  They had one of the best overall records in hockey over that four year span.  (also, in 2008-09, they went to the conference Finals and lost).  CLEARLY they were a solid team, and still are.  There is no rational argument that could be made that suggests that the Blackhawks, over that time period, were NOT a really, really good hockey team.  
 
And yet in-between those two championships, they were ousted in the first round of the playoffs both times.  
 
Heck, in 2011-12, they got beat in six games, losing game six at home to Phoenix 4-0.  
 
The point is this:  even really, really good teams can play lousy over short stretches, including the playoffs.  The best team in the league over the last 5 years (Chicago) has been eliminated in the first round twice.  Boston played very poorly in this series, nobody can argue otherwise.  But they *did* hit 13 frigging posts, had one goal head towards an open net and hit their own guy's skate (Marchand), had another puck going into the net but a Canadien player batted it out of the goal with his hand.  Meanwhile, Montreal last night got a goal off Chara's skate.
 
The Bruins were bad - came out with no energy in games 6-7, constantly fell behind, fell asleep on plays like Subban's goal coming out of the penalty box, etc.  However, they were also *incredibly* unlucky.  The goals (or non-goals) I just mentioned, plus one in game 6 where Rask was heading off the ice, turned to get back into the play when Montreal got the puck, but then just slipped and fell.  I mean, you've got to be kidding me with that kind of thing.
 
So yes, bad performance by a really good hockey team.  I'll save the "what should they do to fix things" discussion for the Bruins forum.

 
 
Chicago actually made some big changes after the Cup and in the years betwee, notably changing their number 1 goalie. 
 
So I disagree that the Bruins are gonna be just fine. They are pretty clearly not just fine. I think they need to change the way they play. This series exposed them badly. The number 1 points team in the league got run out of their own building because they were too slow, too soft, and too stupid to hang with Montreal. That's (not to go all JulE6 here) disgraceful.

 

[Salem's Lot]

 
 
Chicago actually made some big changes after the Cup and in the years betwee, notably changing their number 1 goalie. 
 
So I disagree that the Bruins are gonna be just fine. They are pretty clearly not just fine. I think they need to change the way they play. This series exposed them badly. The number 1 points team in the league got run out of their own building because they were too slow, too soft, and too stupid to hang with Montreal. That's (not to go all JulE6 here) disgraceful.

 
I think they have to make some pretty large roster adjustments due to the new playoff format. They're going to have to beat two of Montreal, Detroit, Tampa or Toronto every year to make it to the ECF. None of those are the "heavy" teams that this team is built to play against. They're all teams that play a speed/skill game and won't engage physically. They need more skill, speed and most of all finish around the net.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
 
Chicago actually made some big changes after the Cup and in the years betwee, notably changing their number 1 goalie. 
 
So I disagree that the Bruins are gonna be just fine. They are pretty clearly not just fine. I think they need to change the way they play. This series exposed them badly. The number 1 points team in the league got run out of their own building because they were too slow, too soft, and too stupid to hang with Montreal. That's (not to go all JulE6 here) disgraceful.

 
Again, I totally hear what you're saying.  Things always look bad when you play poorly and lose.  Harrison knocks the ball out of Tyree's hands (or they call the friggin' sack), or Asante makes the pick, and the Patriots are the greatest team of all time.  But things play out the way they did, and all of a sudden we're focusing on how soft the Pats' O-line is, and their lack of a power running game, and how badly they choked, etc.
 
A combination of bad play and bad luck.  One can compensate for the other.  They had craptastic luck so they needed to play a lot better.  But they didn't.  Conversely, they hit 13 frigging posts, lost another goal to an unlucky bounce off their own guy's skate, and had another goal stolen away when the Canadien player swatted it out of the goal mouth millimeters before it went in.  I mean, that's all crap, crap luck.  This series, as badly as Boston played, could easily have been won in 5 games, with just a slight difference in luck.  Incredible as it may seem, the Bruins outhit, outshot, and out face-offed (not a word, but you get the idea) the Canadiens. 
 
EDIT:  But let's say you're right.  What do you propose they do?

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Hitting 13 posts isn't IMO a sign of bad luck. At some point it's an indication of a galling inability to finish.
 
Hate to say it, we really could have used a Michael Ryder in this series. Just someone who won't choke when presented with a scoring chance.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
I think they have to make some pretty large roster adjustments due to the new playoff format. They're going to have to beat two of Montreal, Detroit, Tampa or Toronto every year to make it to the ECF. None of those are the "heavy" teams that this team is built to play against. They're all teams that play a speed/skill game and won't engage physically. They need more skill, speed and most of all finish around the net.

 
Exactly. It's time for a major retool. They finally realized that Wideman (a guy they had banked a huge part of their future on) wasn't an answer after the Philly collapse in '10; they need to understand that this series exposed their shortcomings in a similar way. To quote Bill James, they're slower than a fat girl chasing her chihuahua up a staircase. It killed them this year.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

Throughout the season, they've been really good as I've ever seen any team be,  at getting ugly goals, goals that were not produced not because of puck movement skill, but because of the cliched playing hard and getting goals on net. That didn't happen this series, for whatever reason.
 
