The Pens' supposed "playoff embarassment" since '09

[IcedCapp]

Forget about style; worry about results.

- Bobby Orr

Far be it from me to disagree with the great Bobby Orr, but this is absolutely horrible advice/life motto. You absolutely judge yourself on the process/decisions.

You can make the wrong decisions/choices and still have a positive outcome x% of the time. Make those decisions/choices often enough, and you'll pay for it.

 

[IcedCapp]

Did anyone happen to catch that video of the Boston Bruins management group ******** on Tyler Seguin right before trading him?

Also in that video was a discussion about Andrew Ference, which went like this, "Andy's been a warrior for us. He's great. I really don't want to lose him, but we have to play the younger kids at some point. We have to get younger, we have to get them into the lineup."

The Boston Bruins have had more success than the Pittsburgh Penguins since 2009. They just went to the Stanley Cup Finals after blanking the Pittsburgh Penguins in the Conference Finals. They are able to make time for younger players. They aren't beholden to a vet simply because he's a vet.

Which brings me to this: the only thing more annoying on this board than the "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" people are the "OMG THE SKY IS MADE OF EVER-LASTING TITANIUM AND WILL NEVER FALL ON YOU."

You guys are so in love with context-less stats. Dan Bylsma is a great coach, look at his record! Never mind that Bylsma's only playoff success came in a half-year. He didn't fully implement his "system." How much of that year's success is because of Bylsma and how much of it is because of luck, of getting hot at the right time, and of "we no longer have MT!!!!" ? For half of this board, it's 100% Bylsma. For the other half, it's 100% the other factors. The further we get from 2009 without success, the more you have to believe it wasn't about Bylsma.

Pascal Dupuis is a top-6 forward, look at his point totals! I love Dupuis! No seriously. Don't look at my post history, that's not indicative of the deep love I have for the man.

He's not a top-6 forward on a championship team. He's basically another Mark Letestu or Dustin Jeffrey. Unlike Letestu and Jeffrey, Dupuis was smart enough to become best friends with Sidney Crosby. Which apparently makes him irreplaceable.

Stats are meaningless without context. Look at Dupuis' great scoring in the playoffs. A majority of it came away from Crosby and the 1st-line. A majority of it came on special teams (the PK) and on extra shifts with the 3rd and 4th life.

That's where he should be. He has the ability to score like a top-6 player when facing easier competition. That's how you create.. depth. But some of you - and the organization - can't look passed points. HE SCORED X POINTS = ======= TOP-6 WINGER, *****ES.

The Penguins will not win the Stanley Cup as long as Pascal Dupuis is on the Crosby line. I will be happy to put my money where my mouth is, let me know, I'm your biggest fan, this is Flo.

Now let's get back to more important things: there is no reason for Tanner Glass and Craig Adams to be on this roster. None. They offer nothing. There is absolutely no realization from the management group that this team is in need of younger blood. They buy into the "fact" that they are just the most unlucky group on the planet. We have Crosby and Malkin and the system, if we don't win, it's not our fault. Let's keep giving ~2MM to Adams and Glass. That could never be spent better elsewhere.

Let's keep giving $5MM to Fleury. No way you could ever replace a nutcase for less money.

Last thing: you can call me irrational because I believe these things. That's fine. I'm just sittin' here sippin' my 500 calories of cream and cappuccino. I ain't got no cares in the world.

But for every irrationally negative nutjob like me, there's a homer.

And a homer is the most irrational person on the planet. SO LOOK IN THE MIRROR, BUBS. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU'RE IRRATIONAL, TOO.

Peace out.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Did anyone happen to catch that video of the Boston Bruins management group ******** on Tyler Seguin right before trading him?

Also in that video was a discussion about Andrew Ference, which went like this, "Andy's been a warrior for us. He's great. I really don't want to lose him, but we have to play the younger kids at some point. We have to get younger, we have to get them into the lineup."

The Boston Bruins have had more success than the Pittsburgh Penguins since 2009. They just went to the Stanley Cup Finals after blanking the Pittsburgh Penguins in the Conference Finals. They are able to make time for younger players. They aren't beholden to a vet simply because he's a vet.

