the blame game

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

    the blame game

    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?

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

    Re: the blame game

    Toe Blake

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

    Re: the blame game

    Scottie Bowman got fired a bunch of times.

    Stevegm has a good point, and it's the one I've settled on.  CJ is an excellent coach, that's for sure, but every coach has a shelf life.  There's only so many speeches you can make before you start repeating yourself.

    I didn't see a motivated team play the habs.  IMO it should have been the coaching to motivate them.

    Remember years gone by when they went to Lake Placid to adjust attitude before the Habs series?  Maybe they needed something like that this year/

    And having said all this - maybe it was Ward who was the fall guy.  Ward who is now gone off to coach the Manheim Eagles.  So maybe this has been addressed.

     

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

    Re: the blame game

    Exactly. Ultimately those in charge are held accountable, whether fairly or not, for team outcomes.

    Nothing lasts forever....even cold November rain.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Lex44. Show Lex44's posts

    Re: the blame game

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Well if you bring up maybe making some changes on the top 2 lines when the first line was obviously struggling you get vilified on here. They claim that that is the way Claude does things and your practically an idiot for bringing it up. Don't know if it would have helped but the coach that won probably would have tried to shake them out of their doldrums .. 

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

    Re: the blame game

    CJ can't coach players to hit open nets or to hit posts and while yes he should shoulder some of the the blame,he did coach the B's to the Pesidents Trophy,the second round of the playoffs and to game 7 against their most bitter rival. Not much credit here has been given to the Montreal coach and staff,who i think deserve a lot of the credit for devising a game plan that frustrated the Bruins and the Scab players who implemented it perfectly.


    The Bruins were up 3 games to 2 against Montreal and couldn't close it out,while laying 2 of the biggest eggs in close out games that i watched them play all year. Maybe CJ could have changed the lines,but at that point,from what i saw,it wouldn't have mattered,the puck off Millers skate,Lucic misses a wide open net and so on and so forth.The B's just got beat by a team that played their game plan to a tee,and it worked,and of course the missed nets,posts and lucky bounces went against them as well. ;-)  


     


     


     


     


     


    You will never find a more wretched hive of SCUM and VILLAINY.


    -Obi-Wan Kenobi

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

    Re: the blame game

    The coach is excellent.  He did have a flaw though.  The Habs did an outstanding job of attacking the D without the puck, knowing that the D to D pass is how the Bruins set up their breakout.  It caused them to get bottled up in their own end many times.  It doesn't mean you fire an excellent coach though, it means you talk to him and develop a response for when other teams do it.  CJ was out-coached in the 2009 playoffs and adapted too late...but took those lessons going forward very well.

    Other issues that caused the Bruins loss were:

    -A Habs team that matched up well and played well.

    -Missing Kelly on the PK - the Bruins were a disaster there and to me never looked comfortable and missed a left faceoff guy.  The Habs scored a ridiculous proportion of their goals on the PP.

    -Refereeing.  I don't usually bring up officiating, but it seemed as a whole the reffing suited the habs more, and specifically in game 7 it was terribly bias against the Bruins.  Twice a Bruin was hooked but ended up with the penalty, both by a Montreal resident official.  Marchand also had a target on him.  Kerry Fraser as much agreed with my sentiment on this one.

    -Young D errors.  Bartowski was 2 minutes waiting to happen and Miller was a little shell-shocked in his first playoffs.  Krug and Hamilton were impressive, but 4/6 D with less than 2 years experience is not a recipe for playoff success.

    Those things combined were a perfect storm for a VERY narrow playoff 7th game loss.  There really isn't a need to blame anyone specific more than that or for anyone to be a scapegoat.  Boston was still the best team in the league, maybe second best when LA added Gaborik.  The Bruins could have easily beat Montreal this year and we'd be having very different conversations, not unlike in 2011.

