Game 7 - Montreal @ Boston - Protect the Civic

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
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.

 
My opinion stands. Of both this year's Bruins and you.You'll note that I didn't feel this way after the series against Chicago last year, because they played well and came up just short.
 
Fuck right off.

 

[catomatic]

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

Nowhere in there is there an attempt to diagnose the massive number of unforced errors, poor passing, etc. If teams themselves commonly credit the other team with "wanting it more" why is that unacceptable in here? Too much showy parsing in an effort to be the "most discerning analyst on the entire board." Hey Veritas, nice job taking something respectful and steering it toward douche-baggery. Huge Nancies (who subscribe to NESN and watch every game through highs and lows) are a way better species than common variety shit slingers.

 

[Stitch01]

Yes. Lets take bland sports cliches at face value and substitute it for actual analysis.

 

[kenneycb]

Nowhere in there is there an attempt to diagnose the massive number of unforced errors, poor passing, etc. If teams themselves commonly credit the other team with "wanting it more" why is that unacceptable in here? Too much showy parsing in an effort to be the "most discerning analyst on the entire board." Hey Veritas, nice job taking something respectful and steering it toward douche-baggery. Huge Nancies (who subscribe to NESN and watch every game through highs and lows) are a way better species than common variety shit slingers.

I would more chalk it up to Montreal clogging the neutral zone and using their speed to disrupt passing lanes, leading to more indirect and other bouncing passes that proved difficult to complete given Montreal's proximity to Bruins players and probably because the ice gets shittier the warmer it is.  But that's just me.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I'm sick about this one.  I don't agree with the CHB that this loss belongs in the pantheon of terribles.  1971 Bs, Too Many Men, 1986 Sox, 2003 Sox, 2006 Pats and the Pats SBs all dwarf this by a shit ton. 
 
But it does suck to the extreme, and for Boston fans living in NY, nothing could be worse than Habs-Rangers.  It is true that these Rangers aren't particulrly hateable on paper.  But that they are a NY team and that most of their fans are also MFY fans means I can only wish terrible misfortune upon them.  This is like The Osama Bin Laden All Stars versus the Sadaam Hussein All Stars.  A plauge should fall hard on both teams.
 
Go Western Conference.

 

[JayMags71]

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.

I agree with the idea that Price didn't steal games six and seven. However. Montreal seemed to win with a "park the bus" strategy that made him look better than he was. It seemed whenever the Bruins were in the offensive zone, the Canadiens had 3-4 guys in front of the net shutting down any shooting lanes. Then, when Canadiens countered, they flew right by any Bruins, who all looked like they had cement in their skates.

I think my worst fears were realized, in that the Olympics took a LOT out of Bergeron, Krejci, and (Especially) Chara. Z looked like Cavs/Celtics era Shaq, skating with refrigerator strapped to his back.

 

[ivanvamp]

I think that makes sense.
 
What is so frustrating is that even with all that - with the crappy play, the uncharacteristic mistakes, the slowed Chara, the less-than-terrific Rask, everything - they were just a few pucks that didn't hit the post away from winning this thing in 5 games.

 

[catomatic]

Yes. Lets take bland sports cliches at face value and substitute it for actual analysis.

So, if you found yourself on a barstool next to David Krejci who said, somewhat abashedly that, "...maybe Montreal wanted it a bit more..." you would argue with him? Or would you say that it's impossible that David Krejci would ever make such an assessment of the series? You're really that sure of your own analysis? I would call that hubris. Some cliches become cliches because there's truth in them—not all, by any stretch, but when it's a diagnosis the athletes themselves use, and not infrequently, I think it becomes valid. 

 

[catomatic]

I would more chalk it up to Montreal clogging the neutral zone and using their speed to disrupt passing lanes, leading to more indirect and other bouncing passes that proved difficult to complete given Montreal's proximity to Bruins players and probably because the ice gets shittier the warmer it is.  But that's just me.

I think this is valid. It's also something they failed to overcome or adjust to—something that was uncharacteristic of this team's trademark versatility. It's not like it's the first time they've encountered something like that. They also were extremely sloppy in their own end—while under no pressure whatsoever—and that's the kind of thing that betrays to me a foggy-brained team. The way to get out of that is with ratcheting up your focus with renewed desire and aggression. Didn't happen.

 

[PedroSpecialK]

I've learned a few things in the past 24 hours.
 
1) I'm never going to an elimination game again
 
2) The Bruins did not deserve to win that series. As somebody/many people said earlier, they were more scared of losing than willing themselves to win. Tentative short passes in your own zone don't work as a fallback when you're being pressured on every possession. It led to myriad icings and turnovers by way of wayward passes and pucks in skates.
 
