2019 Stanley Cup Final Game 7 still stings
- Thread starter DarrenBanks56
- Start date
Rask probably was a big reason the Bruins made it as far as they did, what's your point here, there's nobody arguing against that?
Yes, St.Louis bashed the Bruins every chance they got and I can appreciate that as much as the next guy. What I can't appreciate is the head hunting they did , what I can't appreciate even more is that they were allowed to get away with it. That's what won the series for them. They could have put their lives on the line and it would not have been enough without the refs turning their backs to what was really happening. This wasn't won on skill or some great strategy .
The Bruins played soft hockey because they were simply not built that way. If you IIHF refs working these games I guarantee you a very different result. Notice the guys DS brought in this summer, I'll bet guys like Ritchie, Guance and Petrovic (Yes I know it's just a PTO) are going to given lots of rope.
So like , yeah
This ten times cup Champion BS is ridiculous. So anything this clown says is gospel because he won ten cups? GTFOH with that shit.
LouJersey
Registered User
that was in response to Sheppy, who consistently said the Bruins were too small and subject to maybe being freight trained in a series physically....Robinson happened to agree with him and the Blues developed a game plan around it, which I guess was successful since they won the Cup. I know they were lucky, not as good, had the refs in their back pockets, were cheap, were healthier.....you know the same excuses Vancouver, Montreal and the like use when they lose a series, but for some reason that's true in the Bruins case but whining in theirs
LouJersey
Registered User
So his game plan didn't work vs the Bruins? Or are you just taking exception to his Krug comment?
LouJersey
Registered User
Man this is some world class Poutineville whining right here?
Bruins weren't great 5v5 all year. Plus the Blues used the exact blueprint the Bruins did in 2011 yet that was fine?
How was Binnington's goaltending after a loss in the series? How is it in the deciding game?
Particularly the Krug comment but both really. I saw Bruins turn away from checks but Krug wasn't one of them. Keep in mind I'm a trade Krug for a top 6 RW guy so I don't worship Krug the way most posters here do.
Look nobody is going to convince me that if you put IIHF refs working these games that it would work. It worked because it was allowed to work. Now I'm not saying that strategy can't work , I'm saying it wouldn't have worked in this case without the refs turning a blind eye.
The PO's are called differently but lines were crossed. That sets a bad precedent going forwards, if things were allowed to get so ridiculously out of control , there really is no limit going forward.
I call like I see it. I'm not talking the marginal calls like Habs fans do. So just one example of what I'm talking about,are you telling me the slew foot on Accari followed by a goal, didn't happen? So what should have been a penalty by anyone's standard turns into a a goal for the offending team. Game changer,possibly series changer right there. Tell me it didn't happen.
True the Bruins weren't great all year 5on5 . That was not at all the blueprint the Bruins used. The Bruins hit often and hard and wore their opponents down but I don't recall any headhunting . The only head hunting I recall was Rome on Horton. The only thing the Bruins got away with that they should have been penalized for was the shit Marchand was doing to Sedin after the whistle. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that is not hockey, it should have been penalized. Infractions during play were not ignored, however.
He had some games he played well but he wasn't the reason they won that series. Like I said before .902 on the series isn't hot goal tending. That doesn't even meet the regular season standard for a back-up ( yes I know back-ups get easier assignments but non the less) .
KrejciMVP
Registered User
IIHF refs arent going to ref the playoffs and it's pretty common to pocket the whistles in the playoffs. That's certainly nothing new and the teams should expect that.
That is true to a large extent but never in almost 50 years of watching hockey have I witnessed anything as egregious as what I saw this year. Furthermore, the concept of calling a game different in the PO's than the regular season makes no f***ing sense at all and hockey is the only sport that does that.
I get that IIHF refs are never going to ref a PO game, the league would never allow that because they wouldn't be able to manipulate the out comes like the feel the need to do.
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Rocket Surgery
It definitely makes sense to call the game differently, there are 82 guaranteed regular games for each team and none of these games are win or go home. Of course they call them stricter as the league wants players healthy for the playoffs.
The playoffs on the other hand you are only guaranteed 4 games, win or go home and the intensity is insane. If they get injured they have all off season to heal.
I believe it’s not that they let things go during the playoffs, it’s that they DONT let things go during the regular season. Hockey at its truest form is that playoff hockey, the league just knows players can’t survive 82 games of it.
the refs are def to blame after how they officiated after meathead whined. that is so blatantly obvious.
second i blame the top line.
3rd i blame losing Grizz after game 2.
and 4th i put some blame on rask for the sub par goals he let in during game 4. and then tge complete noshow in period 1 of game 7.
I guess form that perspective it can be argued that it makes sense. It's just the perspective that's wrong.
I'm not sure a sport like hockey should be using that mind set. Let them kill each other because they'll have time to recover over the summer, come on.
Here too, I'll agree that they don't let lesser things go during the season that they allow in the PO's. Now that maybe the way they do it, but it's not the way it should be IMO. Where I could not disagree more is that this is hockey in it's truest form. No it is not, hockey in it's truest form is international hockey, played on an international sized rink, not one that has been shrunk so that they could fit more seats into an arena. And above all called in a consistent manner regardless of the importance of the game with very few officiating mistakes. That is hockey in it's truest form.
smithformeragent
Moderator
When was the last time somebody killed someone in a playoff game? Let’s be realistic Cmon it’s called trying to win the game.
