LouJersey
Registered User
We’re always wrong though...
That's ok keyboard jockeys > ten time cup champion.
We’re always wrong though...
That's ok keyboard jockeys > ten time cup champion.
Tuukka Rask was arguably the reason they even sniffed the finals. Also, other teams soiling themselves. This was the easiest road for the Bruins.
When you say St. Louis didn’t lay it on the line... that’s just dumb. Just a dumb thing to say. They ****ing hammered our defence and forwards into the end boards basically every chance they got.
Also, the Bruins played soft hockey...
So like, yeah.
See what you want to see. Everybody else knows what they saw in Krug
This ten times cup Champion BS is ridiculous. So anything this clown says is gospel because he won ten cups? GTFOH with that ****.
Some of this is bang on and some is way off. While I'll agree you have to be able to score 5 on 5 ( which the Bruins couldn't) . And yes, they did rely too much on PP's . The major part I have a problem with is I can't agree with you saying they didn't want to lay it on the line but St.Louis did. The only THING St.Louis laid on the line was their coach crying to the media that his team wasn't getting away egregious penalties that disappeared there after. So that's what St. Louis laid on the line, a whole lot of crying illustrating what they would need to win this series and the league obliged, nothing more , nothing less.
It's been comical how Bruins fans have come up with all kinds of theories as as to why the Bruins lost ,when all it was , was some biased officiating. I read how they didn't show up, how they weren't tough enough, how they ran into hot goal tending, that is all true about the Bruins but not the reason they lost (sorry .902 over the course of a series isn't hot goal tending no matter how you slice it, especially if you consider that the Bruins didn't get the PP's they should have had). Save percentage has to be in at least the .915-.920 zone before it can be considered a factor, GTFO with this hot goal tending ****. It's BS.
So his game plan didn't work vs the Bruins? Or are you just taking exception to his Krug comment?
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.
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.
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.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 ****ing sense at all and hockey is the only sport that does that.
I am losing track here.
It was blaming Rask and know it is the refs?
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.
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.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.
Yeah I thought Carlo was probably more guilty,than KrugSure the guy's well qualified to know what he's talking about, but that doesn't mean that he's telling the truth, or that I'm obliged to just believe him at face value simply because of his experience. He could just be talking smack, or he may have interpreted things that he saw in a way that conformed to his subconscious bias, since that's what he expected or hoped would happen.
If all he said was that as a result of the Blues' heavy play our D got a bit slower over the course of the series and were sometimes a little rushed and confused in their decision-making on passes, I'd have no problem with that. But note exactly what he said - he specifically singled out Krug and said that he was "shying away from the corners because he didn't want to get hit". I just didn't see it that way, at all. Instead I saw Krug consistently getting into the corners, putting his head over the puck, and just generally putting himself in harm's way time and time again.
I'm not straight out saying that Robinson is 100% wrong, I just disagree with his comments and I don't feel obliged to agree with him just because he's a HOFer.
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.
I feel like you’re posting a lot but not really saying anything.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
I feel like you’re posting a lot but not really saying anything.
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.
I'd rather address the issue with physicality instead of jumping through hoops to discredit a take from a cup winner who clearly knows more than both of us about winning cups. The Blues wont be the last playoff team to run Bruins defenseman.
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.