3) This team missed Dennis Seidenberg a shitload, and Montreal had the benefit of zero injured defenders, and no injured players outside of Galchenyuk
 
4) The park-the-bus analogy was spot on. The Bruins were unusually stationary with very short passes and no cross-seam looks. They had very few opportunities from good angles without a Hab in the way to block the shot - and when they had then, they missed high/wide, hit the post, or hit Price's chest
 
5) Games like this bother me a lot less since 6/15/11. I think a lot of folks here would be well-served to have some perspective on a tough 2nd round loss after 2 trips to the Finals in 3 years - after none in the prior 20+ predating it. 

 

[Stitch01]

Simple minds like simple narratives. Its cool. Not sure how to address your imaginary conversation with David Krejci about why the Bruins suddenly lost the desire to beat their biggest rivals.

To Catomatic obviously

 

[RoyalOrange]

I think this is valid. It's also something they failed to overcome or adjust to—something that was uncharacteristic of this team's trademark versatility. It's not like it's the first time they've encountered something like that. They also were extremely sloppy in their own end—while under no pressure whatsoever—and that's the kind of thing that betrays to me a foggy-brained team. The way to get out of that is with ratcheting up your focus with renewed desire and aggression. Didn't happen.

 
Focus, desire, and aggression are three completely different mindsets. I would be the first to say that the Bruins lacked aggression in Games 6 and 7, but that doesn't mean that they lacked desire. I think most are taking issue with the fact that you are insinuating they wanted to win less than the Habs, which we all find hard to believe when they are each other's biggest rival and a trip to the ECF was on the line. Perhaps they had momentary lapses in focus, perhaps they weren't in the same physical shape as the Habs at times, and maybe they just got flat out beat. If everyone played their best all through the playoffs then it would make for much more scintillating television, but it simply can't happen.

 

[kenneycb]

I think this is valid. It's also something they failed to overcome or adjust to—something that was uncharacteristic of this team's trademark versatility. It's not like it's the first time they've encountered something like that. They also were extremely sloppy in their own end—while under no pressure whatsoever—and that's the kind of thing that betrays to me a foggy-brained team. The way to get out of that is with ratcheting up your focus with renewed desire and aggression. Didn't happen.

What the hell does this even mean?  It's like you wanted to see how many generic buzzwords you could fit in a sentence.  It literally sounds like those stupid slogans on the BC Superfan shirts for every class.  "Boston College Class of 2018: Ratcheting up our focus with renewed desire and aggression".  It's close enough to the one from a few years ago that was something like "Ignite the Heights with spirit and truth".

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

What the hell does this even mean?  It's like you wanted to see how many generic buzzwords you could fit in a sentence.  It literally sounds like those stupid slogans on the BC Superfan shirts for every class.  "Boston College Class of 2018: Ratcheting up our focus with renewed desire and aggression".  It's close enough to the one from a few years ago that was something like "Ignite the Heights with spirit and truth".

 
I'm so glad I went to BC before the advent of the Superfan shirts. Or the internet, really.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I can't believe the amount of people in this thread that are actually blaming effort and other cliches that speak to not trying as hard as they could have.  It's complete and utter bullshit.  They are professional athletes.  Professional athletes go out and give everything they have every single night.  Whether that translates into wins and losses is another argument.  You can argue a lot of things about why they didn't win the series but effort and intensity is not one of them.  People go to things like effort and intensity when they can't put together an intelligent argument as to why something did or did not happen.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

I've learned a few things in the past 24 hours.
 
1) I'm never going to an elimination game again
 
2) The Bruins did not deserve to win that series. As somebody/many people said earlier, they were more scared of losing than willing themselves to win. Tentative short passes in your own zone don't work as a fallback when you're being pressured on every possession. It led to myriad icings and turnovers by way of wayward passes and pucks in skates.
 
3) This team missed Dennis Seidenberg a shitload, and Montreal had the benefit of zero injured defenders, and no injured players outside of Galchenyuk
 
4) The park-the-bus analogy was spot on. The Bruins were unusually stationary with very short passes and no cross-seam looks. They had very few opportunities from good angles without a Hab in the way to block the shot - and when they had then, they missed high/wide, hit the post, or hit Price's chest
 
5) Games like this bother me a lot less since 6/15/11. I think a lot of folks here would be well-served to keep have some perspective on a tough 2nd round loss after 2 trips to the Finals in 3 years - after none in the prior 20+ predating it. 

