BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from fordprefect. Show fordprefect's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    A lot of people get frustrated about the negativity that is spouted by many of the Bruin fans on this site.  Their argument is how can people complain because the Bruins are 1st in their division and within 3 points of Pittsburgh for 2nd overall in their Conference.  They have Tim Thomas who has been as good as any goalie this year and a great back-up in Rask. They have a solid defense corps led by Zdeno Chara and 4 good lines.  This is all true and I agree there is a lot to be positive about the current addition of the Bruins. The problem for many of us is who remember (just barely) their last Stanley Cup, is that we are tired of solid teams that have no chance of winning the Cup.  Yes only 1 team out of 30 wins the Cup, so you can`t say it is Stanley Cup or bust, but it would be nice to be a legitimate contender and this team is not.  Decent Boston teams that never get past the 2nd round are a constant and a constant that is very frustrating.  They have a Coach who may have a good system but who has no answers when they face adversity.  They have a team that does not have enough fortitude and perserverence when the going gets tough like last year against Philly and even the year before against Carolina.  On paper they seem to have decent grit but they often bring a listless game to the ice.  They don`t score quite enough when the play-offs come around and don`t play tight enough defense when the chips are down.  If they are going to have a chance to really compete they need to add a couple pieces that will help create more offense and add more grit.  Can they really afford to keep both Krejci and Savard and can they afford not to develop a potential future star like Seguin because they have a Coach who has no imagination. Bottom line if we compare them to Toronto or NYI or Florida we can be happy about the Bruins year, but there have been 14 or 15 of the 30 teams that have won the Cup since the Bruins last won and I for one am sick of having a whole bunch of okay years with nothing to show for it.  The goal should be to pull out all the stops to win a Cup in the next 3-4 years while Chara is still at the top of his game.  I will take a Stanley Cup and then some down years over consistent mediocrity.  For those of you that accept this continuous mediocrity that is up to you but don`t get on us because we want more from this team and this organization. Look at the other Boston sports teams and they are run the way you need to run your team.  They may not win every year but they have won and they are a legitimate threat to win every year and they are not happy with mediocrity.  The Bruins do not bring that attitude to the ice and that is the problem.  
    Posted by huntbri


    Dude I hear your points, but the way we play and the golatending we have don't you think we have the potential to make a run???  All it takes is a good run, a decent draw and a little luck...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kordic. Show Kordic's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH....
    NO $ hit ?.....we've been saying that in Montreal for 75 years and you finally figure it out....thank god
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    Ford,

    Yes, I agree with you.  BUT we have seen over the last 2 yrs that this team can't get over that hump.  Any team that makes the playoffs has a chance against Boston b/c they rely on 2-1 3-2 games.  Boston lacks a go to scorer and leader.  We need a legit top line scorer and we need another top 4 dman.  Our current top 4 won't last through the playoffs b/c it relies too much on Chara.  Philly had 4 guys. They now have 6.  Pitt's top 4 are excellent as well.  Washington will revamp its lineup soon.  These 3 teams are already looking to add. 

    The Bruins may get past round one but I don't see them going far.  Horton has been a bust. Savy is one hit away from retirement.  Krejci is very inconsistant and isnt a goal scorer.  Wheeler and Ryder and terrible.  Recchi is old and I don't wanna rely on his legs in the playoffs again.  Lucic is steady for us in the playoffs.  Bergie will be steady.  Marchand is fresh legs. Then you have Seguin and the 4th liners.  I am not comfortable with this group at all.
    Every team in the league can play Boston's style of hockey.  And they will come playoff time.  And should a team get a lead on us we are doomed again. 

