More than cool reason....

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

    More than cool reason....

    Maybe you haven't heard this yet, so don't shoot the messenger, but the Bruins are out of the playoffs.


    Lots of reaction threads.  Lots of people consoling themselves by saying they knew it was coming.  The usual.  A few good commentaries, like JMW's post suggesting that at least part of the problem is that they overachieved during the regular season, so expectations and confidence were probably too high.  As NAS put it, they played, they weren't good enough, they lost.  And because it was Montreal, and because they rarely led a game in the series, it feels like they got swept and so must surely be deeply flawed - so now it's all over but the blaming.


    Here's the Bookboy version of the blame game. Rather than pick a scapegoat, here's how I'd allocate fault for the loss knowing that in this case "fault" means as much "what could XX have done differently?"


    Chiarelli:  I tend to think the team overachieved in the regular season.  While there were some trouble spots, and a scary speed wobble when Seidenberg went down and they suddenly couldn't kill a penalty, they were consistent all year long and had a historic stretch of success that accounts for their huge points lead by the end of the year and the President's Trophy.  I think we were all aware of how improbable it was that the team would do so well with so many inexperienced D and 4 of the top 9 fwds being new faces.  The turning point for Chiarelli was between Seidenberg's injury and the deadline and the relationship between current performance and probability.  The young D stepped up and played remarkably well down the stretch, especially Bartkowski and Miller.  The team's record with them in the lineup was improbably good, and that certainly made it look like it was possible to ride them into the playoffs.  But the longer they had to bear the load, the more probability suggested they would come back to earth, and they did at the worst time (well, maybe the Finals would ahve been worse?).  It would have had to be a bold and risky move to address this, and the key may have been experience more than talent.  I think you could argue that not many D available were clearly an upgrade in raw talent, but experience might have been more important than talent.  Think of the role Hal Gill played for the Penguins.  The right veteran D who blocks shots and makes the safe play off the glass might have made a world of difference.  Fault: mis-read how far the young D could be pushed, balance of talent/experience on the back end.


    Julien: I admit, I work a lot the way Julien does.  Figure out the best solution with available resources and implement it.  Stick to the plan and don't get distracted if everything doesn't work perfectly.  Know your tolerances for "not perfect" and stay within them.  For the Bruins, this means controlling the tempo with the system, particularly with the controlled breakouts.  Rather than look for the fast break, the Bruins would rather let everyone get set up and then attack as a unit, get the cycle going etc.  Montreal gameplanned for this.  One guy went to the puck carrier, a second to the other D to take away the D to D pass, a third guy pinched on the winger at the half boards, and a fourth guy was on the blueline for that short chip from the winger to whoever would then look to carry the puck out.  They were all in on that scheme for long stretches and it produced both turnovers and bad passes.  This team dies when it loses the ability to pass.  They're plenty fast enough, but if you can't pass you can't use speed.  Julien's gameplan never waivered.  It never changed.  And why would it?  They took a 3-2 series lead by not changing their gameplan.  They were a few conversions away from feeling a lot better about the system - a few posts, a few missed open nets.  They had two games to find their rhythm.  They didn't.  But if Julien had armed them with a plan B on that breakout, I think it would have made a significant difference in how the series played out.  Fault: didn't take advantage of Montreal's aggressive forecheck in any systematic or planned way.


    Players: It's a catch-all but as a group, the players simply didn't execute the fundamental things you need to do to win hockey games.  Complete passes.  Win puck battles.  Convert high percentage scoring chances.  I don't think there's one guy I would exempt from this.  Not one.  And the worst part of this is how it played right into Montreal's hands.  When the Bruins are "off" on their passes, they manage the puck by putting it into spots and then retrieve it.  Montreal was set up for it.  They knew as well as the Bruins did where the puck would go if it was pushed into space.  The answer: complete two or three passes in a row.  When the Bruins did this, you saw the ice tilt in their favour - game 1 and game 2, third period for example.


    They also misread their success in the regular season.  They seemed confident that if they played the system, they'd win - great! - but were perhaps too confident in the system because they didn't have the focus or intensity they needed to make the system work.