Thank you.

 

[catomatic]

Simple minds like simple narratives. Its cool. Not sure how to address your imaginary conversation with David Krejci about why the Bruins suddenly lost the desire to beat their biggest rivals.

To Catomatic obviously

Oh, now I've got a simple mind? Love it. What is a simpler narrative than the one you just asserted about simple minds liking simple narratives. Tell me why it is that one of the oldest maxims—within the world of hockey—used by players, coaches and everyone else is "Will beats Skill." Why is that? Is that a simple narrative and everyone who plays and coaches the game is using an analysis inferior to your own? Also, did I assert that David Krejci says the Bruins suddenly lost the desire to beat their biggest rivals? Or was that your reductive, condescending frame? Kind of simple-minded one, too.

 

[catomatic]

I can't believe the amount of people in this thread that are actually blaming effort and other cliches that speak to not trying as hard as they could have.  It's complete and utter bullshit.  They are professional athletes.  Professional athletes go out and give everything they have every single night.  Whether that translates into wins and losses is another argument.  You can argue a lot of things about why they didn't win the series but effort and intensity is not one of them.  People go to things like effort and intensity when they can't put together an intelligent argument as to why something did or did not happen.

See, from where I sit; this (in bold) is not an intelligent argument. These guys have robotic wills? What nonsense. What turned around the Rangers in their series? They found another gear is what happened—something woke that up for them. Aaron Rome woke that up for the moribund Bruins against Vancouver. For whatever reason, that never got ignited for the Bruins in these last two games and to argue otherwise is just plain silly, I think. Why does the phrase "Will beats Skill" get used as much as it does in the world of hockey if everybody's will was maxed out 100% of the time and the only thing left to analyze is tactics and strategy and execution. To ignore the will and the margin of desire that sometimes proves elusive is to exist in a state of permanent fanboyism. These are human beings. My analysis factors in all kinds of other things you suggest, without any evidence, that I am incapable of making. I haven't asserted it here because the over-riding sense I got was what I've already expressed and the forest bore more discussion than the trees. I'm not saying and haven't said they didn't want to demolish their fiercest rivals—I never said that, don't put words in my mouth.

 

[RoyalOrange]

Urgent desire is often a good creator of focus. Taking a team lightly—or allowing fear of losing to distract you from your focus are both functions of insufficient desire. At least in my book they are. 

 
 

Playing not to lose is, in my opinion, experience—and observation in this series—a function of insufficient desire.

 
 

Clear, unobstructed (by fear) desire—screws your head on right.

 
 

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.

 
 

Canadiens played with house money, Bruins played scared.
 
One of these mindsets is characterized by desire and the other is not.

 
 

They also were extremely sloppy in their own end—while under no pressure whatsoever—and that's the kind of thing that betrays to me a foggy-brained team. The way to get out of that is with ratcheting up your focus with renewed desire and aggression.

 
 

To ignore the will and the margin of desire that sometimes proves elusive is to exist in a state of permanent fanboyism.

 
This is all just too good. Be sure to drop back in sometime and enlighten us peons when you're done giving pep talks to the brightest minds in sport.

 

[RedOctober3829]

See, from where I sit; this (in bold) is not an intelligent argument. These guys have robotic wills? What nonsense. What turned around the Rangers in their series? They found another gear is what happened—something woke that up for them. Aaron Rome woke that up for the moribund Bruins against Vancouver. For whatever reason, that never got ignited for the Bruins in these last two games and to argue otherwise is just plain silly, I think. Why does the phrase "Will beats Skill" get used as much as it does in the world of hockey if everybody's will was maxed out 100% of the time and the only thing left to analyze is tactics and strategy and execution. To ignore the will and the margin of desire that sometimes proves elusive is to exist in a state of permanent fanboyism. These are human beings. My analysis factors in all kinds of other things you suggest, without any evidence, that I am incapable of making. I haven't asserted it here because the over-riding sense I got was what I've already expressed and the forest bore more discussion than the trees. I'm not saying and haven't said they didn't want to demolish their fiercest rivals—I never said that, don't put words in my mouth.

First of all, I didn't mention your name once in my post so don't get all butthurt and think it's a personal attack.  Secondly, yes I believe professional athletes(and most every level of athletics for that matter) play their hardest every single night. They may not play their best every time because that's simply not possible, but they are giving 100% of what they have on that given day or night.  It's the playoffs.  Do you honestly think the Bruins did not give maximum effort?  Were they just aiming for the post 13 times because they didn't have the will to put it on net? Did the defensemen just hand over the puck to Montreal in their own zone because they weren't trying hard enough? They got beat in this series because there were way too many tactical errors and missed chances. It happens.  The other team gets paid too so credit Montreal for playing better than the Bruins did. 
 