    Getting Seidenberg and Kelly back addresses 2 shortcomings and to me puts the Bruins ahead of the Habs going forward.  They may need to deal Kelly for cap space and if so they need to have a left side player who can take his role.  They will also need to find a skilled wing to replace Iginla before the '15 playoffs start, be that from within or with a trade deadline deal.

    Bottom line there is no real need to "blame" anyone.  You address the shortcomings and with only a slight tweak it's the Bruins on top of the habs.  You go forward with what was and is an excellent, well-coached, well-managed team with fantastic talent, depth and character.

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

    Re: the blame game

    Personally I blame my Jaromir Jagr avatar and that I wasn't able to put a proper Joe Juneau on there.  I haven't figured out this stupid new Boston.com yet.

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

    Re: the blame game

    In response to OatesCam's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Personally I blame my Jaromir Jagr avatar and that I wasn't able to put a proper Joe Juneau on there.  I haven't figured out this stupid new Boston.com yet.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was reading an article in La Presse on line the other day, and one of the sidebars was Joey Juneau being the recipient of an award for his work with ... I think it was at risk youth ... in Nunavik.  Good for Joey.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: the blame game

    Good for anyone that chooses to be in Nunavik...very unforgiving environment


     

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

    Re: the blame game

    "Then a huge winning streak, when a Cup celebration appeared only a formality."

    I think this is the key sentence that leads to the blame game.  The Bruins go monkey faeces in March, therefore they are unbeatable, therefore the only way they don't win a Cup is if someone is to blame.  Bull....

    I think Julien motivated them.  I think he had them rallying around a common objective.  I just think they blew it when choosing which personality they would project in the series.  They went with the bully.  Julien kept saying that they expected to win, you had players saying they had "figured out" Price.  It played into Therrien's "we're so disrespected" strategy that worked very well with his players.  I liked more of the "Mr Wolf" professional persona they had in 2011.  Unflappable, but very dangerous.  So that I think is his fault, but it's one strike against a lot of positives.

    OC pointed out the way MTL took away the D to D pass, but I think that was step one of several.  They attacked the Bruins' system and their ability to control the flow of the game (the Bruins still controlled long stretches of the game).  They took away the D to D, then the wing on the half wall, then the short pass off the half wall to the swinging forward with speed, then the cross ice wing to wing pass.  That whole prototype Bruins breakout - they went to the spots the Bruins would be going to and jumped on the play.  It led to a lot of bad passes because the Bruins weren't passing to a spot where a guy was supposed to be - they were trying to complete lower percentage plays.  Like any press D, you can take advantage of that if you strategize.  They didn't.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

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

    Re: the blame game

    In response to jmwalters' comment:[QUOTE] Exactly. Ultimately those in charge are held accountable, whether fairly or not, for team outcomes.

    Nothing lasts forever....even cold November rain. [/QUOTE]


    ^I see what you did there Axl!^

    Mike Weaver and Gaborik got traded for peanuts. Volchenkov and Tallinder were available. No matter how you spin it, they were better options than what PC brought in to replace Seidenberg's "big minutes". PC must be more aggressive at the deadline or right before the deadline like he was in 2011.

    On Steve's question about Julien's coaching - is there is still a Freudian Slip on how to counter the two-man forecheck. Therrien had two forwards right along the half-wall to cut off that first outlet pass and I think sometimes Claude wants his veteran defenseman to adjust to this themselves or Houda is at a loss ?

    Laviolette, Maurice, Hunter and Therrien prayed upon this continually during the playoffs. I know that isn't the only reason the Bruins were ousted those years, there were other factors. I see this as an effective way opposing coaches are going after a Julien coached team.

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

    Re: the blame game

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Mike Weaver and Gaborik got traded for peanuts. Volchenkov and Tallinder were available. No matter how you spin it, they were better options than what PC brought in to replace Seidenberg's "big minutes". PC must be more aggressive at the deadline or right before the deadline like he was in 2011.