I agree, and I think we put ourselves 1 year behind schedule last season in this area. I really hope we aren't about to make it even worse by holding on to Niskanen for too much longer.

Which brings me to this: the only thing more annoying on this board than the "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" people are the "OMG THE SKY IS MADE OF EVER-LASTING TITANIUM AND WILL NEVER FALL ON YOU."

You guys are so in love with context-less stats. Dan Bylsma is a great coach, look at his record! Never mind that Bylsma's only playoff success came in a half-year. He didn't fully implement his "system." How much of that year's success is because of Bylsma and how much of it is because of luck, of getting hot at the right time, and of "we no longer have MT!!!!" ? For half of this board, it's 100% Bylsma. For the other half, it's 100% the other factors. The further we get from 2009 without success, the more you have to believe it wasn't about Bylsma.

I think both of these kinds of people are the vocal minority here. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.

Pascal Dupuis is a top-6 forward, look at his point totals! I love Dupuis! No seriously. Don't look at my post history, that's not indicative of the deep love I have for the man.

He's not a top-6 forward on a championship team. He's basically another Mark Letestu or Dustin Jeffrey. Unlike Letestu and Jeffrey, Dupuis was smart enough to become best friends with Sidney Crosby. Which apparently makes him irreplaceable.

Stats are meaningless without context. Look at Dupuis' great scoring in the playoffs. A majority of it came away from Crosby and the 1st-line. A majority of it came on special teams (the PK) and on extra shifts with the 3rd and 4th life.

That's where he should be. He has the ability to score like a top-6 player when facing easier competition. That's how you create.. depth. But some of you - and the organization - can't look passed points. HE SCORED X POINTS = ======= TOP-6 WINGER, *****ES.

The Penguins will not win the Stanley Cup as long as Pascal Dupuis is on the Crosby line. I will be happy to put my money where my mouth is, let me know, I'm your biggest fan, this is Flo.

Dupuis and Kunitz are not a championship group of wings on the same line. I think Dupuis can be a capable 3rd wheel on a very good top 6 line. Just not on the one he's on right now. I also think it would be perfectly reasonable to play him on the 3rd line if Bennett and Jussi play as well as some of us expect them to. I think its where he belonged last year in the playoffs. I think its where he will belong this year in the playoffs. But I do think he is good enough to play in the top 6 on a championship team as long as its the right role. For us, the right role is on the third line.

Now let's get back to more important things: there is no reason for Tanner Glass and Craig Adams to be on this roster. None. They offer nothing. There is absolutely no realization from the management group that this team is in need of younger blood. They buy into the "fact" that they are just the most unlucky group on the planet. We have Crosby and Malkin and the system, if we don't win, it's not our fault. Let's keep giving ~2MM to Adams and Glass. That could never be spent better elsewhere.

I agree. Adams is much less of an issue if we would be willing to make him the 13th forward because he's cheap and he can at least PK well, but Glass has no business still being here.

Let's keep giving $5MM to Fleury. No way you could ever replace a nutcase for less money.

The Fleury situation sucks. I would have loved to see us get someone else.

Last thing: you can call me irrational because I believe these things. That's fine. I'm just sittin' here sippin' my 500 calories of cream and cappuccino. I ain't got no cares in the world.

But for every irrationally negative nutjob like me, there's a homer.

And a homer is the most irrational person on the planet. SO LOOK IN THE MIRROR, BUBS. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU'RE IRRATIONAL, TOO.

Peace out.

I think you are all nuts.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Dupuis isn't a product of Crosby, he is very productive on his own, but like you said, he shouldn't be on Crosby's line. He is THE perfect third line player, but we use him on the first line.

Kunitz - Crosby - Bennett
Jokinen - Malkin - Neal
Jeffrey - Sutter - Dupuis
Glass/Adams - Vitale - Kobasew

That might be our best line up possible.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Dupuis isn't a product of Crosby, he is very productive on his own, but like you said, he shouldn't be on Crosby's line. He is THE perfect third line player, but we use him on the first line.