I think the speed problem is mainly a factor of their first line (LKI) Krejci needs at least one speedy winger.
 
I hate to say it, but they missed Seguin and Peverley bad.
 
They also lost because Yemelin and Subban were incredible on D.

 

[ivanvamp]

Hitting 13 posts isn't IMO a sign of bad luck. At some point it's an indication of a galling inability to finish.
 
Hate to say it, we really could have used a Michael Ryder in this series. Just someone who won't choke when presented with a scoring chance.

 
Well, I asked this question earlier in the thread (or in the forum thread discussing the series…can't remember):  is hitting that many posts the sign of a good team getting lots of shots past Price, but just having bad luck, *or* is it a sign that they're just not that good at putting the puck in the net?  "Hey I hit the rim, but my three-pointers just won't go in!!!"
 
It's not an easy question to answer.  But the Bruins were the 3rd highest scoring team in the league, so clearly they have the ability to put the puck into the net.  They averaged 3.15 goals per game.  In the Detroit series they scored 14 goals in 5 games (2.8 per game), and through the first 10 games of the playoffs they scored 29 goals (2.9 per game).  So their scoring dropped off some in the playoffs, but not a crazy amount.  
 
The last two games were disastrous, however.  
 
During the regular season, the Bruins had 2612 shots on goal and scored 258, for a percentage of 9.88%.  
During the playoffs, the Bruins had 396 shots on goal and scored 30, for a percentage of 7.58%.
 
So they didn't finish well in the playoffs, but then again, you're playing better teams with better defenses and better goaltenders.  

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

You can't score 1 goal total in Games 6 and 7 of a series and not coming away thinking their scoring touch is sadly lacking. The regular season means nothing, it's the playoffs that matter.
 
The posts show they're not that good putting the puck in the net. Period. They need help.

 

[Frank McBain]

FUCK

 

[ivanvamp]

You can't score 1 goal total in Games 6 and 7 of a series and not coming away thinking their scoring touch is sadly lacking. The regular season means nothing, it's the playoffs that matter.
 
The posts show they're not that good putting the puck in the net. Period. They need help.

 
Well, in 2010-11, the Vancouver Canucks were the NHL's highest scoring team, with dazzling goal-scorers (ironically, they scored 258 goals that year; the exact same number as the Bruins scored this year).  And in the 5-game series leading up to the Stanley Cup Finals they scored 20 goals (4.0 per game) against San Jose.  So they had the league's best offense, and they were on an offensive roll.
 
Then they ran into Bergeron, Chara, Seidenberg, and Tim Thomas.  
 
And they scored 1, 3, 1, 0, 1, 2, and 0 goals - that's 8 goals in 7 games, including just 4 over the last 5 games.  
 
No, they didn't lack scoring touch.  They simply ran into an absolute brick wall.  And they probably missed some shots they normally would have made during the regular season.  
 
During the regular season, despite being the #3 scoring team in the league, the Bruins definitely had stretches where they struggled putting the puck into the net.  Just a quick scan through their game log, here's an example:
 
Jan 2-11, five games:  Goals scored:  2, 1, 2, 2, 1, for an average of 1.6 per game.  Went 3-2 over that stretch because of great D.
 
So even very good scoring teams go through short stretches where they struggle putting the puck in the net.  It happens.  It's more likely to happen against very good defensive teams with a goalie that's playing very well.
 
It just sucks that it was in the playoffs against Montreal.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
Well, in 2010-11, the Vancouver Canucks were the NHL's highest scoring team, with dazzling goal-scorers (ironically, they scored 258 goals that year; the exact same number as the Bruins scored this year).  And in the 5-game series leading up to the Stanley Cup Finals they scored 20 goals (4.0 per game) against San Jose.  So they had the league's best offense, and they were on an offensive roll.
 
Then they ran into Bergeron, Chara, Seidenberg, and Tim Thomas.  
 
And they scored 1, 3, 1, 0, 1, 2, and 0 goals - that's 8 goals in 7 games, including just 4 over the last 5 games.  
 
No, they didn't lack scoring touch.  They simply ran into an absolute brick wall.  And they probably missed some shots they normally would have made during the regular season.  
 
During the regular season, despite being the #3 scoring team in the league, the Bruins definitely had stretches where they struggled putting the puck into the net.  Just a quick scan through their game log, here's an example:
 
Jan 2-11, five games:  Goals scored:  2, 1, 2, 2, 1, for an average of 1.6 per game.  Went 3-2 over that stretch because of great D.
 
So even very good scoring teams go through short stretches where they struggle putting the puck in the net.  It happens.  It's more likely to happen against very good defensive teams with a goalie that's playing very well.
 
It just sucks that it was in the playoffs against Montreal.

