Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

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

    Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    To me, the Kings won its 2nd Cup in 3 years and the B's have won just one (I laugh at that only because now 2011 feels a long time ago) in last 4 years not because of talent differences, and not because one has a better goalie, and not because the B's don't have all the tools. I think it's because the B's players in 2014's playoffs resembled v. the Canadiens the old B's playoff teams---they lost their confidence, swagger. This term used a lot--holding, squeezing the sticks too hard--and is an example to an extent is what good teams do often in sports--choke. The 2011-13 teams played hockey and the 12/13 teams lost at least with the B's playing mostly B's Hockey. The Kings, for their faults and the fact they should never have even been in a position to win a Cup down 3-0 v. the Sharks, continue to play fast and furious hockey. They don't "squeeze their sticks," and they are playing always at a frenetic pace it seems. Did hitting posts spooke the spoked B's? Maybe it had something to do with how the Habs series played out a bit, but I just didn't feel like the team's top players were inspired or played with any sense of urgency. Instead it seemed like they were acting as if making a tape to tape pass was a chemistry exam. The team was completely different in the last 3 months of the regular season. They had swagger, they played B's hockey, they were primed to compete for the Cup. The confidence level was through the roof. What happened to that? I don't know. I saw this happen to the 07 Patriots and I'm seeing it now with the B's. You start seeing how other teams are cracking "the system" or taking the B's "out of their game." I think it's more about the B's not showing confidence in their own abilities, and that's called pressure, and it's called choking. The B's 2013-14 team choked. Maybe they lose to the Hawks or Kings in the finals, but give me the '12-13 B's, Seguin, Jagr and just missing here and not getting breaks, but at least playing like a B's team that wanted it. The B's 13-14 team wanted to golf by game 7 v. the Habs. I'm sorry, I love this team, but they forgot what '10-11 thru '13-14 regular season was all about. B's Hockey. I hope they change the mojo, but if I ever see a team underachieve like they did v. Habs again, I will be sick over it. 

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In the playoffs especially, the Pats teams going back to '07 seem to find ways to lose--over-coaching, losing their scheme v. any team that pass rushes, and players dropping passes...I found it also a drop in confidence for some of the Pats top players as well. It's a far different than the B's, but I wanted to explain why I used that comparison...uber team loses its mojo v a team it should have blown out.

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    I am a Bruins fan (from Boston) living on the West Coast. So I watch quite a few Kings game. To me the Kings are a humble hard working team with a good goalie. They are experienced and most of all they have moxie. They fight to the finish no matter what. They play fast and hard and can turn it up a notch when they need to..and they shoot the puck..!  They certainly didnt win by playing stellar defense throughout the playoffs. 

     

    The Bruins will all of the talent they had this year just didn't bring it when they needed to. Sort of played with a high and mighty attitude. Also, they were young in key spots this year. Namely on defense. To many ill advised penalties at key times in the Montreal series..

     

    If you notice the Kings best players were a model of consistency throughout the playoffs. Time and time again they came up big when they needed to.  

    I thought the same thing why not us..well, it could have been if they came to play..we were so close to winning it against the Blackhawks and we didn't close..that was tough to swallow..

    Should be right back in the thick of things next year!

     

     

     

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To me, the Kings won its 2nd Cup in 3 years and the B's have won just one (I laugh at that only because now 2011 feels a long time ago) in last 4 years not because of talent differences, and not because one has a better goalie, and not because the B's don't have all the tools. I think it's because the B's players in 2014's playoffs resembled v. the Canadiens the old B's playoff teams---they lost their confidence, swagger. This term used a lot--holding, squeezing the sticks too hard--and is an example to an extent is what good teams do often in sports--choke. The 2011-13 teams played hockey and the 12/13 teams lost at least with the B's playing mostly B's Hockey. The Kings, for their faults and the fact they should never have even been in a position to win a Cup down 3-0 v. the Sharks, continue to play fast and furious hockey. They don't "squeeze their sticks," and they are playing always at a frenetic pace it seems. Did hitting posts spooke the spoked B's? Maybe it had something to do with how the Habs series played out a bit, but I just didn't feel like the team's top players were inspired or played with any sense of urgency. Instead it seemed like they were acting as if making a tape to tape pass was a chemistry exam. The team was completely different in the last 3 months of the regular season. They had swagger, they played B's hockey, they were primed to compete for the Cup. The confidence level was through the roof. What happened to that? I don't know. I saw this happen to the 07 Patriots and I'm seeing it now with the B's. You start seeing how other teams are cracking "the system" or taking the B's "out of their game." I think it's more about the B's not showing confidence in their own abilities, and that's called pressure, and it's called choking. The B's 2013-14 team choked. Maybe they lose to the Hawks or Kings in the finals, but give me the '12-13 B's, Seguin, Jagr and just missing here and not getting breaks, but at least playing like a B's team that wanted it. The B's 13-14 team wanted to golf by game 7 v. the Habs. I'm sorry, I love this team, but they forgot what '10-11 thru '13-14 regular season was all about. B's Hockey. I hope they change the mojo, but if I ever see a team underachieve like they did v. Habs again, I will be sick over it. 