Kunitz - Crosby - Bennett
Jokinen - Malkin - Neal
Jeffrey - Sutter - Dupuis
Glass/Adams - Vitale - Kobasew

That might be our best line up possible.

now pretend we move Glass and Nisky right now and have cap space going to the deadline to bring in a bottom 6 guy or two. Or if we just trade them for a bottom 6 guy I guess

 

[Shockmaster]

I put the following teams ahead of the Pens PO success since the 2009:
CHI
BOS
LA
PHI
NJ
VAN
SJ
DET

With the exception of 2010, the Flyers haven't made it past the second round for a while, and completely missed the playoffs last year. With the exception of 2012, the Devils have been either one-and-done or missed the playoffs altogether since 2007-08. Since 2008-09, the Red Wings haven't made it past the second round, and went one-and-done against the Predators in 2012.

That's not to excuse the Penguins' embarrassing exits from the playoffs since 2009, but some of those teams you mentioned aren't exactly a model of playoff success.

 

[IcedCapp]

Dupuis isn't a product of Crosby, he is very productive on his own, but like you said, he shouldn't be on Crosby's line. He is THE perfect third line player, but we use him on the first line.

Kunitz - Crosby - Bennett
Jokinen - Malkin - Neal
Jeffrey - Sutter - Dupuis
Glass/Adams - Vitale - Kobasew

That might be our best line up possible.

I would never ever suggest that Dupuis is a product of Crosby. I actually think the exact opposite: Dupuis is whatever Dupuis is. He'll perform the same with Crosby, with Malkin, on the 3rd line.

His performance and production is off in its own little Dupuis World. That's why I think he's better on the 3rd line.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I agree completely.

 

[IcedCapp]

Dupuis and Kunitz are not a championship group of wings on the same line. I think Dupuis can be a capable 3rd wheel on a very good top 6 line. Just not on the one he's on right now. I also think it would be perfectly reasonable to play him on the 3rd line if Bennett and Jussi play as well as some of us expect them to. I think its where he belonged last year in the playoffs. I think its where he will belong this year in the playoffs. But I do think he is good enough to play in the top 6 on a championship team as long as its the right role. For us, the right role is on the third line.

This is probably the better way to phrase it, but, as you note, the Pens aren't in a situation to play him as a great 3rd wheel on a top-6 line.

Maybe he could go somewhere else and be that piece. On this team, right now, he needs to be moved to the 3rd-line.

I agree with the entirety of your post. Minus your implication that we are the crazy ones, somehow exonerating yourself from the affliction.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Convenient? You gotta be kidding me. The entire foundation of this argument is convenient for you. It purposely focuses on "post-Cup" years. Think about that. Post-Cup. Oh and post-finals appearance in '08 too. Again, how many teams would love to even be able to refer to their post-Cup-and-back-to-back-finals years?

If we're talking convenience, then completely removing the team's successes under Shero seems pretty convenient to me. It's like saying "If you take away all the good stuff that happened, nothing good has happened!!" and thinking it's a valid point. From the very get-go, this discussion is catering to your side of the argument.

This whole discussion stemmed from how the Pens have changed as an organization since the Cup win under DB's coaching, so yes it should only include the last 4 years.


And it's not that they lost that is embarrassing, it's how they lost. I know that they're not gonna win a cup every year, but they should at least put up a good fight and act like adults.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

With the exception of 2010, the Flyers haven't made it past the second round for a while, and completely missed the playoffs last year. With the exception of 2012, the Devils have been either one-and-done or missed the playoffs altogether since 2007-08. Since 2008-09, the Red Wings haven't made it past the second round, and went one-and-done against the Predators in 2012.

That's not to excuse the Penguins' embarrassing exits from the playoffs since 2009, but some of those teams you mentioned aren't exactly a model of playoff success.

Making a Cup final makes a team more successful in the POs than the Pens, IMO. I don't care what they did in the other years, they made it to a Cup final and were a few wins away from a Cup.

DETs loss to CHI last year in game 7 OT is better than anything the Pens have done since 2009. I don't care that it arbitrarily happened in round 2 and not round 3.

