Re: To Every Member Here
posted at 5/26/2013 9:44 AM EDT
In response to stevegm's comment:
In response to Fletcher1's comment:
Now's not the time, jersey. It should go without saying to any intelligent person that there is never perfection in a hockey game. So, you can either sift through the game and focus on the mistakes that are destined to happen in any competition, or you can enjoy the product. A winning product.
We know there were mistakes. To point them out is redundant. They won. They beat a rival. They are going to the conference finals. Again. It's fantastic for any Bruin fan.
But Boychuk pinched once, when he shouldn't have, and the Rangers almost scored?
Dumb. And people will say so.
EOIHIOHHH ! Don't know Fletch. I think we're mistaking things when we go along with this "don't put up with anything negative stuff".
Nothing wrong with critiqing "our" team. Last thing I want to read, is a bunch of kiss-ass cheerleader talk after every B's game. Bring on whatever. Just be prepared to back it up.
Okay, how about this - there were two things about that comment that I would say are typical examples of the sad sack Sally school of commenting (not necessarily putting the poster
in that school, but since were debating an example that some feel is borderline...). One is the word NAS bolded. "They won, but
...". No buts. They won, period. Putting the critique out there as tainting the win, or detracting from it, is exactly the point - not that we can't talk hockey or Xs and Os. It's the frame on the comment that makes it meaningful in this context. Two is that the comment's only real value is to detract from joy of the win. Here's what I see as the same observation in the context of breaking down the game rather than tainting the joy of the win:
I was surprised to see Boychuk pinch that late in the game. They had been stepping up on the Rangers when they tried to break out for the entire third period, and I guess you either keep doing what's working or you get conservative and keep your D back. Tough call because you don't want to lay back and let the Rangers bring the puck at you with speed, but pinching is always a risk even though it had been working for the whole third period.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for this (probably fair enough), I freely ackowledge that I'm working with the advantage of hindsight and it looks like I'm trying to tell people how to post. I'm running that risk (such as it is) just to try and illustrate a difference I see because I don't want to read nothing but tongue-baths either.
So - I wanted to put that play in context and introduce it in a way that was faithful to the original post: "What the...Boychuk is pinching with 2 min left?!?!". But it worked out fine, so it's not "that's a stupid play" and rather than dwell on what might have been, I wanted to take a step back and figure out why Boychuk chose to make what looked like an unconventional play. And when I did that, this is what I remembered of how they kept the Rangers from getting more than 5 or 6 scoring chances for most of the game. I just wanted to make it the discussion of game strategy rather than a "that could have cost us! That's stupid!" because just about any play on the ice could prove stupid if it goes wrong. That's where it matters that they won - the play didn't go wrong, or so wrong that it cost the Bruins anything. They won, and they won in part because they shut the Ranger attack down most of the game using the same strategy.
Is there any way that that conversation brings down someone having an extra pop or two to celebrate a series win?