I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it was more complicated than just size. We were generally just inept along the boards. As often as not we'd win a battle only to lose the puck with the first pass. It looked somewhat positional to me. In both zones Washington had guys in better support positions to win the secondary battles after the initial board battles. It was obvious that they were playing their game, and we were playing a game that we didn't like and weren't comfortable playing. We literally leaned into our disadvantages, fed what they did well, and fueled their offense by granting them more possession time in our end.
And, yes, I agree that Palat is a keeper. He's way harder to replace than other guys.
Agreed. I believe we have the personnel. I think coaching is the issue for our disappointments lately. It may rest entirely on the players behind the scenes and Cooper may be trying his best, but at some point, at face value, it's apparent we play his brand of hockey and we've lost two conference finals when we were up 3-2 and lost 3 straight in a SCF when we didn't lose 3 straight the entire year.
Then there's the flaw of having too many small guys. This is a psychological issue to an extent. Numerous times Johnson, Gourde and Cirelli held up when carrying the puck and a hit was never made on them. I can't blame them. I'm taller than all of them and played a very physical style when I played hockey, but if I saw Wilson or Ovechkin flying at me, I would probably panic as well and brace myself for my last breath of life. They are going to make a play but they are not willing to get decapitated. Bigger players can deal with this a bit better. Small players that get hit for 4 or 5 consecutive games have the tendency to fade away into obscurity. Exceptions are guys like Marty, nothing could keep him down in any game against anybody. It's not to say bigger framed players don't either or like the idea of getting pounded but it's not just height difference like Boston. Caps had some weight on us too. Couple the height and weight differences without losing any speed and that was not in our favor. Not to mention we had terrible hockey fundamentals, a one dimensional game plan, minimal adjustments that were ineffective and entirely run off the rink in 18 of 21 periods.
There's so many problems when you sit down and think, this was a problem, that was a problem, he was a problem, that matchup was a problem, etc but in the end, if you compare this roster to winning rosters of the last five years, there's no reason we shouldn't be in the SCF. Even at a minimum of losing in this round, it should not have been 99% on Vasilevskiy to keep us in games. The fact that he gave us a chance in game 3, stole game 4 and I'd argue played great in 5 to stave off a late push, it could've been done in 5 games for us. That's not good - at all, and totally unacceptable with this roster.