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    How we lost twice to the Giants I will never know..for as much have Boston sports teams have one over the last decade we have suffered some serious losses in big games as well:

    Two losses to the Giants in the Super Bowl..close games that were ahead in both

    Game 7 against the lakers - we were ahead in the 4th quarter of Game 7 on the road

    Bruins collapse game 7 at home agains the Hawks in the cup

     

     

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In the playoffs especially, the Pats teams going back to '07 seem to find ways to lose--over-coaching, losing their scheme v. any team that pass rushes, and players dropping passes...I found it also a drop in confidence for some of the Pats top players as well. It's a far different than the B's, but I wanted to explain why I used that comparison...uber team loses its mojo v a team it should have blown out.

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    The kings best players are young and in their prime or about to enter it.  If you compare every position LA wins just about everyone.  They have 4 very deep lines.  The best player in the world in Doughty and the best goalie in the world.  Throw in a coach who the players love and can mix things perfectly and they are pretty darn awesome.  Adding Gabby was a perfect move that gave them a huge edge.  

    I can see LA in the finals again next year.  

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    The Bruins lost to Montreal because they were outplayed physically and beat to lose pucks constantly.

    Pats lose in the playoffs now because they can't film teams practices before big games anymore.

     

    Playoffs: Reilly Smith > Tyler Seguin

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    SanDog, it was more than being beat physically, and you know that. The B's best players were not playing well, for different reasons, Chara (hurt), Marchand (brain), Krejci (brain), Lucic (brain), Fill-In-the-Forward (brain).

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    shuper, and I can just as easily see the Kings lose in the first round. They are not as good as you think, but they are the hardest working team of any out there, and they refuse to lose--Quick and Rask are not that different in talent, and the Rangers cut it to 3-2 if not for Voynov's incredible stick block of Nash's open net. That's a goal, and it's 3-2 series.

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    shuper, and I can just as easily see the Kings lose in the first round. They are not as good as you think, but they are the hardest working team of any out there, and they refuse to lose--Quick and Rask are not that different in talent, and the Rangers cut it to 3-2 if not for Voynov's incredible stick block of Nash's open net. That's a goal, and it's 3-2 series.

    [/QUOTE]

    Kopitar Carter Stoll Richards.  Thats just sick.  Add Brown, Williams Toffoli.  Once again sick.  Add Gabby, Pearson.  Then the defense.  Mobile, big and fantastic defensively/offensively.  Quick has 2 cups in 3 yrs and was in the semis on a injured team last year.  The teams LA has beat in the last 3 yrs  is staggering.  Look at their first round opponents the last 3 yrs.  

    They have beaten the best in every year.  They have overcome great odds.   

    On top of having some of the worlds best skilled players you are right.  They work harder then any other team.  

    They likely are better then i think.  

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    I think a healthy Seidenberg or a few lucky bounces and the B's are playing the Kings in the finals.  If PC can sign Iginla to a deal similar to his last one (one year/low cap hit/bonus laden), the B's have a very good chance to win it all next year.  The Bruins continue to be among the elite teams in the league.

    Over the last four seasons:

    The Kings have won 10 playoff rounds (2 cups).

    The Bruins have won 8 playoff rounds (1 cup).

    The Blackhawks have won 6 playoff rounds (1 cup).

    The Rangers have won 6 playoff rounds.

    The Penguins, Devils, Sharks and Canucks are tied with having won 3 playoff rounds.

    In a fantasy world, the Bruins are in the finals every year.  In reality, it's not possible.  Everything has to go right to make that far.  You need to be healthy and you need the bounces.  The Kings went to seven games in their first three rounds this year.  One bad bounce and they lose.  Only four teams in the entire league have won more than three rounds in the last four years.  The Bruins have won eight!

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    Excuses! the Bruins got beat all over the ice and part of the blame is Chiarelli didn't address needs at the deadline. Stuff happens you know.