 
The Canucks example proves, beyond any doubt, that regular season goal scoring is a crock of shit. The Canucks were utter frauds, they got exposed and they showed that they weren't a good team after all because the Bruins beat their cheap-shotting whining asses when it mattered.
 
If you're comparing this year's Bruins to that Canucks team I don't think that helps your point any. It's never a good idea to build a team like that Canucks team.

 

[Frank McBain]

goddammit. fuck ass fuck.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
The Canucks example proves, beyond any doubt, that regular season goal scoring is a crock of shit. The Canucks were utter frauds, they got exposed and they showed that they weren't a good team after all because the Bruins beat their cheap-shotting whining asses when it mattered.
 
If you're comparing this year's Bruins to that Canucks team I don't think that helps your point any. It's never a good idea to build a team like that Canucks team.

 
Well maybe you missed the point where they ripped off 20 goals in 5 games in the previous series, so scoring goals in the *playoffs* wasn't a problem for them either.
 
It's just that they ran into Tim Thomas who played an historically great series.  And still the Canucks took that Bruins team to 7 games.
 
I don't understand the logic behind the "they were a great team all season long, they bludgeoned their conference opponents during the playoffs, but they ran into an historically great Tim Thomas and still took the Bruins to 7 games but all that means is that they really weren't that good after all" thinking.
 
The point, which I think I've made, is that you can be a very good scoring team and just have a few games of not being able to score - be it you're just off, or the other team is playing great, or bad luck, or whatever.  And that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't score or that your team isn't good.  It's just how it goes sometimes.  
 
I'm not saying they shouldn't retool.  I don't know what the right moves are going forward.  But I don't think you can characterize this team as you are without being unfair to the entire body of work.  This is a very, very good team.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I don't understand the logic behind the "they were a great team all season long, they bludgeoned their conference opponents during the playoffs, but they ran into an historically great Tim Thomas and still took the Bruins to 7 games but all that means is that they really weren't that good after all" thinking.

 
Because once the Canucks ran into an otherworldy goalie, they completely lost their heads and started playing stupid hockey. Which is exactly what the Bruins did this year, only difference being that it wasn't the goalie that killed them all series, it was initial bad luck that they compounded by playing tight and nervously.
 
The Canucks were fucking frauds, a cheap soft team with bad coaching and absolutely no hockey sense whatsoever, because when they encountered adversity they turtled up. Well....that's what the Bruins did this year. They played their worst hockey when it mattered most. Price didn't steal Games 6 and 7. The Bruins choked them away.
 
EDIT: I'm getting more pissed off by the moment just thinking about this waste of a promising season, so I'm going to step back for a bit since I'm not ready to listen to your very reasonable counter-arguments. I'm off to smash things.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Ivan, you should know better...

 

[ivanvamp]

 
 
Because once the Canucks ran into an otherworldy goalie, they completely lost their heads and started playing stupid hockey. Which is exactly what the Bruins did this year, only difference being that it wasn't the goalie that killed them all series, it was initial bad luck that they compounded by playing tight and nervously.
 
The Canucks were fucking frauds, a cheap soft team with bad coaching and absolutely no hockey sense whatsoever, because when they encountered adversity they turtled up. Well....that's what the Bruins did this year. They played their worst hockey when it mattered most. Price didn't steal Games 6 and 7. The Bruins choked them away.
 
EDIT: I'm getting more pissed off by the moment just thinking about this waste of a promising season, so I'm going to step back for a bit since I'm not ready to listen to your very reasonable counter-arguments. I'm off to smash things.
 

 
Understood.  I was losing my mind last night too.  
 
Thank GOD the Red Sox won the World Series.  I mean, every playoff defeat of our favorite teams makes me appreciate the championships even more.
 
We are still very, very lucky as a fan base.

 

[ivanvamp]

Ivan, you should know better...

 
…..than what?

 

[Frank McBain]

snitches get stitches

 

[Frank McBain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKFJb181bVM

 

[Bozo Texino]

I don't like Marchand myself. He's a weasel with really high highs and really low lows. I'd rather have a consistent player out there that represents the organization better.

 
I feel the same way about Marchand that I felt about Papelbon.  Not so much a matter of consistency, really - it was just a heck of a lot tougher to root for Papelbon than it was the rest of his teammates.
 
I just don't like him.

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
…..than what?

 
Trying to reason with SJH so close to Bruins Elimination Day.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Trying to reason with SJH so close to Bruins Elimination Day.

 
Heh.  Well, we all grieve in different ways, I guess.  

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
Trying to reason with SJH so close to Bruins Elimination Day.

 
 
Don't you have another bar to get thrown out of?

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
 
Don't you have another bar to get thrown out of?

 
Ha! I should have expected. Five years ago, I've learned and moved on. You're like 40 and still act like a petulant, hormonal 12 year old when the Bruins lose. During the game is one thing, having slept on it and still waking up and saying stuff like the Bruins "aren't a solid team" and have "no character?"
 
Grow up, your act is old.