 

[Zero Pucks]

Seeing how the freakin' Maple Leafs took the Bruins to game 7 and would have beaten them if the third period was two minutes shorter. That just shows you Bylsma is too predictable, easily exposed, and doesn't have any answers when **** gets tough.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

What about the embarrassment of seeing own goals from your supposed franchise netminder, time after time? What about the embarrassment of blowing a 3-1 series lead? What about the embarrassment of not knowing how to utilize a future HOFer in Jarome Iginla? What about the embarrassment of completely losing control of your emotions against your biggest rival when it counts the most? What about the embarrassment of Tanner Glass Hockey? What about the embarrassment of Beau Bennett's utilization, or Simon Despres?

What about the embarrassment of having the two greatest offensive weapons in the NHL and scoring TWICE in the Eastern Conference finals???

There is plenty of embarrassment to go around since '09.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Seeing how the freakin' Maple Leafs took the Bruins to game 7 and would have beaten them if the third period was two minutes shorter. That just shows you Bylsma is too predictable, easily exposed, and doesn't have any answers when **** gets tough.

please explain the connection here. I don't really disagree with either of your points. But I just don't see the connection here.

 

[ColePens]

RRP.. it comes down to one thing. Being the favorite pretty much every year and falling short. Montreal, Philly, Boston. I would say each of those are pretty sloppy. Also blowing a 3-1 lead in any series is tough.

 

[Zero Pucks]

please explain the connection here. I don't really disagree with either of your points. But I just don't see the connection here.

Because we're a much better team than the Maple Leafs (or I like to believe). Who or what do they have in their lineup that we aren't better or at least as good? But somehow they managed to score more than two goals and win three games against the same team that embarrassed us (and I believe we were truly embarrassed) just a few weeks later. There's no excuse to why we shouldn't have performed at least as well as they did.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Two points:

1. You are making an equivalency where none exists. All 30 teams are not the same in the quality of the team, and therefore their chances. When you show how few have made past certain rounds, the comparative group that the Pens are being compared to is very small when you come to talent equivalency, maybe three other teams. Certainly not 30.

2. The eye test. The Pens in the playoffs simply looked outcoached, if not outplayed. But given the talent that this team displays in the regular season most of us focus on coaching more than talent of the players, though they do deserve some blame. But when it is a system which is handcuffing the talent on your team, that pretty much is all on the coach. And that is what we have seen the past few playoffs.

 

[UnderratedBrooks44]

also im not sure how someone can use fleury's horrific goaltending as a reason for why this team is not embarrassing.

if anything fleury's continued employment by this organization is shameful. a loser of epic proportions, yet he continues to be supported by the team, coach, and organization. the entire league knows he sucks and has known it for years. no other team would continually give this loser chance after chance to redeem himself.

everyday that goes by with fleury on this roster is embarrassing and shows that a championship isnt this organizations top priority.

The question is the same as it was months ago: yeah fleury is a head case, so who are we getting instead?

 

[orby]

The problem, to me, isn't a matter of how far they got in the playoffs, it's that they've played very poorly in all of the series in which they've been eliminated. I'll give the team a pass for 2011, when they were playing with a duct-taped roster, but they were embarrassed by (what should have been) inferior teams in 2010, 2012 and 2013.

 

[Ogrezilla]

The problem, to me, isn't a matter of how far they got in the playoffs, it's that they've played very poorly in all of the series in which they've been eliminated. I'll give the team a pass for 2011, when they were playing with a duct-taped roster, but they were embarrassed by (what should have been) inferior teams in 2010, 2012 and 2013.

I'm not saying we didn't play poorly, but I think people make entirely too much of the "lower seed" opponents being worse than us. 3 of the 4 teams we've lost to were 1 seed below us in the standings.

 

[Zero Pucks]

Two points:

1. You are making an equivalency where none exists. All 30 teams are not the same in the quality of the team, and therefore their chances. When you show how few have made past certain rounds, the comparative group that the Pens are being compared to is very small when you come to talent equivalency, maybe three other teams. Certainly not 30.

2. The eye test. The Pens in the playoffs simply looked outcoached, if not outplayed. But given the talent that this team displays in the regular season most of us focus on coaching more than talent of the players, though they do deserve some blame. But when it is a system which is handcuffing the talent on your team, that pretty much is all on the coach. And that is what we have seen the past few playoffs.

I know all teams are different, and any team can find a way to beat another team. But when you're as talented as we are, we should be seeing some decent results each round and not blowing our lids and scoring two measly goals. I agree it is all on the coach. There's no excuse to keep going out the way we do.