     

    Playoffs: Reilly Smith > Tyler Seguin

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Excuses! the Bruins got beat all over the ice and part of the blame is Chiarelli didn't address needs at the deadline. Stuff happens you know.

     

    Playoffs: Reilly Smith > Tyler Seguin

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the bruins would have given the Kings a harder time.  But LA is a well oiled machine.  They can play any style you want.  

    Our deadline deals were duds.  Im not a guy that thinks you need a huge upgrade to win.  But gabby had 14 goals for the kings.  They had young speed demons that played a huge role.  Our prospects dont have that nor did we add a game changer.  

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    Vegas has the B's as the odds on favs to come out of the East next season which I think interesting.

    But really, the three teams most likely to have long runs next season are LA, Hawks, and B's. They are really the class of the league.

    Just because the B's got knocked out in the 7th game of the second round does not mean anything more than when the Caps took them out in 2012. All is not over, the team is not done for. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

     

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to shuperman's comment:[QUOTE]Excuses! the Bruins got beat all over the ice and part of the blame is Chiarelli didn't address needs at the deadline. Stuff happens you know.[/QUOTE]

    I think the bruins would have given the Kings a harder time.  But LA is a well oiled machine.  They can play any style you want.  

    Our deadline deals were duds.  Im not a guy that thinks you need a huge upgrade to win.  But gabby had 14 goals for the kings.  They had young speed demons that played a huge role.  Our prospects dont have that nor did we add a game changer.  [/QUOTE]


    A King-Bruins will happen, maybe even twice, over the next 4 years but the serie(s) won't go five. LA wouldn't push Boston around for long stretches like they did New York.

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Excuses! the Bruins got beat all over the ice and part of the blame is Chiarelli didn't address needs at the deadline. Stuff happens you know.

     [/QUOTE]

    but...but...PC got Potter "the ghost" and "our man " Mez!!! How could the B's not make it to the finals when they stack their team so much!! Gaborik is just overrated!!  :)

     

     

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:[QUOTE]Excuses! the Bruins got beat all over the ice and part of the blame is Chiarelli didn't address needs at the deadline. Stuff happens you know.[/QUOTE]

    I think the bruins would have given the Kings a harder time.  But LA is a well oiled machine.  They can play any style you want.  

    Our deadline deals were duds.  Im not a guy that thinks you need a huge upgrade to win.  But gabby had 14 goals for the kings.  They had young speed demons that played a huge role.  Our prospects dont have that nor did we add a game changer.  [/QUOTE]


    A King-Bruins will happen, maybe even twice, over the next 4 years but the serie(s) won't go five. LA wouldn't push Boston around for long stretches like they did New York.

    [/QUOTE]

    The thing so scary about the Kings is that everyone on that team is physical and they are fast and huge.   I agree the Bruins pushback would be greater but their depth when lined up against LA just isnt there.  I wouldnt give the Bruins one edge in any department at the moment.  The older players on LA are clutch.  The core is dominant and the new blood are skilled and fast.  Pretty impressive

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The thing so scary about the Kings is that everyone on that team is physical and they are fast and huge.   I agree the Bruins pushback would be greater but their depth when lined up against LA just isnt there.  I wouldnt give the Bruins one edge in any department at the moment.  The older players on LA are clutch.  The core is dominant and the new blood are skilled and fast.  Pretty impressive

    [/QUOTE]


    I like this Shupe more than the Canadiens ball washer Shupe.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    at trade deadline, goalscorers were a dime a dozen....  B'S didn't need offense at the time....  what they needed was defense but capable d-men weren't readily available....  they usually aren't in March....

    that's the knock i have against PC, he should've started looking to replace Seids once he went down or knew the seriousness of the injury....  hard to acquire top-notch d-men to begin with, almost impossible when you give yourself little time....  

    that's if it's true that he was working on something major prior to settling for Meszaros....

    “People think common sense is common - but it's not.”


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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The thing so scary about the Kings is that everyone on that team is physical and they are fast and huge.   I agree the Bruins pushback would be greater but their depth when lined up against LA just isnt there.  I wouldnt give the Bruins one edge in any department at the moment.  The older players on LA are clutch.  The core is dominant and the new blood are skilled and fast.  Pretty impressive

    [/QUOTE]


    I like this Shupe more than the Canadiens ball washer Shupe.