Living in permanent "fanboyism" is not believing the team you root for did anything wrong and everything is awesome.  I think the majority of fans in here believe the Bruins were not the better team over these past 7 games and are accepting the fact that they didn't deserve to win based on their level of play.  Don't give me this crap about "Will over Skill".  It's a motivating tactic that frankly doesn't mean a whole lot.  Sure, motivation and focus is part of a winning formula but let's be real here: that shit goes out the window once you get on the ice, field, court, etc.  It's about who executes their game plan the most.  The thing with MSL and the Rangers is a nice storyline, but if Lundquist doesn't stand on his head in Game 7 they're going home.  Same thing with Aaron Rome and the Bruins.  If Thomas isn't God for those games, they lose.

 

[catomatic]

First of all, I didn't mention your name once in my post so don't get all butthurt and think it's a personal attack.  Secondly, yes I believe professional athletes(and most every level of athletics for that matter) play their hardest every single night. They may not play their best every time because that's simply not possible, but they are giving 100% of what they have on that given day or night.  It's the playoffs.  Do you honestly think the Bruins did not give maximum effort?  Were they just aiming for the post 13 times because they didn't have the will to put it on net? Did the defensemen just hand over the puck to Montreal in their own zone because they weren't trying hard enough? They got beat in this series because there were way too many tactical errors and missed chances. It happens.  The other team gets paid too so credit Montreal for playing better than the Bruins did. 
 
Living in permanent "fanboyism" is not believing the team you root for did anything wrong and everything is awesome.  I think the majority of fans in here believe the Bruins were not the better team over these past 7 games and are accepting the fact that they didn't deserve to win based on their level of play.  Don't give me this crap about "Will over Skill".  It's a motivating tactic that frankly doesn't mean a whole lot.  Sure, motivation and focus is part of a winning formula but let's be real here: that shit goes out the window once you get on the ice, field, court, etc.  It's about who executes their game plan the most.  The thing with MSL and the Rangers is a nice storyline, but if Lundquist doesn't stand on his head in Game 7 they're going home.  Same thing with Aaron Rome and the Bruins.  If Thomas isn't God for those games, they lose.

They outscored them 8-1 immediately after the Aaron Rome hit. Thomas didn't have a lot to do with the tidal wave of offense that followed that hit. The Bruins found an extra ounce of desire after that hit. It's that elusive extra ounce I'm talking about. It crystallized their game after that hit and they never found/sustained that vital extra ounce in this series. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This is all just too good. Be sure to drop back in sometime and enlighten us peons when you're done giving pep talks to the brightest minds in sport.

Blood in the water, eh—feel safe in numbers? Speaks well of all the people who thought it necessary to make personal attacks over a single assertion about this series. It's unquantifiable, yes, but so are all of yours. Jeebus, the odor of self-regard in this thread is getting a little much.

 

[veritas]

They outscored them 8-1 immediately after the Aaron Rome hit. Thomas didn't have a lot to do with the tidal wave of offense that followed that hit. The Bruins found an extra ounce of desire after that hit. It's that elusive extra ounce I'm talking about. It crystallized their game after that hit and they never found/sustained that vital extra ounce in this series. 
 
Blood in the water, eh—feel safe in numbers? Speaks well of all the people who thought it necessary to make personal attacks over a single assertion about this series. It's unquantifiable, yes, but so are all of yours. Jeebus, the odor of self-regard in this thread is getting a little much.

 
An ounce of desire, is that a lot? Are we talking mass or volume here?

 

[catomatic]

 
An ounce of desire, is that a lot? Are we talking mass or volume here?

Waste of energy here, going in circles while one side offers no explanation for the uncharacteristically lackluster play from the Bruins that defined the series. Content to criticize a game thread assertion while pretending they don't recognize the dynamic in the slightest. Veritas indeed. Try a little Lux while you're at it.

 

[Myt1]

See, from where I sit; this (in bold) is not an intelligent argument. These guys have robotic wills? What nonsense. What turned around the Rangers in their series? They found another gear is what happenedsomething woke that up for them. Aaron Rome woke that up for the moribund Bruins against Vancouver. For whatever reason, that never got ignited for the Bruins in these last two games and to argue otherwise is just plain silly, I think. Why does the phrase "Will beats Skill" get used as much as it does in the world of hockey if everybody's will was maxed out 100% of the time and the only thing left to analyze is tactics and strategy and execution. To ignore the will and the margin of desire that sometimes proves elusive is to exist in a state of permanent fanboyism. These are human beings. My analysis factors in all kinds of other things you suggest, without any evidence, that I am incapable of making.