    This team needs to add a top line scorer and a top 4 dman. 
    Major trading chips:
    Krejci- for the right player
    Wheeler- someone will like him.
    Ryder and Pick-
    Ference and a pick-
    Boston's 1st rounder-
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jwb413. Show jwb413's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    Who will take Wheeler? He has no real value. A 6'5" cream puff who falls down every time he gets touched. I'm starting to believe it is time to blow this team up for fear of another second round bouncing. All the underachievers might not be that at all. We all know what Ryder is. Krejci has shown signs of brilliance but where has he been of late? Bergeron is a great 3 zone player but they still need more offense out of him. And Savard is looking much better of late but with no finishers on this team what good is he? His worth shows up with someone to put the puck in the net.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    Good post Shupe as far as identifying names, and I agree with not good enough. However, Chiarelli has brought us from disaster [ lock out losses plus Lewis] to a team that is adding 3 or 4 rookies each year, plus developing the pipe line and hoarding picks. There is a long term plan that IMO includes replacing Claude and his restrictive system. Look how New Jersey changed after LeMaire's first departure with Parise[ the scoring type we need] and how Minnesota is evolving, again after LeMaire's departure. This Bruins team has some core components plus some decent parts that need to be replaced, but won't happen this year.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    blow this team up cause we might lose in the second round? you have to be kidding. only 4 teams can play in the 3rd round. we've been 1 game away from playing in the 3rd round the last 2 years. this is a good young team who has a legitimate chance in the playoffs. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    86 years, is a pretty good example of mediocrity, if that's how you compare Boston sports teams.
    If, in fact this team is made up of a bunch of ok players, with an inept coach, they're not very good at all, and the team should be blown up.  Problem is....blowing things up and starting again, with whoever is running the show, doesn't guarantee anything better.  In fact the odds are, the product will get worse.
    If people would only attempt too understand the hockey business, just a bit.  If people would stop thinking we could trade Zack Hamil for someone like Lidstrom...swap Wheeler for Crosby...if people would only understand that Savard has literally no trade value right now, because of his potential health issues coupled with his long term contract, and the prospect that his game may have passed him by.......
    If people could only realize a few of these basic things........
    They'd be quite content to take things as they come, and enjoy the games.  Sure, the b's have flaws.  So do 29 other teams.  If they are fatal flaws, huge flaws, there's  a 99% chance they can't be fixed this year.
    2 options.  Blow this thing up, and start working toward 2013/14, knowing things will get much worse before they get better, still with no guarantee of matching current sucess levels, or attempt to make subtle improvement to a generally accepted solid base.
       
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    A few added comments. Peter brought in Horton as part of his evolving plan, and we all cheered, but now some want to trade him. No way. Horton will work his way into being the player Peter expected. Maybe claude has no clue, but some one on the Bruins advisory group will help Nate, and more of savard's feeds will find the net as that line gains chemistry.Claude knows that Seguin is physically over-matched, but on Kreji's line, with Looch, Seguin's potential should evolve if Claude expands his ice time. Rex is quoted as saying "some were missing in the Sabres game. Well, IMO Rex has to realize that his poor puck handling and slowing foot speed is part of the overall problem. He has always been a great player, but sometimes recognizing your own deteriorating skills is tough to acknowledge.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH.... NO $ hit ?.....we've been saying that in Montreal for 75 years and you finally figure it out....thank god
    Posted by Kordic

    Why don't you stick to your lily pad and stay off the Bruins forum?I could understand you coming to an enemy site to trash talk if the Habs had won in the last 17 years(actually,I still wouldn't do it but that's me).Thanks for dropping by.You're a real winner and a class act........
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from I-Like-Hockey. Show I-Like-Hockey's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    Bogie about Rex. Its wierd sometimes I watch him and im just like wow brutal all game.

    Then all of sudden the 25yo Recchi shines through and makes an unbelievable play. Usually down along the boards he ambushes a defenseman and makes a sweet feed to the slot for a tap in. YOur like wow well i guess the rest of the game is ok now.

    I think  its good he calls people out, BIg Z wont do it for some reason, Bergy just doesnt seem like that type of guy(at least to do it publicly). Recchi has a free pass he can call out anyone he wants once they score 1500pts they can say something back to him.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    steve,

    I think you are throwing a lot of the good posters here under the bus.  Sure there are a few who love the fantasy GM aspect of things.  But as a person who east, breaths and sleeps hockey I look at what this GM has done and realize why a lot of the moves were made.  Every GM will make mistakes.  I wasn't happy with Lucic's deal but I do understand why he did it.  I dislike Chara's deal.  I have never warmed up to Ryder's deal and now Ference.  Every team has them.  And the ones that don't are in total rebuild mode.  And I see the positive moves he has made as well.

    I think that the Bruins do have some chips to deal.  Aside from obvious cap restraints there are moves that can be done. 

