88-92 Bruins

[Hockeyholic]

In 88 the Bruins finally beat Montreal on their way to the Finals. They got swept by Edmonton. But nobody had a chance in hell of beating the Oilers that season.

Between 90 and 92, they made the Finals and Conference Finals twice. They never won the cup. 91 was the Samuellson cheap shot on Neely. They never recovered, and lost the series.

What was the main reason they could never get over the " hump" so to speak?

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Mainly because the hump was better teams.

 

[GarbageGoal]

Too much meddling with the coaches by Sinden.

 

[The Panther]

They got swept by Edmonton. But nobody had a chance in hell of beating the Oilers that season.

Because the Oilers went 16-2, we tend to think this way retrospectively, but at the time both Calgary and Montreal finished ahead of Edmonton in the regular season, and most 'experts' picked Calgary to defeat Edmonton in the playoffs.

Love those Bruins, but I agree they had no chance against Edmonton and in a way I wish Montreal had won in '88, because I think a Montreal - Edmonton Final in 1988 would have been epic.

Between 90 and 92, they made the Finals and Conference Finals twice. They never won the cup. 91 was the Samuellson cheap shot on Neely. They never recovered, and lost the series.

What was the main reason they could never get over the " hump" so to speak?

1988 Gretzky, 1991 and 1992 Lemieux. Those were deep, stacked teams that Boston (despite Bourque) could not match at all in depth or talent.

Montreal had a Patrick Roy in net and 'system' team-defence and might have fared better against those clubs, but Boston did not have an elite goalie (sorry, Moog) and, aside from Bourque, a very average D-core.

The great missed opportunity, though, was 1990. Boston finished 1st overall and had that nice balance of young guys coming up, players in prime, and veterans. Bourque later said that he basically knew they would get smoked in '88, but in '90 he thought they matched up well against Edmonton. I did, too, and was surprised when they fell in 5 games (they got absolutely destroyed at Boston Garden in game two). Cam Neely suddenly went cold in the Finals and Moog/Lemelin couldn't stop beach-balls at that moment. Maybe just a perfect storm of 'sudden slump' at worst possible moment.

But I don't think they had much hope in '88, '91, or '92.

 

[McGarnagle]

Those were good teams that happened to exist at the same time as the end of one elite dynasty and the start of another.

Though who knows if things break differently for them if they win game 1 in OT in 1990 (IMO Glen Wesley gets a bad rap for missing that net on the backhand, that would've been a difficult shot to make if he got it), or if Samuelsson doesn't cripple Neely in 1991 (or Milbury doesn't flip out and dress a lineup of goons to get revenge instead of playing hockey).

Their best shot at a cup was 1991. They were up on Pittsburgh before the leg check, and would've wasted Minnesota in the finals. Otherwise they just kept running into better teams. If they could've found a big scoring winger for the second line to spread things out more, it would've helped them. Giving up Courtnall in the Moog trade is one of those what-ifs to look back on there.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

In 88 the Bruins finally beat Montreal on their way to the Finals. They got swept by Edmonton. But nobody had a chance in hell of beating the Oilers that season.

Between 90 and 92, they made the Finals and Conference Finals twice. They never won the cup. 91 was the Samuellson cheap shot on Neely. They never recovered, and lost the series.

What was the main reason they could never get over the " hump" so to speak?

old man Jacobs not loosening the purse strings and letting Sinden go sign that 1 missing piece they needed. Jacobs was (and still is) content to collect as much playoff revenue as he can for as little as he can

and Ulf Samuelsson

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

arg, that boston team. patrick roy arguably had the greatest playoff career of all time, but his legacy might have been even greater if cam neely wasn't his kryptonite.

the habs and bruins played against each other in the playoffs every year for the first seven seasons of roy's career, including five straight adams finals, and cam neely was in five of those series.

in 1987, neely's first year in boston, the habs swept them but neely introduced himself to monsieur roy, scoring 5 goals, which was half of boston's total in that series.

in 1988, if there's no neely (two goals in the deciding game, including the game winner, his second of the series) could the habs win the series? would they have dispatched the devils next and made the finals? keep in mind that montreal won the wales conference by nine points that year.

roy wins in 1989, as we know, eventually making the finals.

in 1990, roy was excellent except for two stinkers, in which neely scored two goals and two assists. this is peak vezina roy. if no neely, you'd think the habs if they won would easily beat the capitals, whom the bruins swept. that caps team was great, all of the pent up and never realized promise of the langway era finally flowering with clutch scorers taking over (ironically, the bruins beat them with their own former players: dave christian, bobby carpenter, garry galley, and even a cameo from bobby gould). but ciccarelli, who singlehandedly beat the devils in round one, got hurt at the beginning of the second round. john druce, who famously turned into mike bossy against the rangers, turned back into a pumpkin. the habs had this one. could they have taken the 1990 oilers?