    [/QUOTE]

    Remember Sandog,PC tried to get Edler and had a deal in place,the Kesler deal fell apart and the rest is history,by the time that happened Weaver was gone and Meszaros was left. PC can't be in on every deal and at any cost,he likely thought Bart & Miller were adequate enough to get by the Scabs,he was wrong i guess. 

    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: the blame game

    Hey as long as you are Ok with how many years PC gets a stab at getting deadline deals right. Once Edler and Weaver were gone, you cross off and go down the list. Tallinder and Volchenkov were up.

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

    Re: the blame game

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hey as long as you are Ok with how many years PC gets a stab at getting deadline deals right. Once Edler and Weaver were gone, you cross off and go down the list. Tallinder and Volchenkov were up.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree.  When your team is that close to being a cup winner you must replace those minutes.  If it means giving up a late 1st round pick you do it.  Erhroff also would have been an option.  

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

    Re: the blame game

    I've posted my impression of the deadline deal strategy before, but I think PC sees it the way a veteran gambler would. He has, on a couple of occasions, gone in big to try to take home the "prize" pickup.  More often than not, he makes a bet that has a realistic shot of paying off disproportionately considering what he had to pay.  Going big is usually the opposite - you pay through the nose in futures for 30-40 games of the prize and hope that the payoff is enough to get you over the hump.  It very rarely is.

    This year, the gamble was that Meszaros with Chara around would be the guy who looked like a top 3 defenseman in the making back in Ottawa.  A little bit of Larry Murphy magic where you put a guy in the right situation and he flourishes.  It didn't happen; Meszaros was fine physically but dumb as a rock.  It cost them a third round pick.  C'est la vie.

    This year was bizarre.  Vanek for a B prospect and a conditional 2?  Moulson and McCormack for a journeyman fill in and two 2nds?  Hemsky for a 3rd and a 5th?  I counted only two 1sts that moved at the deadline, and a Ryan was involved in both.  Seriously deflated market, and I think the overall importance of EL contracts to team building is starting to catch up with the price for rentals.  I wonder if Chia would have taken a different path if he'd known how low these other discussions might go.

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

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

    Re: the blame game

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hey as long as you are Ok with how many years PC gets a stab at getting deadline deals right. Once Edler and Weaver were gone, you cross off and go down the list. Tallinder and Volchenkov were up.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree.  When your team is that close to being a cup winner you must replace those minutes.  If it means giving up a late 1st round pick you do it.  Erhroff also would have been an option.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think they would have wanted to deal for the length of Erhoff's contract.  Believe I was the first to mention the A-Train here....

     


    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: the blame game

    Yeah, I agree totally with Oates and Book on what went wrong and personally, I hate the blame game about anything.  It's why I started this thread.

    But there's more too.

    I'm not blaming CJ, I think he's a good coach.  If I was GM though, I see some realities I can't ignore, if I truly think my team has been as "elite" as all the critics have been saying.

      I don't think there's any argument, that would suggest this team hasn't been really good since 09.  CJ deserves some credit for that, but, lets face it.  Most teams don't have the talent to advance 1 round in the playoffs.

     When making comparisons to the really good teams, the Bruins have performed well in the 08, 11 and 13 playoffs.  In 09, they were shocked by an inferior Hurricanes team.  In 10 they set a franchise high water mark in playoff failure.  In 12, they lost to an inferior lower seed, and they repeated that again in 14.

    In order to really figure out what that means, one has to look at the other championship "big dogs".

    LA was irrelevant til the spring of 10, and when they finally did make the playoffs, they were understandably beaten in the first round by a higher seed.  In 11 they got better, and again got beat by a higher seed, the Cup finalists.  Despite this success, they figured they should still be growing competitvely, and fired Murray the next fall.  Despite seeding lower than the previous year, Sutter took them to a championship in 12.

    In 13, they lose to the eventual Cup champions in the semi's.  In 14 they win it all again.  Despite the hiccups everyone else has, the one thing they don't regularly do...is lose to teams they're not supposed to.