No it doesn't. Your "analysis" is nothing but begging the question dressed up in some silly high school coach-speak.

The Bruins were the more talented team.
The more talented team didn't win.
Ergo, the failure must have been one of effort or character.

The Rangers were playing badly.
The Rangers began playing better.
Ergo, the improvement must have been based on some success of effort or character.

I'm admittedly nicer to him because I love him, but every time you or SJH or anyone else argues this nonsense, I feel like I'm watching a baby with an adult vocabulary explain to me exactly how the world ceases to exist when he covers his eyes during a game of peekaboo. It's so painfully obviously logically flawed that I want to cover my shoulder in a spit-up towel and rock you to sleep.

 

[Myt1]

You know why the Rangers won? Because Marc Andre-Flurry sucks and Henrik Lunqvuist is a demigod. And it still took 7 games for that to work out.

Fuck, one time I flipped a coin seven times and it came up heads 6-1.

 

[Myt1]

Waste of energy here, going in circles while one side offers no explanation for the uncharacteristically lackluster play from the Bruins that defined the series. Content to criticize a game thread assertion while pretending they don't recognize the dynamic in the slightest. Veritas indeed. Try a little Lux while you're at it.

Shit. I wish I knew how to write "post hoc ergo propter hoc" in Latin.

 

[RoyalOrange]

They outscored them 8-1 immediately after the Aaron Rome hit. Thomas didn't have a lot to do with the tidal wave of offense that followed that hit. The Bruins found an extra ounce of desire after that hit. It's that elusive extra ounce I'm talking about. It crystallized their game after that hit and they never found/sustained that vital extra ounce in this series. 
 
Blood in the water, eh—feel safe in numbers? Speaks well of all the people who thought it necessary to make personal attacks over a single assertion about this series. It's unquantifiable, yes, but so are all of yours. Jeebus, the odor of self-regard in this thread is getting a little much.

 
Haha it's a testament that there are no "number" of people jumping to take your side on this. Just because the majority is against you doesn't make it wrong for someone to join that contingent. I could make a similar statement about you being backed into a corner. This hyperbole is fucking exhausting. If you think that was a personal attack then you may need to reassess how much you frequent this board or the thickness of your skin. If you desire to make it through this discussion, though, I'm sure you can will yourself and find that extra ounce of focus.

 

[ivanvamp]

I don't know if the Bruins lost this series because they executed poorly, just couldn't put pucks in the net, got unlucky, got hosed by the refs, or were outworked.  Probably a combination of all of that.  Blaming it on any one particular thing is silly.  Sports are always much more complex than that.
 
But if you've ever played competitive sports at any level high school and up (I played in college, but not beyond that), then you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that nobody brings their very best effort every single time out.  It just does not happen.  Even the greatest players in the world dog it on occasion, or at least give it less than 100%.  It is not crazy to think that that the Canadiens outworked the Bruins in this series.  There were plenty of times when I saw Boston really working, but there were also plenty of times where I thought, holy crap, Montreal is just beating Boston to every puck, winning every 50/50 play, hitting just a little more and a little harder, everything.  I mean, it happens.  
 
For example, compare Boston's first period in game 6 to the last 10 minutes of the game last night.  The first period of game 6, Boston seemed to be dominated all over the ice, out hustled at every turn.  The last 10 minutes of last night, they were flying all over the place (they just couldn't buy a goal).  You could actually SEE the difference.  

 

[JohntheBaptist]

You know why the Rangers won? Because Marc Andre-Flurry sucks and Henrik Lunqvuist is a demigod. And it still took 7 games for that to work out.

Fuck, one time I flipped a coin seven times and it came up heads 6-1.

 
Well everyone knows tails has no guts whatsoever and is a total fraud side of the coin.

 

[Myt1]

I don't know if the Bruins lost this series because they executed poorly, just couldn't put pucks in the net, got unlucky, got hosed by the refs, or were outworked.  Probably a combination of all of that.  Blaming it on any one particular thing is silly.  Sports are always much more complex than that.
 
