Different people see and interpret the same games and plays differently, and each perspective can be perfectly legitimate, although of course some takes are simply flat-out wrong.
Personally I didn’t see the Bs shying away from physical play in the SCF – they took the hits, gave their own fair share in the run of play when possible, and for the most part didn’t back down from a hard-fought contest. But what I did observe was an unwillingness to make things actively uncomfortable for the opposition and try and put them off their game, whether that was by making pointed ‘take notice’ hits, fighting back against their enforcers, trying to rough up and disrupt Binnington a bit, or just generally trying to increase the physicality and rule-bending aspects of their play to match what the Blues were bringing. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, but that’s what I made of what I saw.
As this occurred for pretty much the whole series, clearly the direction was coming from the top – Cassidy & co. had little interest in buying into what the Blues were doing, trying to disrupt it, or in trying to play a more intimidating, heavy form of hockey. On the political front we set the refs straight after they went way too far in game 5, but that was about it. Instead they believed in what they were doing and their own plans and mostly stuck with them in anticipation that would be enough to do the job. It’s easy in hindsight to say that this was a mistake, since we lost. But if Marchand or MoJo buried one of their early chances in game 7, as they really should have, then we’re probably not having this conversation and they all look like geniuses and heroes. The margin between ultimate success and failure was tiny. It's also worth asking whether our team actually had it in them to engage in the rough stuff, if it would have had any effect, and whether it would instead have only made things worse.
But all this is in the past. The question now is what the Bs do, and what should they do, going forwards? If we want to see a more physical, heavy, aggressive team with more willingness to push back against opponents, how do they achieve that in the short-term? What would you be willing to sacrifice for it – in the modern NHL almost nothing comes without cost. Or would you rather the Bruins largely stick with their fairly effective template (emphasizing system, compete, skill, intelligence, speed, team defense or however exactly you want to define it) from the last couple of years?