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  If you hated the Kings then you'd say the same things.  Haha.  Do the habs dive?  Yes.  Do the habs get more calls? I dont think more then any other team...if it were 10-1 every game then yes....if its a few extra calls then so be it.   I think it caught up to them vs the Rangers similar to how the bone headed bruins penalties cost the Bruins.  

    Its funny everyone hated PK and all his antics in years past.  It wasnt as bad this year.  He wasnt the focal pt. 

    do i like some of the habs players?  Yes, as a hockey fan i see PK as being a player who is gonna be a dominant player for yrs to come...price is a stud...gallagher drives me nuts but plays hard..

    back when i was younger i used to cringe at losing to the habs.  But tomorrows a new day and there is always next year.  The positive in the habs winning this year is that next year the rivalry should be better.  I like being underdogs.  I love good hockey.  

    Cheers

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to days-of-Orr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    at trade deadline, goalscorers were a dime a dozen....  B'S didn't need offense at the time....  what they needed was defense but capable d-men weren't readily available....  they usually aren't in March....

    that's the knock i have against PC, he should've started looking to replace Seids once he went down or knew the seriousness of the injury....  hard to acquire top-notch d-men to begin with, almost impossible when you give yourself little time....  

    that's if it's true that he was working on something major prior to settling for Meszaros....

    “People think common sense is common - but it's not.”


     [/QUOTE]

    I think if you look at the depth and speed of both the rangers and kings you would see that our lines just arent as deep.  Campy Paille ST vs Moore Boyle Dorsett?  Im taking the rangers group.  They were clutch throughout for them.  I do agree that a need for a top 2 defense was critical.  I still believe it is.

    I think Seidz is a big help.  But hes getting up there as well.  I just dont trust the young guns yet to be relied upon yet.  Rangers have 3 solid.  LA are good young and they have big mobile stay at home that can also skate.  The Hawks have 5 solid.  2 number ones and 2 number 2s.  Their top 4 is awesome and neither of these teams ride one guy like chara gets used.  They have to find another top dman.  

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

      They have to find another top dman.  

    [/QUOTE]

    A D of the following:

    Chara-Seid

    Boychuk-Hamilton

    McQuaid-Krug

     

    I think that is just as competitive as any other contender. To me it is forward depth, players who can actually put the puck in the net, that is the real difference imho

     

     

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

      They have to find another top dman.  

    [/QUOTE]

    A D of the following:

    Chara-Seid

    Boychuk-Hamilton

    McQuaid-Krug

     

    I think that is just as competitive as any other contender. To me it is forward depth, players who can actually put the puck in the net, that is the real difference imho

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I dont think it is.  Take chara out of the mix.  Still comfy?

    now take keith out. I still like their top 4. 

    Take mcdonaugh. Still have staal girardi. 

    Take Doughty.  Muzzin, mitchell, martinez, voynov.  

    I like the Bruins defense so dont get me wrong here.  But since 2011 i have been begging for a top guy to help the aging Chara.  I still think that needs to be addressed. 

    And i agree our fwd depth isnt nearly good enough.  

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    Still think it's more about the lack of scoring of the usual suspects. Almost nothing goal wise out Krecji, Lucic, Marchand...At times, Bergy too....But we need a Gaborik type, a real, bonafide sniper who will produce when it counts. You need to have that go-to goal scorer and the B's won a Cup without one in '11, but I don't think they can do it again without 1 high-profile type goal scorer. 

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

      They have to find another top dman.  

    [/QUOTE]

    A D of the following:

    Chara-Seid

    Boychuk-Hamilton

    McQuaid-Krug

     

    I think that is just as competitive as any other contender. To me it is forward depth, players who can actually put the puck in the net, that is the real difference imho

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I want those as my top six and Miller as my seventh.  

    The forwards aren't as bad as they showed us in these playoffs.  Soderberg and Eriksson are excellent for third line players.  I'm hoping someone from Providence steps up in a big way to make that third line a threat to score each time they hit the ice.  The fourth line should be better without Thornton.  There's nothing wrong with Campbell and Paille. 

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

    Re: Why KIngs, Why Not Bruins

    In response to dannycater's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Still think it's more about the lack of scoring of the usual suspects. Almost nothing goal wise out Krecji, Lucic, Marchand...At times, Bergy too....But we need a Gaborik type, a real, bonafide sniper who will produce when it counts. You need to have that go-to goal scorer and the B's won a Cup without one in '11, but I don't think they can do it again without 1 high-profile type goal scorer. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The thing about "Go To" Gaborik is he had 6 goals in his last 31 playoff games prior to this season.  It worked out for the Kings this year, but it was far from a sure thing. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share