But if you've ever played competitive sports at any level high school and up (I played in college, but not beyond that), then you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that nobody brings their very best effort every single time out.  It just does not happen.  Even the greatest players in the world dog it on occasion, or at least give it less than 100%.  It is not crazy to think that that the Canadiens outworked the Bruins in this series.  There were plenty of times when I saw Boston really working, but there were also plenty of times where I thought, holy crap, Montreal is just beating Boston to every puck, winning every 50/50 play, hitting just a little more and a little harder, everything.  I mean, it happens.  
 
For example, compare Boston's first period in game 6 to the last 10 minutes of the game last night.  The first period of game 6, Boston seemed to be dominated all over the ice, out hustled at every turn.  The last 10 minutes of last night, they were flying all over the place (they just couldn't buy a goal).  You could actually SEE the difference.  

And the result was exactly the same. Which, of course, is the point.

The Bruins didn't play well in Game 6 period 1, but dominated Game 6 period 2. Remind me how that played out with regard to results on the scoreboard? Did they want it more in the 2nd period or less?

To the extent that you're just saying that they're not effort automatons and that effort ebbs and flows, I do agree. It's just obviously not outcome dispositive, as some would have it.

 

[Stitch01]

Oh, now I've got a simple mind? Love it. What is a simpler narrative than the one you just asserted about simple minds liking simple narratives. Tell me why it is that one of the oldest maximswithin the world of hockeyused by players, coaches and everyone else is "Will beats Skill." Why is that? Is that a simple narrative and everyone who plays and coaches the game is using an analysis inferior to your own? Also, did I assert that David Krejci says the Bruins suddenly lost the desire to beat their biggest rivals? Or was that your reductive, condescending frame? Kind of simple-minded one, too.

I don't know if you have a simple mind, but your analysis is sure as hell simple minded.

Guess if a puck doesn't hit Marchand in game 1 the Bruins WIM would have been much higher. Iginla just must never want to win a cup.

Lol at "will beats skill" as being some sort of truism. No need to step up the search for scoring I guess, just get the the first line to want it more. BOOM championship.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

I don't know if you have a simple mind, but your analysis is sure as hell simple minded.

Guess if a puck doesn't hit Marchand in game 1 the Bruins WIM would have been much higher. Iginla just must never want to win a cup.

Lol at "will beats skill" as being some sort of truism. No need to step up the search for scoring I guess, just get the the first line to want it more. BOOM championship.

I'm picturing a Canadien and a Bruin, hooked up to some sort of medical monitoring device via wires. They sit still, focused, staring straight ahead.
 
Suddenly the monitor on the Bruin goes "PING" and the lamp lights the sign--"WANTS IT MORE."
 
The crowd goes wild.

 

[catomatic]

I have to laugh at the reductio ad absurdum renditions of what I said, I mean really guys—look at what I wrote and then how you've re-characterized it and then tell me again how much more accurate you are in your assessments. Ivanvamp, a fellow collegiate hockey player, had some cogent things to say too, and I suspect he wouldn't cry foul at Max Pacioretty's assessment of being given: "…gave us that extra motivation." (direct quote from today). But sure guys, whatever, you know better than Max about what contributes to losing and winning. Jesu Christo. I'll say this; You're certainly good at distorting a poster's assertions, that's for sure. Before you hit the snark button again, go back and see what it was I wrote and then check it against your characterization of same. Thick-skinned is good, but telling someone to "go fuck yourself" because you questioned the Bruins' desire is a bit much. And, if you read through, you'll see that much of this conversation turned on the last two games when the self-appointed Nancy police attacked anyone who wasn't thinly slicing every causative aspect rather than accepting that the Bruins were lacking something beyond luck and situational execution skills. Distort away.

 

[TSC]

Go fuck yourself.

 

[catomatic]

Go fuck yourself.

You go fuck yourself first.

 

[ivanvamp]

And the result was exactly the same. Which, of course, is the point.
The Bruins didn't play well in Game 6 period 1, but dominated Game 6 period 2. Remind me how that played out with regard to results on the scoreboard? Did they want it more in the 2nd period or less?
To the extent that you're just saying that they're not effort automatons and that effort ebbs and flows, I do agree. It's just obviously not outcome dispositive, as some would have it.

Definitely agree. Sometimes you play a lot harder, but the other team gets a few lucky bounces. Or they're just way more talented. I could outwork Patrice Bergeron by a factor of a hundred and I wouldn't be able to get a shot off against him. Mainly because I can't really skate very well.