    How about Chicago.

    In 09 they go to the conference finals, and lose to a higher seed.  In 10 they win it all, then have to gut the team for Cap reasons.  In 11, they stumble...but not really, because they lose in 7 games to a much higher seed, the eventual Cup finalists.  In 12, they under-achieve by anyones standard, as they lose to Phoenix, in the first round.  In 13, they win it all again, and again in 14, they lose to the eventual Stanley cup champions in the conference final.

    Like LA...they've  rarely lost a playoff series to a team they're not supposed to.

    When you look at it...there's a profound difference in the way these 3 teams have performed recently.  That's especially poignant, when one realizes the Bruin pitfalls can't be pinned to the "stronger" western conference.  The Bruins are falling on their behinds, before they have to play the teams in the West.

    Despite being billed as a tough, responsible, balanced, hard working team, "built' for playoff success....this group, when compared to their contemporaries, has more delivered, to the image of "regular season ballerina".

    No one has defended CJ more staunchly than I have.  I like him, like his style a lot.  I'm not saying it's his fault, but when one looks at the strength of this team during the reg seasons, there's absolutely no argument, that this team should have a much better playoff record since he got here.  They shouldn't have lost, so regularly, to inferior opponents. 

    So...............what to do about it?

    The time has come to take a look at the "easy" alternatives.  GM's are getting a pass they never used to because of the Cap.  Unless they have several "bad" contracts, they're somewhat insulated.

    As for the coach...there are only 3 possible scenarios.  #1.  We would have more success without him.  #2.  We would have less success without him.  #3.  We would have the same success without him.

    When we look at a sample size that is several years deep.  When we look at this teams regular season prowess.  When we look at the roster, and consider the number of players the industry considers good, to very good.  When you look at how other elite teams have performed, compared to potential............the most logical scenarios to cross off the list, would be #2 and #3.

    If this organization really wants to win it all........CJ's job security should be quite iffy right now.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

      

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Uncle-Salty. Show Uncle-Salty's posts

    Re: the blame game

    Julien is a good coach. He has a few flaws such as his strange love and devotion to Jordan Caron. CJ is not the problem.

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

    Re: the blame game

    "I wonder if Chia would have taken a different path if he'd known how low these other discussions might go."

    Why didn't PC know ?

     

    "I didn't know Joe Thornton was available!"

    Not the thinking you want on Causeway.

     

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

    Re: the blame game

    CJ is a proven winner. Most people (me included) generally like and respect what he has done. That being said, he does have a very strong tendency to "stay the course" and wait for things to work out. While this is admirable and shows confidence in his team, one could argue that a playoff series is short enough where that approach may not apply.

    We could argue all season on that topic - I certainly don't know if shaking things up would have helped their aim on empty nets. But I think most coaches would have tried...

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

    Re: the blame game

    It's hard to argue that, of the three teams to win Cups in the last 5 years, the Bruins have had less playoff success - just because they have one Cup and LA and Chicago have two.  In terms of their ability to beat teams they should beat, especially in the playoffs, I would say that spins things in the least flattering way.  The situation for each team matters, as you've said by acknowledging the post cup purge in Chicago.  But the biggest loss from the Cap purge was Niemi.  They still had their core and a lot of their secondary players like Bolland and Brouwer.  By definition, falling as far back as they did in the regular season means they weren't supposed to beat anyone in the playoffs.  When they lost to Phoenix, they were the sixth seed and lost to a third division winner - again, with the core in place.  I think you could argue that they had the tools to beat both Vancouver and Phoenix when they lost.  It's a little different with LA in that we're really only looking at a 3 year span for them because they weren't really a powerhouse team in 2010 and 2011: Cup, lost to Cup winner, Cup.  Yep, no one is better than that.