The problem, to me, isn't a matter of how far they got in the playoffs, it's that they've played very poorly in all of the series in which they've been eliminated. I'll give the team a pass for 2011, when they were playing with a duct-taped roster, but they were embarrassed by (what should have been) inferior teams in 2010, 2012 and 2013.

I wouldn't say the Bruins were inferior to us, they're definitely a good team and proved it a little too well.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Because we're a much better team than the Maple Leafs (or I like to believe). Who or what do they have in their lineup that we aren't better or at least as good? But somehow they managed to score more than two goals and win three games against the same team that embarrassed us (and I believe we were truly embarrassed) just a few weeks later. There's no excuse to why we shouldn't have performed at least as well as they did.

The Maple Leafs are tough. They can match Boston's toughness. They don't get intimidated at all. Phil Kessel stepped up because he finally understood that he wasn't going to get pounded into submission anymore. As opposed to our soff unit.

The question is the same as it was months ago: yeah fleury is a head case, so who are we getting instead?

Someone who only allows goals that the OTHER team scores on him?

 

[billybudd]

I'd be curious if anyone could name a team with consecutive playoff series eliminations (Flyers/Bruins) that were more embarrassing than our last two? It must be impossible to find a worse goaltending effort (Flyers) and offensive execution (Bruins) in consecutive years. Didn't we set a playoff record in each series?

I want to say the Sharks have done that several times. I know the Senators were doing that almost every year in the late 90s and early aughts.

 

[NeedleInTheHay]

Making a Cup final makes a team more successful in the POs than the Pens, IMO. I don't care what they did in the other years, they made it to a Cup final and were a few wins away from a Cup.

DETs loss to CHI last year in game 7 OT is better than anything the Pens have done since 2009. I don't care that it arbitrarily happened in round 2 and not round 3.

Det blew a 3-1 lead last year, why do they get a pass for that?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I don't think our results have necessarily been embarrassing, though a couple of the series were. I do think we have been underperforming. My post is more related to the above stats.

Which is more important? Results or style? I'm starting to think this board believes the latter.

I think you misunderstand. I said that it could be argued-- that the Pens lone 3rd round appearance was so poor that they rank at the bottom of the 6 teams who have made it to the 3rd round. Hence 6 out of 8 in their class.

Gotcha.

If one's inclined to believe that, then there are 5 teams since '09 who have been more successful than the Pens. If not, then there are only 4. On what planet is that "embarrassing", especially since one of those years was a virtual write-off because of who we were missing?

It has to do with results vs expectations.

Indeed.

Just because you refuse to believe something and choose to endlessly spin the excuse wheel doesn't mean that the Pens haven't been embarrassed in the last 4 years.

The results don't require excuses. It shows the Pens are among the best in the league even when using your most convenient cutoff point.

2009-10:
Pens run into the 8th seed Habs. They win a few close games and go up 3-2. Halak is having a great series, but the Pens keep trying the same dam thing over and over, playing right into the Habs' gameplan. In game six the Pens take a 2-1 lead early in the 2nd period, give up 3 straight to lose the game. Game 7 at home, they gotta come out strong right? Well they give up the first 4 goals and the season's over.

2010-11:
Sid and Geno are hurt so the Pens have something to prove. Come out strong and win game 1 3-0 so this series is gonna be ab breeze. Game 2 Tampa stomps the Pens 5-1. The Pens rally and win the next two games 3-2 to take a 3-1 series lead with game 5 coming back to Pittsburgh. You thought they got stomped in game 2? try an 8-2 ****** in elimination game #1. In game 6 the Pens tye the game 2-2 early in the 3rd period, sweet! Then give up the GWG 67 sec later, ****. Ok, not it's game 7 at home gotta come out strong. We haven't been held to less than 2 goals so if we play good D we'll move on. **** we got shutout, time to hit the links!

2011-12:
No explanation necessary.

2012-13:
Once the MAF excuse is gone, the Pens sleep walk through the first two rounds putting up historic GPG numbers. Well the Bs barely broke a sweat ****ing the Pens in the ass in 4 straight games only to get beat by a skill team in the Hawks.

