A 2 or 3 game rough stretch after Seidenberg went down, and panic hit these boards. The Bruins were toast. Then a huge winning streak, when a Cup celebration appeared only a formality.
Enter round 3 of the playoffs, and with no Bruins, this place wanted blood.
Marchand came out of the gate, as "the" convenient scapegoat, but that didn't last long. Too easy. All of a sudden, this really good team..., became a worthless bunch of losers, not just for today, but forever. Iginla can't play because of his age, despite having a great year. Then when it appears he can't be re-signed, he was the only reason the Bruins were above 500. Lucic should go, Chara should be bought out. Krejki is now a dud, and Rask is a choker who'll hamstring the Bruins budget into eternity.. That covers off the top 2 lines, and the anchor defensively.
The team suddenly turned old and slow. A reality that demanded huge change. The good old days were gone. A rebuild became necessary, and the obvious pain of mediocrity, was a reality as this team attempted to claw their way back to respectability.
Virtually everyone agrees, the Bruins laid a huge egg. Those with quick, easy fixes also agree, the malaise was team wide throughout the playoffs. None of the guys paid to...even had a "decent playoff", let alone good. That in itself is very rare. Bruinland turned on PC in a heartbeat. All of a sudden he got "real average", maybe worse. He supposedly dumbly handed away the future, with bloated long term nmc contracts that exhausted his ability to ice a competitive team.
What I find surprising, is that this group hasn't seen fit to question the ability of the coach. Every significant piece of this hockey team, and it's management group has been dragged through the mud.
But not the coach.
The old adage, "you can't fire the players", would seem to fit reasonably well here, but we haven't gone that route yet, and oddly...the coach has traditionally been singled out here, every time the Bruins go into their regular season funks.
This poster has written more posts defending the coach, than any other single Bruin employee. Only because there's been more posts on that subject than I care to remember.
How come the coach has been spared this time?
If the Bruins really did under achieve, they had to be good. They had to have the players good enough...to get it done. Since about year 2 of the CJ era, many would suggest the Bruins have been good enough to get it done. Most coaches don't have good enough players to realistically advance past round 1. CJ's system isn't rocket science, and it's now become quite standardized in various aspects among the elite. It's also, tailor made, for low skill teams.
No team plays in high gear all the time. It's impossible.
Coaches are a dime a dozen. Money isn't an issue.
The question is simple.
Since it's obvious CJ didn't get nearly enough out of his Bruins in 3 of the last 5 years.....is it possible that his personal contribution peaked when he got the team out of the Dave Lewis sewer? Is there anyone out there, that posters truly believe would have a better overall record with this group?