    I am happy for playoff hockey.  We are there most yrs.  Its just tiring watching a team that is literally a few moves away from contenders not adjust the roster to do so.  We have numerous picks, we have numerous prospects and NHL ready cal players...we also have guys on our current roster who hold value.
    Wheeler in my eyes is a chip that most teams will look at.  Size, speed and an ability to score.  I think Wheeler and a high end pick lands us a top line scorer.
    Think the Oilers wouldn't listen to Wheeler/B's 1st round pick for Penner.  The Cap hit isn't that far off. 
    Ryder is a salary dump on a team that would fire him in the AHL...I mean teams like the leafs have already stated they would do this if a pick or prospect was coming in return.  Ryder/2nd rounder for Kaberle?

    I mean I know nothing about the inside of a hockey operation, but no one on her does.  These blogs are for everyone.  I skim through most and read posts from some of the regulars that know a lot about hockey.  I have a blast debating with a guy like N-O-T and Dez.  Why?  a. b/c I like to argue. b. b/c they know their stuff so I have to bring my A-game. 



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    As a Bruins fan, the tendancy is to analyze how team play could be more effective even when the Bs are playing well. The truth is most fans in other NHL cities do the same.  To which it can be said the Bs are not good enough to win the Stanley Cup but neither are the other teams in the league. As a side note: the current roster will remain intact unless there is a GM out there who has trouble with left and right brain decision making abilities.  Me thinks there are a few, witness to the fact the NHL has Bettman and Campbell.  
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    A lot of people get frustrated about the negativity that is spouted by many of the Bruin fans on this site.  Their argument is how can people complain because the Bruins are 1st in their division and within 3 points of Pittsburgh for 2nd overall in their Conference.  They have Tim Thomas who has been as good as any goalie this year and a great back-up in Rask. They have a solid defense corps led by Zdeno Chara and 4 good lines.  This is all true and I agree there is a lot to be positive about the current addition of the Bruins. The problem for many of us is who remember (just barely) their last Stanley Cup, is that we are tired of solid teams that have no chance of winning the Cup.  Yes only 1 team out of 30 wins the Cup, so you can`t say it is Stanley Cup or bust, but it would be nice to be a legitimate contender and this team is not.  Decent Boston teams that never get past the 2nd round are a constant and a constant that is very frustrating.  They have a Coach who may have a good system but who has no answers when they face adversity.  They have a team that does not have enough fortitude and perserverence when the going gets tough like last year against Philly and even the year before against Carolina.  On paper they seem to have decent grit but they often bring a listless game to the ice.  They don`t score quite enough when the play-offs come around and don`t play tight enough defense when the chips are down.  If they are going to have a chance to really compete they need to add a couple pieces that will help create more offense and add more grit.  Can they really afford to keep both Krejci and Savard and can they afford not to develop a potential future star like Seguin because they have a Coach who has no imagination. Bottom line if we compare them to Toronto or NYI or Florida we can be happy about the Bruins year, but there have been 14 or 15 of the 30 teams that have won the Cup since the Bruins last won and I for one am sick of having a whole bunch of okay years with nothing to show for it.  The goal should be to pull out all the stops to win a Cup in the next 3-4 years while Chara is still at the top of his game.  I will take a Stanley Cup and then some down years over consistent mediocrity.  For those of you that accept this continuous mediocrity that is up to you but don`t get on us because we want more from this team and this organization. Look at the other Boston sports teams and they are run the way you need to run your team.  They may not win every year but they have won and they are a legitimate threat to win every year and they are not happy with mediocrity.  The Bruins do not bring that attitude to the ice and that is the problem.  
    Posted by huntbri



    You need to get in touch with today's NHL.

    Tell me, are the Penguins good enough?

    Quick, tell me,
    how many more wins do the Pens have over the Bruins? 
    How many do the Bruins have over the Leafs??

    Answers
    The Pens have only 3 more wins than the Bruins.
    The Bruins have 7 more wins than the Leafs.

    The salary cap plus the design of the powers that be have structured this league so that there is absolute parity.

    Anybody can beat anybody else on any given night.

    Anyone making the playoffs have a chance.

    True, the law of averages favor the most winning records and the Flyers will beat the Devils just about every time, but look at where the Flyers finished last year.  Compare the Devils last year to this, how do you go from a legit shot at a cup, add Kovalchuk and then be the very worst team in the NHL by a mile the next season?

    They are absolutely 100% a Cup contender.  Not that I would bet on them to win it.  I'm not saying that they are certain to win it, but with the parity being what it is in the league, just making the playoffs gives you a shot, tho not a good one.  Top 4 from each conference have a chance.  One of the top 2 from each conference *should* meet in the conference final, but that has frequently not happened as well.