They do it this way because it’s what works and even players and fans of other sports have said the NHL has the best playoffs.
The rinks of today are actually a little bit bigger then the old rinks, they weren’t shrunk I don’t think that’s true at all.
Bruinfanatic
Registered User
Is that where you draw the line, you want dead men? I don't know what to tell you.
Are we overdosing on the Charles Barkley? Your taking it out of context by the way. His argument is that it's not as predictable as basketball, which is true, nothing more than that.
Regardless of what you think , international hockey rinks are obviously bigger than NHL rinks. Clearly you don't watch too much of that as you want to watch a blood sport rather than hockey. May I suggest the MMA, that seems more in line with what you want to watch.
Sheppy
Registered User
I feel like you’re posting a lot but not really saying anything.
Sorry that you feel that way. Your missing a bunch, if you could just let another perspective seep through, your point of view , like mine, isn't the only one there is.
I get it, you like to see Bruins run over players like they were hit by a Mack Truck,You don't do so well when it's Bruins getting hit by the Mack Truck, you've made your point. I'd rather watch hockey, I'm funny that way.
Last edited:
When did I say that? Let’s talk like reasonable adults and stop making things up like a 4th grazer.
Nope, he said he enjoys it better then the nbas playoffs. Again quit making stuff up, no one is falling for it.
International hockey is great but What has it realistically done to become more hockey then the hockey that’s been going on in North America? Surely if the purest hockey was international that’s where the best players would be no?
I’m the MMA fan? Look at yourself rambling about killing people, blood sports and then bringing MMA into the conversation in the first place.
May I suggest curling if hockey is to violent for you? Or maybe you could just go to the arena during tykes games as they don’t have hitting yet.
I suspect you're uncritically accepting what Robinson said because it conforms with you own beliefs about the Bruins' D being too small and soft, making them a liability and a reason for our SCF loss. The problem with that position is that IMO the evidence doesn't really support it.
The Bs only got busted open by the Blues' offence twice - in game 4, which they spent nearly half of a man down with Chara being injured, and in the 3rd period of game 7, when it was already all over. In the other 5 games they gave up just 9 goals in regular time, 1 of which followed the blatant take down of Acciari. They conceded 2 goals or less in every one of those games. That's perfectly competent defence and it is just about all you can ask in a SCF against a quality opponent. It should have been enough to win the series.
The reason that it wasn't, and the biggest contributor to our loss, was the top 6 forwards too often going MIA and being well held by the Blues' defence, especially 5v5. Yeah getting effective breakouts from your own zone from your defenders is an important part of generating good offence, but the Bruins had plenty of that and more than enough time and opportunities to generate decent scoring chances. Again, game 4 was poor in this regard, and game 2 wasn't great either, but the Bruins' D was short-handed for large chunks of both.
There's definitely a case to be made that the Bruins could do with an injection of toughness and some size and presence across the board, and obviously the heaviness of the Blues was a factor in their win, and it would have been useful if the Bs had a couple of guys who could have pushed back and thrown the Blues off their game. But that doesn't take away from the basic fact that our D did their job, took all the hits, stayed with the puck and gave our forwards every chance to win the Cup.
The bottom line is that the series was mostly lost in the front half, not the back, and our small D had little to do with it. If you're waiting for the Bruins to start baulking up their defence specifically I think you're going to be waiting for a long time. Nothing about how Sweeney or Cassidy operate or the things they've said publicly indicates that they see it as a significant issue, and Cassidy in particular seems uninterested in a heavy defence - he values effort, smart play, grit and an ability to conform to a system over size.
Last edited:
You asked when was the last time someone was killed? Is that what it's going to take for you?
Haha, that's funny. Who usually plays here, the Olympics, WJC, Who? Is is the best players or is it clowns like Maroon ? Is it Crosby,or is it Sundqvist? Come on , stop. The best players get called to international competition, that is fact. Clearly you have never watched any of that, because if you did , you wouldn't be posting such ridiculous shit.
You need to listen more carefully, Barkley's comment's as to why hockey is better than NBA basketball is because he finds NBA PO's predictable, and he's right. I'm not making anything thing up, that is his argument. If you follow basketball you have a good idea who is going to be in the final four before the PO's even start and 9 out of 10 times your right. He's not talking about the quality of play, if you watch basketball the quality is really high, way higher than it is in hockey, the problem is , is that it is all way to predictable. You know what else they have in basketball that is way better than what you see in hockey? Officiating. They go to lengths to get it right. Even if it won't matter. They take the time and use video review even when a team is up by ten points and there is something like 15 seconds remaining. They get right.
If you think hockey in it's truest form is PO hockey then I can only point you towards MMA. You know , where fighters get 6 months to recover from the injuries they sustain. Similar to hockey players who can recover over the summer. Your words , not mine.
Hockey is not to violent for me. Your brand of hockey , it's not really hockey.
Last edited:
