Karma

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

    Karma

    Certainly can't argue the Blackhawks deserved it, but it's pretty hard to argue the B's didn't deserve a little better fate too.  So much equating to "winning", is intangible.

    Just my take, but I feel the B's played way beneath themselves against Washington last year, and Toronto this year.  Against Pitts, and the Rangers, they appeared other-worldly,..absolutely made of steel.  Now many feel Chicago was the better team.  I respect them...congratulate them, but disagree.

    For our Bruins, lady luck frowned on them.  A little mini slump rolled in at just the wrong time, and that intangible stuff, just all came together in the finals.  The teams cancelled out with injuries.

    Despite Rask being average, as well as the top 2 lines, I still feel the B's controlled play more than the Hawks over the course of 6 games.  Chara and Seidenberg played below themselves too.  Yet, it was a barn-burner.

    As critical as I've been about Seguin, i'm really pleased at how he played those last few games.  Still let us down offensively, but I think I'm witnessing a boy transition into a man.  Soderberg impressed me, who wasn't pleasantly surprised by Krug, and Paille was miles above himself.

    There's probably a statistic out there stating a ratio between mistakes...and goals scored against.  Lets just say that for every 15 executional mistakes....on average, 1 goal is scored against you.  In the finals, Boston got burned beyond the norm.  Seems every mistake ended up in their net.  I understand good teams like Chicago will force that, but, things were still out of whack.  I get disgusted sometimes with officials, but I don't blame them for the outcomes.  They make mistakes...it happens.  Case in point....the hand pass.  Honest mistake on their part, yet luck jumps in, and the puck ends up behind Rask. 

    How about ugly, plinko goals?  The Hawks had horseshoes up their behinds in that area too.

    This series reminded me so much of those assorted nightmares against Montreal in years past.  Many times, the B's played as good or better, yet they didn't get the bounces.  Our Bruins got virtually none against the Blackhawks.  When teams are as balanced as they are these days....you need a few to win a Cup.  Couple that with the reality that your stars aren't performing like stars, and it's easy to see this team was plenty good enough.  They were merely outscored by a goal or 2 over 6 games, and as we all know....that dictates the winner.  If the series were to start again tomorrow, I'd be even more confident betting on the B's.  I'd also bet the farm Boston wouldn't take out Pitts 4 straight again too.

    1 Boston o/t goal in game 4...and I believe history would've been changed.  The Hawks woulda been disposed of a la Rangers.  The papers would be talking about one of the most dominant playoff performances in league history.  Superlatives like powerhouse and dynasty would be tossed around everywhere.  On the other hand, 1 o/t goal against... vs Toronto, and those same people are screaming for people's heads.  "Blow up the team, it stinks".  "Trade everyone".  That stuff is so predictable, and so ill informed.

    That ladder between outhouse....and penthouse, isn't at all what most people think it is.

    Congratulations Blackhawks.  Again.  No sour grapes here.  Just pointing out the unpredictability of this great game, and the folly of overreacting to loss.  This team should be really good for quite a while.  Cup potential good.  The cap isn't going to be a problem.  There is no impending departure that can't be replaced.

    No cup hangover to worry about moving forward.  We'll get em next year.

    Thanks Bruins.

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Karma

    TLDR. I agree the Hawks were not the better team, they got some bounces that couldn't be replicated in a million years. I think this should have been over in 4 games. I congratulate the Hawks for battling and seizing the opportunity, but to say the better team won is a travesty in my opinion.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    TLDR. I agree the Hawks were not the better team, they got some bounces that couldn't be replicated in a million years. I think this should have been over in 4 games. I congratulate the Hawks for battling and seizing the opportunity, but to say the better team won is a travesty in my opinion.



    Pretty easy to be brief, when you don't back up your opinions.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tremha77. Show tremha77's posts

    Re: Karma

    I am a bruins fan and watched every minute of the entire playoffs.

    With so many games decided in Overtime or effectively overtime as the others were 1 goal games, this could have obviously gone either way.  Other than a few obvious moments like the first period of last nights game, i thought that overall Chicago conrtolled the play and tempo more than the Bruins.  Losing Campbell and the resulting change in lines didnt help after the momentum from previous series. 

    Losing game 1 after having a lead in the third period and than again surrending the goals last night were major hits. 

    I also agree that Chicago capitalized on opportunities way better than Boston did. 

    Chara's lack of mobility was clearly exposed and I have been saying for some time he would be a better player playing less minutes. 

    Disappointing end to a great series and playoffs. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    TLDR. I agree the Hawks were not the better team, they got some bounces that couldn't be replicated in a million years. I think this should have been over in 4 games. I congratulate the Hawks for battling and seizing the opportunity, but to say the better team won is a travesty in my opinion.

     



    Pretty easy to be brief, when you don't back up your opinions.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do I really need to? Ference's skate in game 1. Daugavins not potting an empty net. Several other missed chances in that same OT. Marginal penalty calls and no calls throughout (ENG in game 5? That's not a trip? Did I miss something?) Kelly hitting the post on an ENG. Poor ice conditions messing with Krejci's tip attempt. Several posts and cross bars. Happened for both teams but the Bruins seemed to get stuck with several that stand out in my mind.

    What's your problem?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Onthe405. Show Onthe405's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    TLDR. I agree the Hawks were not the better team, they got some bounces that couldn't be replicated in a million years. I think this should have been over in 4 games. I congratulate the Hawks for battling and seizing the opportunity, but to say the better team won is a travesty in my opinion.

     



    Pretty easy to be brief, when you don't back up your opinions.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    pretty sure he was agreeing with you.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Karma

     

     

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     



    Do I really need to? Ference's skate in game 1. Daugavins not potting an empty net. Several other missed chances in that same OT. Marginal penalty calls and no calls throughout (ENG in game 5? That's not a trip? Did I miss something?) Kelly hitting the post on an ENG. Poor ice conditions messing with Krejci's tip attempt. Several posts and cross bars. Happened for both teams but the Bruins seemed to get stuck with several that stand out in my mind.

     

    What's your problem?

    [/QUOTE]

    No big problem.  Just pointing out how petty it is to agree with the jist of someones post, then feel the need to take a swing at how it's written.    

    We should be here to discuss hockey, not nit-pick the composition of each others posts.  Is brief better than incomplete?  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: Karma

    When you come right down to it: the Bruins lost this series in game 4. That game went into overtime and they lost. We should have no complaints.

    Had they won game 4, they would have won the Cup in game 5 or game 6, for sure.

    They were in every game, even without Campbell and many of the crew playing hurt.

    We have nothing to complain about

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Karma

     

     

    In response to tremha77's comment:

    I am a bruins fan and watched every minute of the entire playoffs.

    With so many games decided in Overtime or effectively overtime as the others were 1 goal games, this could have obviously gone either way.  Other than a few obvious moments like the first period of last nights game, i thought that overall Chicago conrtolled the play and tempo more than the Bruins.  Losing Campbell and the resulting change in lines didnt help after the momentum from previous series. 

    Losing game 1 after having a lead in the third period and than again surrending the goals last night were major hits. 

    I also agree that Chicago capitalized on opportunities way better than Boston did. 

    Chara's lack of mobility was clearly exposed and I have been saying for some time he would be a better player playing less minutes. 

    Disappointing end to a great series and playoffs. 



    Good thoughts.  Guess my point is in the "why".  Although it's happened a few times this year, the Bruins are still pretty good with a lead.  They're really good when scoring 5.  Just an opinion of course, but I feel those wins were a result of Boston being uncharacteristically weak, as opposed to a particular Chicago strength.

    Same with capitalizing.  Was it because they were better offensively, or because of the bounces.  I feel they got more bounces.  The Bruins got the bounces vs Pittsburgh.  That first period last night, reminded me of long stretches where the Penguins had us hemmed in, but just didn't get anything to show for it.  Seems like the big gun Blackhawks played up to their billing.  The big name Bruins didn't.

    Overall, I thought Chicago did well.  don't see how they could've expected much more from themselves.  On the other hand, I thought the B's could have done much better.  In a rematch, could see the Peguins beating the B's more than Chicago.

    Both teams always experience stretches of dominance.  I thought when it was the Bruins turn, they were  stronger, longer and more intense.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

    When you come right down to it: the Bruins lost this series in game 4. That game went into overtime and they lost. We should have no complaints.

    Had they won game 4, they would have won the Cup in game 5 or game 6, for sure.

    They were in every game, even without Campbell and many of the crew playing hurt.

    We have nothing to complain about

     


    that's kind of how I see it.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    Seems like the big gun Blackhawks played up to their billing.  The big name Bruins didn't.

    Overall, I thought Chicago did well.  don't see how they could've expected much more from themselves.  On the other hand, I thought the B's could have done much better.  In a rematch, could see the Peguins beating the B's more than Chicago.

    Both teams always experience stretches of dominance.  I thought when it was the Bruins turn, they were  stronger, longer and more intense.




    I thought Bergeron and Lucic lived up to their billing - both with four goals in a six game series.  Not much more you can ask.   Horton was a ghost after his shoulder went out. I can't believe Marchand went pointless.  Really, it was Kane and Toews out-duelling Bergeron and Lucic - or getting more support from the Bollands and Handzuses and Shaws and Bickells. 

    Actually, thinking it through, the Bruins didn't have a single fully functional line.  Jagr was snakebit.  Horton injured.  Campbell out.  3rd line makeshift.  And they still lost three one goal games, two in OT, one in the last minute of regulation, and one a one goal game except for an EN goal.  I come back to luck.  Seidenberg was under a bad sign all series.

    No shame.  Oilers would have won 5 straight if not for Steve Smith's bad luck...and they had a lot of bad luck that series.

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

    Re: Karma

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Seems like the big gun Blackhawks played up to their billing.  The big name Bruins didn't.

    Overall, I thought Chicago did well.  don't see how they could've expected much more from themselves.  On the other hand, I thought the B's could have done much better.  In a rematch, could see the Peguins beating the B's more than Chicago.

    Both teams always experience stretches of dominance.  I thought when it was the Bruins turn, they were  stronger, longer and more intense.

     



    I thought Bergeron and Lucic lived up to their billing - both with four goals in a six game series.  Not much more you can ask.   Horton was a ghost after his shoulder went out. I can't believe Marchand went pointless.  Really, it was Kane and Toews out-duelling Bergeron and Lucic - or getting more support from the Bollands and Handzuses and Shaws and Bickells. 

    Actually, thinking it through, the Bruins didn't have a single fully functional line.  Jagr was snakebit.  Horton injured.  Campbell out.  3rd line makeshift.  And they still lost three one goal games, two in OT, one in the last minute of regulation, and one a one goal game except for an EN goal.  I come back to luck.  Seidenberg was under a bad sign all series.

    No shame.  Oilers would have won 5 straight if not for Steve Smith's bad luck...and they had a lot of bad luck that series.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, Lucic was great.  Bergeron couldn't possibly play the way he wanted those last 2.

    If someone told us  Chara and Seidenberg were going to be on the ice for around a dozen goals....., if we were pre informed that Horton, Seguin, Jagr, Marchand and Krejc combined would fail to score even 1 goal, we probably wouldn't have held out much hope.  Despite that, it was a heck of a series.  No reason to think this group couldn't have.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kitchener. Show kitchener's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

    When you come right down to it: the Bruins lost this series in game 4. That game went into overtime and they lost. We should have no complaints.

    Had they won game 4, they would have won the Cup in game 5 or game 6, for sure.

    They were in every game, even without Campbell and many of the crew playing hurt.

    We have nothing to complain about

     



    Yep i agree with you 100% chance to go up 3-1 scored 5 goals no way they should have lost that game,and that game seamed to wake up Chicago big guns.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    No big problem.  Just pointing out how petty it is to agree with the jist of someones post, then feel the need to take a swing at how it's written.    

     

    We should be here to discuss hockey, not nit-pick the composition of each others posts.  Is brief better than incomplete?  



    Sorry I skimmed your post because I don't have a ton of free time to read every word? I tried to read the whole post, but I don't have time while I'm at work. It was nothing personal. I just prefer quick and to the point.

    Saying TLDR is hardly nit-picking, just stating I don't have the time or the will to read a novel about why the Bruins lost. I wasn't looking to start an argument or take a swing at you.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    No big problem.  Just pointing out how petty it is to agree with the jist of someones post, then feel the need to take a swing at how it's written.    

     

    We should be here to discuss hockey, not nit-pick the composition of each others posts.  Is brief better than incomplete?  

     



    Sorry I skimmed your post because I don't have a ton of free time to read every word? I tried to read the whole post, but I don't have time while I'm at work. It was nothing personal. I just prefer quick and to the point.

     

    Saying TLDR is hardly nit-picking, just stating I don't have the time or the will to read a novel about why the Bruins lost. I wasn't looking to start an argument or take a swing at you.

    [/QUOTE]


    It certainly was nit-picking and taking a swing.  

    If you don't understand the implication of certain acronyms, you really shouldn't use them.  RTFM.

    BTW, as well as argumentive, your above post is repetitive, poorly written, and contradictory.  You really need to brush up on a whole lot of writing and comprehension skills, before dismissing someone elses "novel".  

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

    Re: Karma

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    No big problem.  Just pointing out how petty it is to agree with the jist of someones post, then feel the need to take a swing at how it's written.    

     

    We should be here to discuss hockey, not nit-pick the composition of each others posts.  Is brief better than incomplete?  

     

     



    Sorry I skimmed your post because I don't have a ton of free time to read every word? I tried to read the whole post, but I don't have time while I'm at work. It was nothing personal. I just prefer quick and to the point.

     

     

    Saying TLDR is hardly nit-picking, just stating I don't have the time or the will to read a novel about why the Bruins lost. I wasn't looking to start an argument or take a swing at you.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    It certainly was nit-picking and taking a swing.  

    If you don't understand the implication of certain acronyms, you really shouldn't use them.  RTFM.

    BTW, as well as argumentive, your above post is repetitive, poorly written, and contradictory.  You really need to brush up on a whole lot of writing and comprehension skills, before dismissing someone elses "novel".  

    [/QUOTE]

    Steve, what do the acronyms RTFM and TLDR mean? I honestly don't know as this is the only place I spend much time on line. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    No big problem.  Just pointing out how petty it is to agree with the jist of someones post, then feel the need to take a swing at how it's written.    

     

    We should be here to discuss hockey, not nit-pick the composition of each others posts.  Is brief better than incomplete?  

     

     

     



    Sorry I skimmed your post because I don't have a ton of free time to read every word? I tried to read the whole post, but I don't have time while I'm at work. It was nothing personal. I just prefer quick and to the point.

     

     

     

    Saying TLDR is hardly nit-picking, just stating I don't have the time or the will to read a novel about why the Bruins lost. I wasn't looking to start an argument or take a swing at you.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    It certainly was nit-picking and taking a swing.  

    If you don't understand the implication of certain acronyms, you really shouldn't use them.  RTFM.

    BTW, as well as argumentive, your above post is repetitive, poorly written, and contradictory.  You really need to brush up on a whole lot of writing and comprehension skills, before dismissing someone elses "novel".  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Steve, what do the acronyms RTFM and TLDR mean? I honestly don't know as this is the only place I spend much time on line. 

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Hey Dez
    TLDR or tl:dr, is a snotty condescending acronym that's been around for about 10 years.  Means "too long didn't read".  Aways derogatory.  It's often used to skewer an article, when the "skewee" wants an argument, but can't find any content to argue over.

    RTFM is an equally rude, blunt, term for those speaking of that which they know little, or someone going about something totally in the wrong way.  'Read The Flucking Manual" 

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

    Re: Karma

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Hey Dez
    TLDR or tl:dr, is a snotty condescending acronym that's been around for about 10 years.  Means "too long didn't read".  Aways derogatory.  It's often used to skewer an article, when the "skewee" wants an argument, but can't find any content to argue over.

     

     

    RTFM is an equally rude, blunt, term for those speaking of that which they know little, or someone going about something totally in the wrong way.  'Read The Flucking Manual" 

     



    Thanks, and I don't disagree that they're derogatory. Cheers. 

     

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

    Re: Karma

    Bingo, game 4 was the key, 4 no PP goas in game 6 was another.  The real bummer was losing Horton's effectiveness with injury, Bergeron to countless injuries, Campbell!  Chicago was the better team given those conditions.  Only one team wins, not disappointed.  Looking forward to another spring of fun! The Bs are young!

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

    When you come right down to it: the Bruins lost this series in game 4. That game went into overtime and they lost. We should have no complaints.

    Had they won game 4, they would have won the Cup in game 5 or game 6, for sure.

    They were in every game, even without Campbell and many of the crew playing hurt.

    We have nothing to complain about

     




     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 4everbruins. Show 4everbruins's posts

    Re: Karma

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    When you come right down to it: the Bruins lost this series in game 4. That game went into overtime and they lost. We should have no complaints.

    Had they won game 4, they would have won the Cup in game 5 or game 6, for sure.

    They were in every game, even without Campbell and many of the crew playing hurt.

    We have nothing to complain about

     

     


    that's kind of how I see it.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Ditto for me, though the way game 6 finished was really, really bitter for me, and I'm sure a lot B's fans. Never like making that kind of history.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share