One edit though. I coach high school level basketball, and it is very easy for me to tell when my players are not giving max effort. Now it is high school, not the pros, but human nature is human nature. The pros fall into effort lapses just like anyone else, and their coaches know it the most. Quite often a losing coach will point out that the effort was not what he wanted, and he's not blowing smoke. The effort truly wasn't there. Effort is a fungible thing, and it absolutely matters. It doesn't mean that the team that wants it the most automatically wins, but take two equally skilled teams and the team that gives the best effort will, more often than not, come out ahead.

Put it this way. I'm a Syracuse guy so this is painful for me to go there, but Derrick Coleman had the talent to be an all time great. But he was lazy and absolutely did not put in the effort required to reach that level.

 

[ivanvamp]

I have to laugh at the reductio ad absurdum renditions of what I said, I mean really guyslook at what I wrote and then how you've re-characterized it and then tell me again how much more accurate you are in your assessments. Ivanvamp, a fellow collegiate hockey player, had some cogent things to say too, and I suspect he wouldn't cry foul at Max Pacioretty's assessment of being given: "gave us that extra motivation." (direct quote from today). But sure guys, whatever, you know better than Max about what contributes to losing and winning. Jesu Christo. I'll say this; You're certainly good at distorting a poster's assertions, that's for sure. Before you hit the snark button again, go back and see what it was I wrote and then check it against your characterization of same. Thick-skinned is good, but telling someone to "go fuck yourself" because you questioned the Bruins' desire is a bit much. And, if you read through, you'll see that much of this conversation turned on the last two games when the self-appointed Nancy police attacked anyone who wasn't thinly slicing every causative aspect rather than accepting that the Bruins were lacking something beyond luck and situational execution skills. Distort away.

Point of correction. I played volleyball, not hockey, in college. I apologize for not clarifying that. But athletics is athletics.

 

[TSC]

You go fuck yourself first.

 
No you first.

 

[catomatic]

I'm picturing a Canadien and a Bruin, hooked up to some sort of medical monitoring device via wires. They sit still, focused, staring straight ahead.
 
Suddenly the monitor on the Bruin goes "PING" and the lamp lights the sign--"WANTS IT MORE."
 
The crowd goes wild.

I must have missed your characterization of Games 6 and 7. Because that's where the conversation started. Nobody was counting the posts and calculating the territorial dominance more keenly than I—until Games 6 and 7, and then the narrative completely changed. Maybe you guys missed that, but that was the genesis of this whole conversation, but please, cherry-pick to your heart's content thereby allowing yourself to blindly work off some of that anger and frustration. No one cares because it would put a hitch in their giddy up, but if you look upthread, you'll see that I was talking about a quantity of desire that is just beyond our ability to conjure it when we want to. I'm a performer and I know this dynamic very well—desire, of a particular kind, can change and inform an effort in a way you never would have anticipated. You also might feel slightly ashamed that you couldn't dial that up at will. And then you recognize that it's elusive—and beautifully so. But for god's sake stick to your closely held ideologies and bludgeon those who you deem blasphemers.

 

[catomatic]

 
No you first.

X infinity.

 

[catomatic]

Definitely agree. Sometimes you play a lot harder, but the other team gets a few lucky bounces. Or they're just way more talented. I could outwork Patrice Bergeron by a factor of a hundred and I wouldn't be able to get a shot off against him. Mainly because I can't really skate very well.

 

And the result was exactly the same. Which, of course, is the point.

The Bruins didn't play well in Game 6 period 1, but dominated Game 6 period 2. Remind me how that played out with regard to results on the scoreboard? Did they want it more in the 2nd period or less?

To the extent that you're just saying that they're not effort automatons and that effort ebbs and flows, I do agree. It's just obviously not outcome dispositive, as some would have it.

See, here it is, the easiest and least brave way to puncture the type of assertion I've made is to reduce it into some ridiculous form. Period 2 only? Let me check my desire factor notes. Yes, in period 2 of Game 6 they dominated territorially but critical lapses—as we all saw—killed the good work they were doing in the other end. So, then, one can't really and truly call it domination—because they left the door open twice and Montreal was happy to walk right through it. So, something that was lacking in concentration paved the way for those goals. If I remember correctly Meszaros couldn't get one through, overcommitted and singlehandedly allowed that breakaway. The other was Marchand, maybe? Turning it over in the neutral zone? I may be wrong, but those were critical lapses in concentration. Here's another bit of coach speak for you guys to chew on and bloody up. "There's nothing to focus the mind like a hanging." That's a sense of urgency. Coach (Dr.) Samuel Johnson, whose team: "The white-livered runagates" dialed up an undefeated season in 1752.