    They have some good young players and good young prospects and a top 5 pick most likely coming, they have a chance this year, their chances will get better in the coming years.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    In Response to BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH : You need to get in touch with today's NHL. Tell me, are the Penguins good enough? Quick, tell me, how many more wins do the Pens have over the Bruins?  How many do the Bruins have over the Leafs?? Answers The Pens have only 3 more wins than the Bruins. The Bruins have 7 more wins than the Leafs. The salary cap plus the design of the powers that be have structured this league so that there is absolute parity. Anybody can beat anybody else on any given night. Anyone making the playoffs have a chance. True, the law of averages favor the most winning records and the Flyers will beat the Devils just about every time, but look at where the Flyers finished last year.  Compare the Devils last year to this, how do you go from a legit shot at a cup, add Kovalchuk and then be the very worst team in the NHL by a mile the next season? They are absolutely 100% a Cup contender.  Not that I would bet on them to win it.  I'm not saying that they are certain to win it, but with the parity being what it is in the league, just making the playoffs gives you a shot, tho not a good one.  Top 4 from each conference have a chance.  One of the top 2 from each conference *should* meet in the conference final, but that has frequently not happened as well. They have some good young players and good young prospects and a top 5 pick most likely coming, they have a chance this year, their chances will get better in the coming years.
    Posted by BadHabitude

    Everything you said is true.I wonder if going back to #1 playing #16 might lead to more of the top seeds advancing  and less upsets.I think they should go back to that format.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from huntbri. Show huntbri's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    In Response to BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH : Dude I hear your points, but the way we play and the golatending we have don't you think we have the potential to make a run???  All it takes is a good run, a decent draw and a little luck...
    Posted by fordprefect

    If we had Montreal Canadiens luck then yes we do have the goaltending that can steal a series or two.  I am not saying this team has absolutely no chance, rather I think we are 2 or 3 players short. Also I don't believe the team or organization has a true winning attitude.  Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Washington will not see this season as successful unless they win the Stanley Cup.  The Bruins do not have that attitude.  They haven't had that type of attitude since the Neely/Bourque days.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from huntbri. Show huntbri's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    In Response to BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH : You need to get in touch with today's NHL. Tell me, are the Penguins good enough? Quick, tell me, how many more wins do the Pens have over the Bruins?  How many do the Bruins have over the Leafs?? Answers The Pens have only 3 more wins than the Bruins. The Bruins have 7 more wins than the Leafs. The salary cap plus the design of the powers that be have structured this league so that there is absolute parity. Anybody can beat anybody else on any given night. Anyone making the playoffs have a chance. True, the law of averages favor the most winning records and the Flyers will beat the Devils just about every time, but look at where the Flyers finished last year.  Compare the Devils last year to this, how do you go from a legit shot at a cup, add Kovalchuk and then be the very worst team in the NHL by a mile the next season? They are absolutely 100% a Cup contender.  Not that I would bet on them to win it.  I'm not saying that they are certain to win it, but with the parity being what it is in the league, just making the playoffs gives you a shot, tho not a good one.  Top 4 from each conference have a chance.  One of the top 2 from each conference *should* meet in the conference final, but that has frequently not happened as well. They have some good young players and good young prospects and a top 5 pick most likely coming, they have a chance this year, their chances will get better in the coming years.
    Posted by BadHabitude

    Do you really think assuming relatively healthy line-ups that the Bruins can beat the Pens, Flyers or Caps?  You can't look at regular season points.  Yes Boston is a great regular season team but that doesn't get it done in the play-offs.   They can't match the flyers combo of skill and grit or Washington's fire power or the Pen's overall excellence.  Yes upsets happen so in one series anything can happen but I would bet the farm that this Bruins team can not win 4 series and I think winning 2 series would be about the best they can do.  I hope I am eating my words but I doubt it.  Bottom line is that regular season hockey and play-off hocket can not be compared. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from huntbri. Show huntbri's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH : Everything you said is true.I wonder if going back to #1 playing #16 might lead to more of the top seeds advancing  and less upsets.I think they should go back to that format.
    Posted by dezaruchi

    I loved 1 vs 16 but the NHL will not bring it back because if increased travel and because they like the rivaleries that are created when teams play each other more often.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    Dez,

    I have thought about the 1-16 scenario on many occasions.  Problem is the West is so good a lot of the East teams wouldnt make it.  I am ok with the format as it stands.  But I really used to like teh divison format.  Yes watching Boston Montreal every year tends to get to you.  But has there ever been better hockey and rivals as when Boston Montreal, Calgary Edmonton etc etc.