    This way of looking at things also lets us rip the Bruins, but I would argue that having a better record isn't always the same thing as "should beat" an opponent.  Against the Hurricanes, the Bruins had just won their first playoff series in 9 years.  They were in transition with a lot of inexperienced players in key roles.  Bergeron was a shell of himself in his first post-concussion year.  The Defense was Chara and then the Uh-ohs.  Wideman, Ward, Ference, Hnidy, Stuart, Hunwick.  They were a top seed because they had had a great regular season led by a breakthrough year from Kessel, growth from Lucic, and the emergence of the Krejci-Wheeler-Ryder line.  They lost to a team three years removed from a Cup with a lot of the same core players and the former Conn Smythe winner in net.  The next year, they weren't supposed to beat the Sabres after the Bruins dropped to 6th in the East in the RS.  They did and got "lucky" to find that they faced an even lower seed in the second round.  If the East goes chalk other than the Bruins beating the Sabres, they don't face a team they "should" beat again.

    Really, the issue is the years since the Cup.  If we look at that stretch of 2011 on, LA, Chicago and Boston have all:

    • made the finals twice. 
    • lost to the eventual Cup winner once.

    I think if you look at that on balance against the two years the Bruins lost to a lower seeded team, it's hard to decide to jettison the coach.  If they had won against Chicago, it would have been virtually impossible, and as you pointed out on another thread, its amazing what one goal can do (this time, a deflection off of Ference's skate is probably the lynchpin).

    The bigger question for me is really: "how good is the Bruins roster (in the abstract)?"  If you put another coach and another system in place, how well does this team do?  And I think it's really hard to say because none of the key players has ever played for another NHL team.  As much as I like the players on this team, I think playing in Boston and in this system covers up for some of their individual flaws.  For example, I think both Boychuk and McQuaid found a home in Boston because Claude's zone is a better match for their skills than a system where they're pressuring the puck carrier more.  Seidenberg too, for that matter.  Up front, I wonder if Lucic would be a successful first line scorer on a lot of other teams where the top line is more oriented to speed and transition offense than the grind it out cycle.  I wonder if Marchand is more Andrew Shaw or Brendan Gallagher than 25+ goal scorer.

    I remain convinced that Julien gets more out of the roster than the sum of its parts.  On balance, that means that sometimes they're overachieving in the regular season (last year) and sometimes they are in fact wetting the bed (2012).

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

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

    Re: the blame game

    In response to btrentor's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We could argue all season on that topic - I certainly don't know if shaking things up would have helped their aim on empty nets. But I think most coaches would have tried...

    [/QUOTE]

    This is part of the point with CJ.  Most coaches would have.  Most coaches are not the winningest coach in the history of an original six franchise.

    I've long thought that CJ looks at what has the greatest chance of working and he does that.  If it doesn't work, nothing is 100%, and it's a gambler's fallacy to think the odds change just because it didn't work the first time.  Do it again, but execute this time!  He has, I believe, been more willing to make changes when persistent lack of execution - or effort - forces his hand: see Sequins, Tailor, playoffs 2013.


    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: the blame game

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "I wonder if Chia would have taken a different path if he'd known how low these other discussions might go."

    Why didn't PC know ?

    "I didn't know Joe Thornton was available!"

    Not the thinking you want on Causeway.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think it's necessarily a major failing.  I could easily see PC calling the Islanders or Buffalo and testing the waters.  Exploratory response is we want Krug or your first pick, so he hangs up.  Forward was not a perceived need.  Defense was.  So he works the phones for defensemen, concentrates on Edler, keeps irons in others.  Doesn't go back on Vanek or Moulson because the first conversation was a non-starter, so he's not in there making the Worseoffsky and a 5th for Vanek bid.

    Unlike all those GMs who moaned about not knowing JT Superstar was available, I think there's a good chance he did his due diligence to see what that market was at a time before the bottom of it fell out, and when the sellers realized they were in trouble, his attention was focused on needs not bargain hunting.



    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: the blame game

    I'm pretty sure the Bruins have won more playoff rounds than any other team in the league over the last few years.