 

[ivanvamp]

The correct answer is that sometimes you are out worked and that's the key difference in the game. And other times you are out worked and it doesn't matter, because you're more talented and/or get a few lucky breaks. The Bruins lost for a LOT of reasons. Being out worked is one of them, IMO, but not the only one.

 

[The Napkin]

knock it off. jesus christ.

 

[Myt1]

 
No you first.

You don't want it enough!

I don't have the desire to tell him he's using reductio incorrectly.

 

[Ed Hillel]

knock it off. jesus christ.

YOU knock it off.

 

[Myt1]

 
See, here it is, the easiest and least brave way to puncture the type of assertion I've made is to reduce it into some ridiculous form. Period 2 only? Let me check my desire factor notes. Yes, in period 2 of Game 6 they dominated territorially but critical lapsesas we all sawkilled the good work they were doing in the other end. So, then, one can't really and truly call it dominationbecause they left the door open twice and Montreal was happy to walk right through it. So, something that was lacking in concentration paved the way for those goals. If I remember correctly Meszaros couldn't get one through, overcommitted and singlehandedly allowed that breakaway. The other was Marchand, maybe? Turning it over in the neutral zone? I may be wrong, but those were critical lapses in concentration. Here's another bit of coach speak for you guys to chew on and bloody up. "There's nothing to focus the mind like a hanging." That's a sense of urgency. Coach (Dr.) Samuel Johnson, whose team: "The white-livered runagates" dialed up an undefeated season in 1752.

Meszaros didn't play in game 6. The appeal to authority is cute though.

But just to avoid you complaining about me mischaracterizing your argument, the bolded is why your argument sucks.

The Bruins made a mistake.

Montreal capitalized on the mistakes.

Ergo, there was a lack of concentration by the Bruins.

And I'll save the fact that your hindsight narrative creation is entirely outcome determinative, which makes it circular. Had Montreal not capitalized and a Bruins puck bounced in during the second, you'd have us believe that the Bruins dug deep and found that extra ounce of concentration/effort/manliness because you don't want to live in a world in which sometimes even doing everything right results in failure.

 

[catomatic]

Meszaros didn't play in game 6. The appeal to authority is cute though.

But just to avoid you complaining about me mischaracterizing your argument, the bolded is why your argument sucks.

The Bruins made a mistake.

Montreal capitalized on the mistakes.

Ergo, there was a lack of concentration by the Bruins.

No, the overall point was that it didn't qualify as domination. I was responding to the argument that their effort level in game 6 belied my characterization that they were missing a key percentage of desire and focus. Someone wanted to SSS my assertion in true reductio ad absurdum fashion. But yeah, those defensive lapses—whoever it was that committed them—spoke to poor concentration. Why is this even arguable? Why do you think they played the way they did in games 6 and 7? Was it the same level of effort and intensity as earlier in the series or were they demoralized by dominating territorially and having nothing to show for it? Will and desire get obstructed by such things. Again, is this arguable? The determination to frame emotion as irrelevant to this game of hockey is really extraordinary. The worship of the infallible professional will is frankly a little strange. 

 

[Myt1]

I'm not framing emotion as irrelevant. I'm saying that claiming that it's determinative in every instance circularly is stupid.

You still don't know what reductio is. Stop trying to use it.

 

[lars10]

No, the overall point was that it didn't qualify as domination. I was responding to the argument that their effort level in game 6 belied my characterization that they were missing a key percentage of desire and focus. Someone wanted to SSS my assertion in true reductio ad absurdum fashion. But yeah, those defensive lapses—whoever it was that committed them—spoke to poor concentration. Why is this even arguable? Why do you think they played the way they did in games 6 and 7? Was it the same level of effort and intensity as earlier in the series or were they demoralized by dominating territorially and having nothing to show for it? Will and desire get obstructed by such things. Again, is this arguable? The determination to frame emotion as irrelevant to this game of hockey is really extraordinary. The worship of the infallible professional will is frankly a little strange. 

1. Chara was playing with a broken hand?  So perhaps his stick handling wasn't as good as it would have been?
2. Sometimes the puck bouncing a certain way has nothing to do with concentration?
3. There are many other reasons than 'concentration' for why there can be defensive lapses or misplays…I think that's why it's arguable.
 
So when you say 'is this arguable'….yes.  Most if not all of your statements are arguable…which is why most people are disagreeing with you…or at least saying that there are a ton of other reasons other than 'effort, intensity, determination, concentration' etc. for why the Bruins lost.

 

[Stitch01]

Meszaros definitely didn't WIM in game 6. Good stuff.