    Leadership was also an issue.  Elvis is not Dr. Recchi.  The fundamental difference between them is that Recchi came with the experience of multiple Cups, and Iginla came with a desire to finally win one.  That's a difference between calming influence and the anxiety of a HoFer who doesn't want to have support group meetings with Marcel Dionne.  Chara is a lead on the ice guy, but he was as off as any of them when it came to reads as well as passing.  Offensively, he was a non-entity.  Bergeron set the tone on a couple of occasions - fired pucks on net, blazed in on the forecheck and forced some turnovers for grade A chances - but he couldn't get the team to raise it's game, and particularly couldn't get Marchand on track.  And finally...Fat.  Fat got the jacket.  Fat decided the logo thump was the signature for this run.  Fat tried to lead them to play with that swagger he has when he's on his game.  He wasn't on his game.  When it was working, Krug picked it up and it looked like it was going to be that thing.  When it stopped working because Fat wasn't executing, it was more fuel for the Scabs than the Bruins and became a way for the Scabs to get into the Bruins' kitchen.  Lot of wrong notes there.  A lot.


    Faults: Level of execution, excess of confidence.


    Fundamentally, they disproved Parcells's "You are what your record says you are."  They might be a 100 point team because they have the Selke winner, the Vezina winner, and a Norris finalist, but everything beyond that was improbable, and had they acted like that 98 or 100 point team and not a President's Trophy winner, maybe it would have given them the urgency they needed.


    It was a great regular season.  It sets up another great year next year if they can manage the cap and if they don't overdo change.


     


     


    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Good stuff, Book.  TL:RA (too long, read anyway)

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from marco0863. Show marco0863's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Maybe you haven't heard this yet, so don't shoot the messenger, but the Bruins are out of the playoffs.

     

    Lots of reaction threads.  Lots of people consoling themselves by saying they knew it was coming.  The usual.  A few good commentaries, like JMW's post suggesting that at least part of the problem is that they overachieved during the regular season, so expectations and confidence were probably too high.  As NAS put it, they played, they weren't good enough, they lost.  And because it was Montreal, and because they rarely led a game in the series, it feels like they got swept and so must surely be deeply flawed - so now it's all over but the blaming.

     

    Here's the Bookboy version of the blame game. Rather than pick a scapegoat, here's how I'd allocate fault for the loss knowing that in this case "fault" means as much "what could XX have done differently?"

     

    Chiarelli:  I tend to think the team overachieved in the regular season.  While there were some trouble spots, and a scary speed wobble when Seidenberg went down and they suddenly couldn't kill a penalty, they were consistent all year long and had a historic stretch of success that accounts for their huge points lead by the end of the year and the President's Trophy.  I think we were all aware of how improbable it was that the team would do so well with so many inexperienced D and 4 of the top 9 fwds being new faces.  The turning point for Chiarelli was between Seidenberg's injury and the deadline and the relationship between current performance and probability.  The young D stepped up and played remarkably well down the stretch, especially Bartkowski and Miller.  The team's record with them in the lineup was improbably good, and that certainly made it look like it was possible to ride them into the playoffs.  But the longer they had to bear the load, the more probability suggested they would come back to earth, and they did at the worst time (well, maybe the Finals would ahve been worse?).  It would have had to be a bold and risky move to address this, and the key may have been experience more than talent.  I think you could argue that not many D available were clearly an upgrade in raw talent, but experience might have been more important than talent.  Think of the role Hal Gill played for the Penguins.  The right veteran D who blocks shots and makes the safe play off the glass might have made a world of difference.  Fault: mis-read how far the young D could be pushed, balance of talent/experience on the back end.

     

    Julien: I admit, I work a lot the way Julien does.  Figure out the best solution with available resources and implement it.  Stick to the plan and don't get distracted if everything doesn't work perfectly.  Know your tolerances for "not perfect" and stay within them.  For the Bruins, this means controlling the tempo with the system, particularly with the controlled breakouts.  Rather than look for the fast break, the Bruins would rather let everyone get set up and then attack as a unit, get the cycle going etc.  Montreal gameplanned for this.  One guy went to the puck carrier, a second to the other D to take away the D to D pass, a third guy pinched on the winger at the half boards, and a fourth guy was on the blueline for that short chip from the winger to whoever would then look to carry the puck out.  They were all in on that scheme for long stretches and it produced both turnovers and bad passes.  This team dies when it loses the ability to pass.  They're plenty fast enough, but if you can't pass you can't use speed.  Julien's gameplan never waivered.  It never changed.  And why would it?  They took a 3-2 series lead by not changing their gameplan.  They were a few conversions away from feeling a lot better about the system - a few posts, a few missed open nets.  They had two games to find their rhythm.  They didn't.  But if Julien had armed them with a plan B on that breakout, I think it would have made a significant difference in how the series played out.  Fault: didn't take advantage of Montreal's aggressive forecheck in any systematic or planned way.