    With so many teams I am not sure how they could break it down.  But imagine a division with
    1. Montreal/Boston/Toronto/Detroit/Ottawa
    2. Philly/Wash/Pitt/NJ/NYI/NYR

    I miss old time playoff hockey.  But I would seriously like looking into the 1-16 format. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH : Do you really think assuming relatively healthy line-ups that the Bruins can beat the Pens, Flyers or Caps?  You can't look at regular season points.  Yes Boston is a great regular season team but that doesn't get it done in the play-offs.   They can't match the flyers combo of skill and grit or Washington's fire power or the Pen's overall excellence.  Yes upsets happen so in one series anything can happen but I would bet the farm that this Bruins team can not win 4 series and I think winning 2 series would be about the best they can do.  I hope I am eating my words but I doubt it.  Bottom line is that regular season hockey and play-off hocket can not be compared. 
    Posted by huntbri

    Yes,I believe Boston can beat any of those 3 teams when healthy.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH : Do you really think assuming relatively healthy line-ups that the Bruins can beat the Pens, Flyers or Caps?  You can't look at regular season points.  Yes Boston is a great regular season team but that doesn't get it done in the play-offs.   They can't match the flyers combo of skill and grit or Washington's fire power or the Pen's overall excellence.  Yes upsets happen so in one series anything can happen but I would bet the farm that this Bruins team can not win 4 series and I think winning 2 series would be about the best they can do.  I hope I am eating my words but I doubt it.  Bottom line is that regular season hockey and play-off hocket can not be compared. 
    Posted by huntbri


    yeah, the pens and caps had great success last year in the playoffs.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH : Do you really think assuming relatively healthy line-ups that the Bruins can beat the Pens, Flyers or Caps?  You can't look at regular season points.  Yes Boston is a great regular season team but that doesn't get it done in the play-offs.   They can't match the flyers combo of skill and grit or Washington's fire power or the Pen's overall excellence.  Yes upsets happen so in one series anything can happen but I would bet the farm that this Bruins team can not win 4 series and I think winning 2 series would be about the best they can do.  I hope I am eating my words but I doubt it.  Bottom line is that regular season hockey and play-off hocket can not be compared. 
    Posted by huntbri


    OK, never mind the regular season points, but the Bruins have played the Pens, Flyers and Caps pretty well this year.  Throw the Lightning into that, too.  They have outright embarassed each of those teams at least once this year.

    Come playoffs time, it is true that it is likely that each of those teams might beat the Bruins this year, but it is FAR from a certainty.  I would say the odds are excellent they would go 7 games with each of those teams.

    I would not bet the farm on the Pens, Flyers or Caps this year.  I never bet on hockey anyway because it is too crazy, but if I had to bet I would put it on the Canucks this year.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from GrinandBearit. Show GrinandBearit's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    Bruins lack consistency, until that's solved the big prize will prove difficult...as if it's not already difficult for elite teams.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    I would take the Bruins over the Caps and Lightning in a seven game series Boston's goaltending far superior. I would give the Bruins a 50/50 chance against the Pens and Flyers because those teams are tougher plus have depth in scoring. I would fear the Rangers and the Habs in a seven game series if Chiarelli didn't make any moves before the deadline as they give the Bruins matchup problems because of Boston's overall lack of speed.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    I would give us a chance against Tampa and I wouldnt wanna take the Caps on but believe we could beat them...but they are better than their record and have a lot of guys out.  PLUS I think they will be very active at the deadline.  I don't want any part of Philly.  They are better than last year and I think if Sid comes back healthy they are gonna win it all. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    In Response to Re: BRUINS ARE GOOD BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
    I would give us a chance against Tampa and I wouldnt wanna take the Caps on but believe we could beat them...but they are better than their record and have a lot of guys out.  PLUS I think they will be very active at the deadline.  I don't want any part of Philly.  They are better than last year and I think if Sid comes back healthy they are gonna win it all. 
    Posted by shuperman

    It would be hard to bet against a healthy Penguin squad but Vancouver is pretty deep also.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share