    When you look at when they lost since '10, two times there was an injury to David Krejci (wrist, pane of glass to head), once to Chicago in the final and this most recent one to Montreal.  Other than that we have 9 wins.  Pretty impressive.

    Also, even if Chicago and LA are more impressive teams, it doesn't mean they have more impressive coaches. I would actually wager that CJ's coaching is a major factor why the Bruins are a contender and that he actually gets results beyond the sum of the parts.  I'm not sure I feel that way about LA and Chicago.

     

    n response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah, I agree totally with Oates and Book on what went wrong and personally, I hate the blame game about anything.  It's why I started this thread.

    But there's more too.

    I'm not blaming CJ, I think he's a good coach.  If I was GM though, I see some realities I can't ignore, if I truly think my team has been as "elite" as all the critics have been saying.

      I don't think there's any argument, that would suggest this team hasn't been really good since 09.  CJ deserves some credit for that, but, lets face it.  Most teams don't have the talent to advance 1 round in the playoffs.

     When making comparisons to the really good teams, the Bruins have performed well in the 08, 11 and 13 playoffs.  In 09, they were shocked by an inferior Hurricanes team.  In 10 they set a franchise high water mark in playoff failure.  In 12, they lost to an inferior lower seed, and they repeated that again in 14.

    In order to really figure out what that means, one has to look at the other championship "big dogs".

    LA was irrelevant til the spring of 10, and when they finally did make the playoffs, they were understandably beaten in the first round by a higher seed.  In 11 they got better, and again got beat by a higher seed, the Cup finalists.  Despite this success, they figured they should still be growing competitvely, and fired Murray the next fall.  Despite seeding lower than the previous year, Sutter took them to a championship in 12.

    In 13, they lose to the eventual Cup champions in the semi's.  In 14 they win it all again.  Despite the hiccups everyone else has, the one thing they don't regularly do...is lose to teams they're not supposed to.

    How about Chicago.

    In 09 they go to the conference finals, and lose to a higher seed.  In 10 they win it all, then have to gut the team for Cap reasons.  In 11, they stumble...but not really, because they lose in 7 games to a much higher seed, the eventual Cup finalists.  In 12, they under-achieve by anyones standard, as they lose to Phoenix, in the first round.  In 13, they win it all again, and again in 14, they lose to the eventual Stanley cup champions in the conference final.

    Like LA...they've  rarely lost a playoff series to a team they're not supposed to.

    When you look at it...there's a profound difference in the way these 3 teams have performed recently.  That's especially poignant, when one realizes the Bruin pitfalls can't be pinned to the "stronger" western conference.  The Bruins are falling on their behinds, before they have to play the teams in the West.

    Despite being billed as a tough, responsible, balanced, hard working team, "built' for playoff success....this group, when compared to their contemporaries, has more delivered, to the image of "regular season ballerina".

    No one has defended CJ more staunchly than I have.  I like him, like his style a lot.  I'm not saying it's his fault, but when one looks at the strength of this team during the reg seasons, there's absolutely no argument, that this team should have a much better playoff record since he got here.  They shouldn't have lost, so regularly, to inferior opponents. 

    So...............what to do about it?

    The time has come to take a look at the "easy" alternatives.  GM's are getting a pass they never used to because of the Cap.  Unless they have several "bad" contracts, they're somewhat insulated.

    As for the coach...there are only 3 possible scenarios.  #1.  We would have more success without him.  #2.  We would have less success without him.  #3.  We would have the same success without him.

    When we look at a sample size that is several years deep.  When we look at this teams regular season prowess.  When we look at the roster, and consider the number of players the industry considers good, to very good.  When you look at how other elite teams have performed, compared to potential............the most logical scenarios to cross off the list, would be #2 and #3.

    If this organization really wants to win it all........CJ's job security should be quite iffy right now.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

      

    [/QUOTE]


     

Share