     

    Players: It's a catch-all but as a group, the players simply didn't execute the fundamental things you need to do to win hockey games.  Complete passes.  Win puck battles.  Convert high percentage scoring chances.  I don't think there's one guy I would exempt from this.  Not one.  And the worst part of this is how it played right into Montreal's hands.  When the Bruins are "off" on their passes, they manage the puck by putting it into spots and then retrieve it.  Montreal was set up for it.  They knew as well as the Bruins did where the puck would go if it was pushed into space.  The answer: complete two or three passes in a row.  When the Bruins did this, you saw the ice tilt in their favour - game 1 and game 2, third period for example.

     

    They also misread their success in the regular season.  They seemed confident that if they played the system, they'd win - great! - but were perhaps too confident in the system because they didn't have the focus or intensity they needed to make the system work.

     

    Leadership was also an issue.  Elvis is not Dr. Recchi.  The fundamental difference between them is that Recchi came with the experience of multiple Cups, and Iginla came with a desire to finally win one.  That's a difference between calming influence and the anxiety of a HoFer who doesn't want to have support group meetings with Marcel Dionne.  Chara is a lead on the ice guy, but he was as off as any of them when it came to reads as well as passing.  Offensively, he was a non-entity.  Bergeron set the tone on a couple of occasions - fired pucks on net, blazed in on the forecheck and forced some turnovers for grade A chances - but he couldn't get the team to raise it's game, and particularly couldn't get Marchand on track.  And finally...Fat.  Fat got the jacket.  Fat decided the logo thump was the signature for this run.  Fat tried to lead them to play with that swagger he has when he's on his game.  He wasn't on his game.  When it was working, Krug picked it up and it looked like it was going to be that thing.  When it stopped working because Fat wasn't executing, it was more fuel for the Scabs than the Bruins and became a way for the Scabs to get into the Bruins' kitchen.  Lot of wrong notes there.  A lot.

     

    Faults: Level of execution, excess of confidence.

     

    Fundamentally, they disproved Parcells's "You are what your record says you are."  They might be a 100 point team because they have the Selke winner, the Vezina winner, and a Norris finalist, but everything beyond that was improbable, and had they acted like that 98 or 100 point team and not a President's Trophy winner, maybe it would have given them the urgency they needed.

     

    It was a great regular season.  It sets up another great year next year if they can manage the cap and if they don't overdo change.

     

     

     

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!



    This must be one of your  longest posts...lol

    What do u do anyhow?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    In response to marco0863's comment:

    This must be one of your  longest posts...lol

    What do u do anyhow?



    What's a guy gotta do to get banned around here?

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Good post Book and I would add that they failed to make one additional adjustment, and that is creating and/or finding a passing lane in the offensive zone due to the Smurfs new found shot-blocking abilities.




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

    Re: More than cool reason....


    So true to everything you said and basically the blame is amongst everyone, a much expected team to go all the way that as simple as you mentioned, didnt have a plan B. You cant forget that the Bs are not the only good, great or expected team to go a long way in the playoffs, look at pittsburg a disapointment  the last 2 years or so, with all that talent and then theres a couple of other teams. I think it goes to show that parity is working well and it is a game of inches. The only thing you forgot to mention book is the fact that the NHL rules change game by game in the playoffs therefore affecting the way teams are use to playing in the regular season. Im talking every series every team and to be honest its time the NHLsuspended thereself for allowing such crap and I mean officating to the point they litterally decide the outcome of alot of games. I really enjoyed this read Book, Thankyou. Looking forward to next year but ill soak up some sun first.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from marco0863. Show marco0863's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to marco0863's comment:

    This must be one of your  longest posts...lol

    What do u do anyhow?



    What's a guy gotta do to get banned around here?



    How many times ur going to ask the same question?

    Ur the bdc expert not me. Ur the senator around here

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Great read Book,for me it ultimately comes down to the players in the grand scheme of things.Failure to finish and execute their game as they played it all year.When the B's needed that big goal or needed the finish around the net,they just couldn't do it,not this year anyway.I don't know if finishing Presidents trophy winners gave them false sense of security but when they were needed most,the 1st & 2nd line players did not deliver.When that happens,a long playoff run is out of the question.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Does anyone have a bookmark?

     

    Well done.

    The difficulty that is always there with the GM, is not knowing what the options were and what other teams were demanding for deals.  Regardless, the fact that both Meszaros and Potter were brought in, and then benched in favor of Miller/Bartkowski doesn't look really good.  Especially when Miller/Bartkowski appeared to be a key weakness and committed critical mistakes in Games 6/7 (along with a lot of poor play by veterans too).

    And I've already mentioned this previously, but the plot thickens with Julien's comments about the "new" guys hurting the Bruins.  

    Game 6 seemed to be the one where the new guys on D cost the Bruins the most.  Yet, Julien sticks with them in Game 7.  He either thought they could handle the needed adjustments, or that they were still a better option than Mez/Potter regardless of struggles.

    Depending on who has the most say in picking the lineup, I'm not sure who you blame.  It kinda seems like Julien is blaming the guys that he choose to play for being too inexperienced...?  

    I'm not really in the camp of hammering either Julien or Chiarelli (I'd blame the players).  But I think Julien's comments are puzzling and somewhat misdirected.

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    "The turning point for Chiarelli was between Seidenberg's injury and the deadline and the relationship between current performance and probability."

    With a few posts, a few extra passes (trying to be too cute) and too many passes back to the point.

     

    PS. I'll take the pressure off Chowds and bookmark this.

    Playoffs: Reilly Smith > Tyler Seguin

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    Depending on who has the most say in picking the lineup, I'm not sure who you blame.  It kinda seems like Julien is blaming the guys that he choose to play for being too inexperienced...?  

    I'm not really in the camp of hammering either Julien or Chiarelli (I'd blame the players).  But I think Julien's comments are puzzling and somewhat misdirected.

    Yeah, I took it in the same spirit as Babcock's "we weren't a tough out at all".  Part of it is just naming what people saw: Miller's gaffe, Bartkowski's badly timed penalties and blown coverage.  Krug's inability to make a play on Pacioretty's goal.  Hamilton's inability to get the puck on net after game 4.  The vets didn't score, but they also didn't have quite as much to do with giving up goals against.  So - name it, spin it as valuable experience and inevitably part of learning to play in the playoffs, and it takes some of the pressure off of everyone else looking to browbeat the young guys.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from socca10. Show socca10's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Well thought-out and good reading, much more on point than the "fire/trade everyone!!" posts all over the interwebs.

    To me this was one team with faith in a system that served them well all year against a team that was flexible enough to break down that system. This is where versatility would have been helpful, but CJ's team was who they always were and it wasn't enough to beat the Habs.

    The difficult part for the fans is knowing that the B's were probably good enough to beat everyone else in the playoffs with their system, just not the one team they had to get past.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    The part that seems odd to me and does every time the B's play the Scabs is that because the Scabs give the Bruins such a hard time every time they play,outside of the odd B's rout,why don't more teams watch the tape of these games and employ it on the B's when they meet during the regular season or the playoffs? I mean other than blocking a ton of shots,which by the way worked for the Dale Hunter Caps a couple years ago,what is it the Scabs do that the other 29 teams can't replicate? I just don't get it and likely never will.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    And by B's rout,i will use the Scabs 100th anniversary sweep as an example,a very sweet victory i might add.

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Great analysis Book, per usual.


     


    However, I think even the sane crowd around here are suffering from paralysis through analysis. I agree with most of what you said. All of your points ring true. But I think it was much simpler than all of that.


     



    How many open nets did the Bruins miss? Three? Four? More?


     


    How many posts did they hit? Ten? Twelve?


     


    Point being, Montreal *gulp* is a good team. Boston is a good team. You can't give away fifteen excellent scoring chances (Four? Five goals?) and expect to beat another good team.


     


    Call it puck luck.


     


    All of those things you mentioned would be a sidebar to what would have gone down as an excellent series win had they just had the puck bounces. Sounds simple, but I've never seen a more ill-fated team than the Bruins in that series.


     



    Lets GO BRUINS!!!

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Good read, Book.

    I think as an organization they will grow from this. No major changes needed to this club. Fire this, Trade that...What shenanigans.

    I hope it haunts them all off-season. So the next time they run into the 6 fingered man they will say "Hello My name is Inigo Montoya, you murdered my father, prepare to die"

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    As i've said many times before,to win a Cup you need three things to fall in line,health,goaltending & bounces.


    To review:


    1.Health-B's were mainly healthy save Seidenberg,so they were OK in this dept.


    2. Goaltending-although not the sole reason they lost,it was not at the level needed to knock off a tough opponent.


    3. Bounces-got absolutely none,nada,failed in all regards.Count the posts,near misses,misfires,players falling down for no reason and this was an epic fail.In winning the Cup in 2011,they passed this category in flying colors.And last year had it in spades up until the final,where the Hawks mojo was stronger.

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    To say bounces had nothing to do with the result is ridiculous. Carey Price and 13 goalposts were the difference.

    Having said that, it is clear the Habs got into the Bruins heads. The B's have been, unsuccessfully, for two years to mutilate the Habs. They are not scared. It is time to continue their normal heavy game, but perhaps look at another strategy for the Habs. Slow them down, but not be so intent on trying to kill them.

    Final thought. Seidenburg, Kelley and McQuaid would have made a tremendous difference.

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    In response to seobrien's comment:

    Good read, Book.

    I think as an organization they will grow from this. No major changes needed to this club. Fire this, Trade that...What shenanigans.

    I hope it haunts them all off-season. So the next time they run into the 6 fingered man they will say "Hello My name is Inigo Montoya, you murdered my father, prepare to die"

    I like it....

    This is totally off the topic, but it's my topic, so sue me.

    I still cannot believe how systematically the Canadiens slewfooted and tripped the Bruins.  It was constant.  Add Subban falling down in front of hits at least three times and performing a perfect form tackle on Lucic, and I couldn't hate Montreal more.  It was so blatant, it had to be a gameplan.  It couldn't just be the way one or two guys play - it was something they discussed.  Bruins are big and will try to use their size to muscle you off the puck and win races to the puck.  But if you take the feet out on any animal, no matter how big....

    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to seobrien's comment:

    Good read, Book.

    I think as an organization they will grow from this. No major changes needed to this club. Fire this, Trade that...What shenanigans.

    I hope it haunts them all off-season. So the next time they run into the 6 fingered man they will say "Hello My name is Inigo Montoya, you murdered my father, prepare to die"

    I like it....

    This is totally off the topic, but it's my topic, so sue me.

    I still cannot believe how systematically the Canadiens slewfooted and tripped the Bruins.  It was constant.  Add Subban falling down in front of hits at least three times and performing a perfect form tackle on Lucic, and I couldn't hate Montreal more.  It was so blatant, it had to be a gameplan.  It couldn't just be the way one or two guys play - it was something they discussed.  Bruins are big and will try to use their size to muscle you off the puck and win races to the puck.  But if you take the feet out on any animal, no matter how big....

    [object HTMLDivElement]



    I wish we had someone capable of putting together the video compilation of that.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruinfaninnewjersey. Show Bruinfaninnewjersey's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Book - I remember at the trade deadline many articles claiming PC had numerous other deals in play that happened to fall through. Edler and Girardi come to mind. So I think PC was aware of the potential holes in his D but couldn't get the deal done to address it.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to seobrien's comment:

    Good read, Book.

    I think as an organization they will grow from this. No major changes needed to this club. Fire this, Trade that...What shenanigans.

    I hope it haunts them all off-season. So the next time they run into the 6 fingered man they will say "Hello My name is Inigo Montoya, you murdered my father, prepare to die"

    I like it....

    This is totally off the topic, but it's my topic, so sue me.

    I still cannot believe how systematically the Canadiens slewfooted and tripped the Bruins.  It was constant.  Add Subban falling down in front of hits at least three times and performing a perfect form tackle on Lucic, and I couldn't hate Montreal more.  It was so blatant, it had to be a gameplan.  It couldn't just be the way one or two guys play - it was something they discussed.  Bruins are big and will try to use their size to muscle you off the puck and win races to the puck.  But if you take the feet out on any animal, no matter how big....

    [object HTMLDivElement]



    I wish we had someone capable of putting together the video compilation of that.



    Wow.  We should rewind all the whiny canuck threads about how we bullied them.  Add this to it.  They slewfooted and tripped us.   Hahaha.  Montreal beat us with speed and skill.  They figured out the bruin blueprint similar how teams figured out Vancouver and Sids pens.  Now teams will go at the Bruins with speed and push the pace.  They didnt back down to the style that pushed the canucks into submission...they laughed at it...mocked it Chicago opened up the blueprint.  Montreal followed it.  

    Maybe they can add all the stupid spears, water bottle splashes, chest beats, flexing and heads down in defeat looks.  

    Great stuff.

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    Once again you spelled out my thoughts perfectly.  I can write well but it would take me hours to do what you did in a short span of time.  Thanks, it was a good read.  BTW if NAS actually wrote a historical book, don't you wonder if it was a graphic novel?  Hehe.  

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Maybe you haven't heard this yet, so don't shoot the messenger, but the Bruins are out of the playoffs.

     

    Lots of reaction threads.  Lots of people consoling themselves by saying they knew it was coming.  The usual.  A few good commentaries, like JMW's post suggesting that at least part of the problem is that they overachieved during the regular season, so expectations and confidence were probably too high.  As NAS put it, they played, they weren't good enough, they lost.  And because it was Montreal, and because they rarely led a game in the series, it feels like they got swept and so must surely be deeply flawed - so now it's all over but the blaming.

     

    Here's the Bookboy version of the blame game. Rather than pick a scapegoat, here's how I'd allocate fault for the loss knowing that in this case "fault" means as much "what could XX have done differently?"

     

    Chiarelli:  I tend to think the team overachieved in the regular season.  While there were some trouble spots, and a scary speed wobble when Seidenberg went down and they suddenly couldn't kill a penalty, they were consistent all year long and had a historic stretch of success that accounts for their huge points lead by the end of the year and the President's Trophy.  I think we were all aware of how improbable it was that the team would do so well with so many inexperienced D and 4 of the top 9 fwds being new faces.  The turning point for Chiarelli was between Seidenberg's injury and the deadline and the relationship between current performance and probability.  The young D stepped up and played remarkably well down the stretch, especially Bartkowski and Miller.  The team's record with them in the lineup was improbably good, and that certainly made it look like it was possible to ride them into the playoffs.  But the longer they had to bear the load, the more probability suggested they would come back to earth, and they did at the worst time (well, maybe the Finals would ahve been worse?).  It would have had to be a bold and risky move to address this, and the key may have been experience more than talent.  I think you could argue that not many D available were clearly an upgrade in raw talent, but experience might have been more important than talent.  Think of the role Hal Gill played for the Penguins.  The right veteran D who blocks shots and makes the safe play off the glass might have made a world of difference.  Fault: mis-read how far the young D could be pushed, balance of talent/experience on the back end.

     

    Julien: I admit, I work a lot the way Julien does.  Figure out the best solution with available resources and implement it.  Stick to the plan and don't get distracted if everything doesn't work perfectly.  Know your tolerances for "not perfect" and stay within them.  For the Bruins, this means controlling the tempo with the system, particularly with the controlled breakouts.  Rather than look for the fast break, the Bruins would rather let everyone get set up and then attack as a unit, get the cycle going etc.  Montreal gameplanned for this.  One guy went to the puck carrier, a second to the other D to take away the D to D pass, a third guy pinched on the winger at the half boards, and a fourth guy was on the blueline for that short chip from the winger to whoever would then look to carry the puck out.  They were all in on that scheme for long stretches and it produced both turnovers and bad passes.  This team dies when it loses the ability to pass.  They're plenty fast enough, but if you can't pass you can't use speed.  Julien's gameplan never waivered.  It never changed.  And why would it?  They took a 3-2 series lead by not changing their gameplan.  They were a few conversions away from feeling a lot better about the system - a few posts, a few missed open nets.  They had two games to find their rhythm.  They didn't.  But if Julien had armed them with a plan B on that breakout, I think it would have made a significant difference in how the series played out.  Fault: didn't take advantage of Montreal's aggressive forecheck in any systematic or planned way.

     

    Players: It's a catch-all but as a group, the players simply didn't execute the fundamental things you need to do to win hockey games.  Complete passes.  Win puck battles.  Convert high percentage scoring chances.  I don't think there's one guy I would exempt from this.  Not one.  And the worst part of this is how it played right into Montreal's hands.  When the Bruins are "off" on their passes, they manage the puck by putting it into spots and then retrieve it.  Montreal was set up for it.  They knew as well as the Bruins did where the puck would go if it was pushed into space.  The answer: complete two or three passes in a row.  When the Bruins did this, you saw the ice tilt in their favour - game 1 and game 2, third period for example.