1991, that was the cam neely owns patrick roy series. scored the winner in games one and seven (both 2-1 victories), and three of boston's four goals in game five. five out of seven games were one goal games. we always talk about how neely would have done against the penguins. how would roy?

---

in total, neely's numbers against roy were 17 goals in 26 games, 3 GWGs. neely added another 2 goals, 1 GWG, in three games along the way against hayward, plus one empty netter.

against all other teams during his boston career, he had 35 goals (and 29 assists, for 64 points) in 60 games, 7 GWGs, so neely was a great player and clutch playoff scorer, no doubt. but man did he ever have roy's number.

if neely "only" produced the same amount as he did against other teams against the habs in those years, could a couple of those series have been flipped? 1990 1991 was that close, at least, that a "normal" neely could have a made a difference.

 

[tony d]

I wonder if Neely didn't get injured in 1991 if they would have won the Cup that yr. Boston as well as Chicago and Calgary had great regular season success in the early 90's but could never win it all in the playoffs.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

as for what those bruins teams were missing, i tend to look back and think of them as deep, experienced teams. but when i look at their rosters year by year, i notice that all of their ringers were traded for each other, so you don't get kasper, linseman, poulin, christian, carpenter, and propp (and gradin, thelven, and ruzicka if you want to include them), all at the same time.

and they also didn't get any overlap between the '80s aging vets like crowder and mccarthy with the early '90s prospects like murray, juneau, smolinski, stumpel, heinze, and donato.

all of this made for a rather shallow group, all told. bourque and neely, moog/lemelin in net, and janney and wesley as your up and comers. beyond those, your core is guys like the sweeneys, randy burridge and later stephen leach, bob joyce, and gord kluzak, who was always injured.

 

[quoipourquoi]

in 1988, if there's no neely (two goals in the deciding game, including the game winner, his second of the series) could the habs win the series? would they have dispatched the devils next and made the finals? keep in mind that montreal won the wales conference by nine points that year.

I wonder about Perron sticking to one goaltender like he said he should have done in retrospect. Up 3-0 in the Hartford series, Roy has a 7 GA night and doesn't come back in net until the Boston series when they're down 4-1 in Game 2. They score as many goals in the next 10 minutes (losing 4-3) as they do in the next 3 games combined, but maybe if Perron gave him a bigger leash, they take both home games to start the series instead of the split. It doesn't necessarily solve Lemelin, but it's a different look for the team.

 

[McGarnagle]

as for what those bruins teams were missing, i tend to look back and think of them as deep, experienced teams. but when i look at their rosters year by year, i notice that all of their ringers were traded for each other, so you don't get kasper, linseman, poulin, christian, carpenter, and propp (and gradin, thelven, and ruzicka if you want to include them), all at the same time.

and they also didn't get any overlap between the '80s aging vets like crowder and mccarthy with the early '90s prospects like murray, juneau, smolinski, stumpel, heinze, and donato.

all of this made for a rather shallow group, all told. bourque and neely, moog/lemelin in net, and janney and wesley as your up and comers. beyond those, your core is guys like the sweeneys, randy burridge and later stephen leach, bob joyce, and gord kluzak, who was always injured.

Kluzak's an important name to point out. Big tall defenseman, former top pick, could've been an 80s Pronger, but could not stay healthy. 1988 was actually the only year he was really able to contribute, so of course they went pretty far.

As for the narrative others have floated that Jacobs and Sinden were cheap and refused to pay for an additional piece, I don't buy it. Free agency as we know it really didn't become a thing until after the first lockout. It's not like there were tons of Stephane Richers on the open market and Jacobs refused to pay for him. It doesn't work that way. Who exactly could they have gotten in 1989 that they were too cheap for? Plus, the narrative crumbles when you note that they did loosen the purse strings to go get Adam Oates when he demanded a trade out of St. Louis because he felt he wasn't being paid enough.

Mid-to-late 90s, you can say Jacobs and Sinden/Mike O'Connell cheaped out on the FA market, but prior to the 94-95 lockout, that's a false narrative.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

As for the narrative others have floated that Jacobs and Sinden were cheap and refused to pay for an additional piece, I don't buy it. Free agency as we know it really didn't become a thing until after the first lockout. It's not like there were tons of Stephane Richers on the open market and Jacobs refused to pay for him. It doesn't work that way. Who exactly could they have gotten in 1989 that they were too cheap for? Plus, the narrative crumbles when you note that they did loosen the purse strings to go get Adam Oates when he demanded a trade out of St. Louis because he felt he wasn't being paid enough.

agree. all those ringers, brian propp, dave christian, ken linseman, dave poulin, couldn't have been cheap players to acquire.

they signed free agents (thomas gradin, chris nilan, garry galley, dave reid), they traded picks for former all-stars (tom mccarthy, petri skriko), they traded youth for experience (hawgood for ruzicka, walz for gord murphy). hell in one year, they picked up not one but two veteran former all-star goalies, sending the young ranford to edmonton for moog (like oates, a holdout), after already signing lemelin as a free agent.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Four-Round Stanley Cup Finalists (1979-2017)

Best 2nd Round (EvE)
27.5 - Tom Barrasso, 1991
37.9 - Pete Peeters, 1980
38.8 - Reggie Lemelin, 1988
44.3 - Martin Brodeur, 1995
45.6 - Ed Belfour, 1992
46.1 - John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996
46.8 - John Davidson, 1979
47.9 - Tim Thomas, 2011
50.0 - Pelle Lindbergh, 1985
51.0 - Bill Ranford, 1990

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I wonder about Perron sticking to one goaltender like he said he should have done in retrospect. Up 3-0 in the Hartford series, Roy has a 7 GA night and doesn't come back in net until the Boston series when they're down 4-1 in Game 2. They score as many goals in the next 10 minutes (losing 4-3) as they do in the next 3 games combined, but maybe if Perron gave him a bigger leash, they take both home games to start the series instead of the split. It doesn't necessarily solve Lemelin, but it's a different look for the team.

hm, food for thought. that series was before my time, so i'm just looking at box scores but changing goalies sure made a difference for boston in that series.

Four-Round Stanley Cup Finalists (1979-2017)

Best 2nd Round (EvE)
27.5 - Tom Barrasso, 1991
37.9 - Pete Peeters, 1980
38.8 - Reggie Lemelin, 1988
44.3 - Martin Brodeur, 1995
45.6 - Ed Belfour, 1992
46.1 - John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996
46.8 - John Davidson, 1979
47.9 - Tim Thomas, 2011
50.0 - Pelle Lindbergh, 1985
51.0 - Bill Ranford, 1990

wow.

 

[McGarnagle]

The 1993 team was also really good, 109 points, top of the Adams division, and I still can't make sense of what the hell happened to them in the first round against Buffalo.

They went from being the 3rd best team in Goals Against all season long to giving up 19 goals in 4 games. That was the last playoff run that Neely was actually healthy for and productive in with 4 goals, Oates with 9 points in 4 games, Juneau collected 6 points. It seems Moog and/or the defense completely failed them.

 

[Big Phil]

I honestly think the main reason was the Sinden/Jacobs combo. Granted, they played teams with more firepower. The Oilers and Pens were just simply better. However, they needed a big centre down the middle. Yeah I know Craig Janney was their centre and his playoff numbers are pretty good, but when they got to the great teams he folded like a tent:

1988 finals - 2 points
1990 finals- 0 points
1991 semis - 8 points, but 2 in final 4 losses

I honestly don't know how Janney gets away with 1990. He never gets mentioned. He had a great first three rounds in 1990 with 22 points. When your #1 centre goes pointless you aren't winning.

Which lies a bigger problem for the Bruins. They lacked depth up front and the other teams had it. It just makes you realize how much a part of that success that Bourque was, both defensively and offensively.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

In 88 the Bruins finally beat Montreal on their way to the Finals. They got swept by Edmonton. But nobody had a chance in hell of beating the Oilers that season.

Between 90 and 92, they made the Finals and Conference Finals twice. They never won the cup. 91 was the Samuellson cheap shot on Neely. They never recovered, and lost the series.

What was the main reason they could never get over the " hump" so to speak?

Better question is how did they even get to the hump.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I honestly think the main reason was the Sinden/Jacobs combo. Granted, they played teams with more firepower. The Oilers and Pens were just simply better. However, they needed a big centre down the middle. Yeah I know Craig Janney was their centre and his playoff numbers are pretty good, but when they got to the great teams he folded like a tent:

1988 finals - 2 points
1990 finals- 0 points
1991 semis - 8 points, but 2 in final 4 losses

I honestly don't know how Janney gets away with 1990. He never gets mentioned. He had a great first three rounds in 1990 with 22 points. When your #1 centre goes pointless you aren't winning.

Which lies a bigger problem for the Bruins. They lacked depth up front and the other teams had it. It just makes you realize how much a part of that success that Bourque was, both defensively and offensively.

So the GM and owner were responsible for holding the team back form getting over the hump. Did they have anything to do with creating the teams that went to the finals twice and conference finals twice?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

as for what those bruins teams were missing, i tend to look back and think of them as deep, experienced teams. but when i look at their rosters year by year, i notice that all of their ringers were traded for each other, so you don't get kasper, linseman, poulin, christian, carpenter, and propp (and gradin, thelven, and ruzicka if you want to include them), all at the same time.

and they also didn't get any overlap between the '80s aging vets like crowder and mccarthy with the early '90s prospects like murray, juneau, smolinski, stumpel, heinze, and donato.

all of this made for a rather shallow group, all told. bourque and neely, moog/lemelin in net, and janney and wesley as your up and comers. beyond those, your core is guys like the sweeneys, randy burridge and later stephen leach, bob joyce, and gord kluzak, who was always injured.

They were a little before my time as well, but yeah those rosters have always struck me as too thin after Bourque and Neely to realistically beat a team with the depth of Edmonton or Pittsburgh. 88 Edmonton can put one of Gretzky or Messier out against the second line...not surprising it was a white-washing. The emergence of the kids (Gelinas, Graves, Murphy) in 1990 again gives Edmonton a big leg up at forward. Those guys all went on to long and productive careers, and they're the third line basically.

The Penguins likewise could just overwhelm them with depth. Multiple lines of Hall of Famers available to them. Bourque couldn't play 60 minutes. I've always felt it's a testament to his greatness that those Bruin teams went as far as they did, laying waste to three strong Montreal teams during the stretch in question.

 

[Thenameless]

Love those Bruins, but I agree they had no chance against Edmonton and in a way I wish Montreal had won in '88, because I think a Montreal - Edmonton Final in 1988 would have been epic.

The Habs would have been slaughtered. Even the 70's Habs could lose to the 80's Oilers.

 

[The Panther]

The Habs would have been slaughtered. Even the 70's Habs could lose to the 80's Oilers.

I think the Oilers would have won, but I don't think it would have been a slaughter. Roy was starting to reach peak-form right then, and the Habs had finished 4 points ahead of Edmonton in the regular season and were 1st in defence. Edmonton naturally tended to be less dominant against top defensive teams.

 

[Thenameless]

I think the Oilers would have won, but I don't think it would have been a slaughter. Roy was starting to reach peak-form right then, and the Habs had finished 4 points ahead of Edmonton in the regular season and were 1st in defence. Edmonton naturally tended to be less dominant against top defensive teams.

Gretzky's offensive numbers may have been slightly better earlier in his career, but as you've mentioned before, after 1986 he changed. He became a "better" player, more focused on winning after that. That team would not be denied.

 

[The Panther]

Gretzky's offensive numbers may have been slightly better earlier in his career, but as you've mentioned before, after 1986 he changed. He became a "better" player, more focused on winning after that. That team would not be denied.

Nothing about Gretzky (who was superb in '88) or even the Oilers; I just make my point as a compliment to the Canadiens, who were a really good team then. They finished the season 15-2-3. They beat the Oilers three out of three games that season. They'd have a 115-point season the next year. I think it would have been a great series! I call Edmonton in 6 or 7.

 

[Anton13]

I honestly don't know how Janney gets away with 1990. He never gets mentioned. He had a great first three rounds in 1990 with 22 points. When your #1 centre goes pointless you aren't winning.

Here is an interview with Janney at the time:

Janney Is Still Stunned After Matchup With the Stifler

It seems Tikkanen really made his life difficult in the 1990 finals.

 

[Big Phil]

So the GM and owner were responsible for holding the team back form getting over the hump. Did they have anything to do with creating the teams that went to the finals twice and conference finals twice?

Well obviously they did. But this was a team that had the best defenseman in the NHL for, what, 15 years or so? They never really gave him the help he needed. This team was driven by Bourque. It isn't as if the Bruins didn't have the money to do this. Bourque is really the reason for their success.

Here is an interview with Janney at the time:

Janney Is Still Stunned After Matchup With the Stifler

It seems Tikkanen really made his life difficult in the 1990 finals.

I can understand that for sure, but when your #1 centre isn't scoring you aren't winning the Cup. A goal at the right time for Mr. Janney (Game 1 overtime?) and this series could take on a different tone perhaps.