     

    They also misread their success in the regular season.  They seemed confident that if they played the system, they'd win - great! - but were perhaps too confident in the system because they didn't have the focus or intensity they needed to make the system work.

     

    Leadership was also an issue.  Elvis is not Dr. Recchi.  The fundamental difference between them is that Recchi came with the experience of multiple Cups, and Iginla came with a desire to finally win one.  That's a difference between calming influence and the anxiety of a HoFer who doesn't want to have support group meetings with Marcel Dionne.  Chara is a lead on the ice guy, but he was as off as any of them when it came to reads as well as passing.  Offensively, he was a non-entity.  Bergeron set the tone on a couple of occasions - fired pucks on net, blazed in on the forecheck and forced some turnovers for grade A chances - but he couldn't get the team to raise it's game, and particularly couldn't get Marchand on track.  And finally...Fat.  Fat got the jacket.  Fat decided the logo thump was the signature for this run.  Fat tried to lead them to play with that swagger he has when he's on his game.  He wasn't on his game.  When it was working, Krug picked it up and it looked like it was going to be that thing.  When it stopped working because Fat wasn't executing, it was more fuel for the Scabs than the Bruins and became a way for the Scabs to get into the Bruins' kitchen.  Lot of wrong notes there.  A lot.

     

    Faults: Level of execution, excess of confidence.

     

    Fundamentally, they disproved Parcells's "You are what your record says you are."  They might be a 100 point team because they have the Selke winner, the Vezina winner, and a Norris finalist, but everything beyond that was improbable, and had they acted like that 98 or 100 point team and not a President's Trophy winner, maybe it would have given them the urgency they needed.

     

    It was a great regular season.  It sets up another great year next year if they can manage the cap and if they don't overdo change.

     

     

     

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!




    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: More than cool reason....

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    Montoya, you murdered my father, prepare to die"

    I like it....

    This is totally off the topic, but it's my topic, so sue me.

    I still cannot believe how systematically the Canadiens slewfooted and tripped the Bruins.  It was constant.  Add Subban falling down in front of hits at least three times and performing a perfect form tackle on Lucic, and I couldn't hate Montreal more.  It was so blatant, it had to be a gameplan.  It couldn't just be the way one or two guys play - it was something they discussed.  Bruins are big and will try to use their size to muscle you off the puck and win races to the puck.  But if you take the feet out on any animal, no matter how big....

    [object HTMLDivElement]



    I wish we had someone capable of putting together the video compilation of that.



Wow.  We should rewind all the whiny canuck threads about how we bullied them.  Add this to it.  They slewfooted and tripped us.   Hahaha.  Montreal beat us with speed and skill.  They figured out the bruin blueprint similar how teams figured out Vancouver and Sids pens.  Now teams will go at the Bruins with speed and push the pace.  They didnt back down to the style that pushed the canucks into submission...they laughed at it...mocked it Chicago opened up the blueprint.  Montreal followed it.  

Maybe they can add all the stupid spears, water bottle splashes, chest beats, flexing and heads down in defeat looks.  

Great stuff.

You go ahead and call it like that if you want.  Show me where what I posted says anything about boo hoo the Bruins lost because the Scabs are sneaky dirty and someone should call a GM meeting to deal with the "Montreal problem."  I wrote 5000 words on why I think the Bruins lost.  None of them is "the Scabs tripped them".  I didn't like the tripping.  I didn't like that it seemed orchestrated.  Can you live with that or does it offend your love for Subban, Price, Emelin ... how many Scabs have you defended on here in the last four months, anyway?

 

 


[object HTMLDivElement]

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from wallydouglas. Show wallydouglas's posts

    Re: More than cool reason....


    In any sport and in fact every sport, the rules become different and inconsistent from game to game in the playoffs. Im not gonna get into some more of the most recent crap that was dealt in other sports but its a given fact that these changes in playoffs are more suitable to the game for all its hype than it is for the sport itself. The habs have a gutless team and  subban ranks in the top ten of being such a coward is the reason hes so disliked. The habs used every peewee trick in the book to win this series and got away with it, but only because lady luck was on there side. The nhl makes me sick when it comes to the blantan calls and non calls they make, its there time to shine in there own eyes, no one elses.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share