Again, you ignore the concrete numbers because they don't fit your argument, so you try to cloud the issue with your subjective (and often dubious) take on the way we lost.

Keep making your excuses if they make you feel better. I'd rather not look at the past 4 years through black and gold colored glasses.

Again, there's no need to make excuses for actual results that put the Pens near the very top of the league. I've never attempted to make excuses. Repeating it like a mindless parrot doesn't make it true.

And it's pretty ****ing convenient that you don't count teams that have missed a PO since 2009 to be allowed in the discussion of PO success when two of the teams that have played in the SCP since then have also missed a PO. Sorry, but the Flyers and Devils have had more PO success than the Pens since then.

There's nothing convenient about it. They missed the playoffs, a fate that would push most fans here to the nearest bridge.

I put the following teams ahead of the Pens PO success since the 2009:
CHI
BOS
LA
PHI
NJ
VAN
SJ
DET

2 teams who haven't even made it to the playoffs each year (on top of which the Devils were ousted in 5 games in Round 1 in 2010, and the Flyers went out in 4 against the Bruins in Round 2 in 2011 and 5 games in Round 2 in 2012...100% not embarrassing) and another that not only suffered a 5 game rout in Round 1 vs. the Preds but blew a 3-1 series lead last year with a healthy team (which also wasn't embarrassing I'm sure, for some totally not-arbitrary-ad-hoc reason ), but hasn't made Round 3 since '09.

What a joke.

Putting the Pens 9th. And I don't want to hear about how because the Pens made it to the 3rd round last year they're better than the Wings because that's so far outside reality it's laughable. The Pens had zero wins against good teams in last years PO, beating NYI and OTT is not a great accomplishment for this team.

You don't want to hear anything that deals with facts.

I do enjoy that despite the Sens soundly waxing the #2 seed Habs in 5 games last year (coached by the retroactively beloved Michel "Defensive Accountability" Therrien), the fact that we annihilated those Sens in 5 counts for nothing because they were a 7th seed.

Boy, every WC team must've been embarrassed when the Kings won in 2012. Don't they know #8 seeds are no good?

Your whole "3 is better than 2" argument reminds me of a child trying to argue that 2 dollar bills are better than a 5 dollar bill, because two is more than one. Well once you look a bit more close at the bills you'll realize that one $5 bill is actually better than two $1 bills. But don't try to tell the child that, because they have it in their mind that every bill is the same so 2 bills has to be better than 1 bill.

That is a terrible analogy.

if you take away the teams most embarrassing player, the team isnt embarrassing.

logic, not even once.

If you take away subjective opinions on the "embarrassment quotient" of the '12 and '13 losses and look at the actual results vs. the league since '09, there's nothing to be remotely embarrassed about.

Acknowledging actual data, not even once.

Far be it from me to disagree with the great Bobby Orr, but this is absolutely horrible advice/life motto. You absolutely judge yourself on the process/decisions.

You can make the wrong decisions/choices and still have a positive outcome x% of the time. Make those decisions/choices often enough, and you'll pay for it.

Tell me how you can boil down the rightness or wrongness of an organization's decisions to a net positive/negative, outside of actual results. How do you weight opinion?

Also in that video was a discussion about Andrew Ference, which went like this, "Andy's been a warrior for us. He's great. I really don't want to lose him, but we have to play the younger kids at some point. We have to get younger, we have to get them into the lineup."

Isn't that pretty much exactly what we did with Cooke?

The Boston Bruins have had more success than the Pittsburgh Penguins since 2009. They just went to the Stanley Cup Finals after blanking the Pittsburgh Penguins in the Conference Finals. They are able to make time for younger players. They aren't beholden to a vet simply because he's a vet.

We're talking about the same Bruins who sat Dougie Hamilton in the playoffs, and only "made time for" Bartkowski and Krug after injuries hit their blueline, right?

The same Pens who are incorporating Bennett onto the 2nd or 3rd line and likely putting Bortuzzo on the 3rd pairing, with Despres' fate yet TBD?

You guys are so in love with context-less stats. Dan Bylsma is a great coach, look at his record! Never mind that Bylsma's only playoff success came in a half-year. He didn't fully implement his "system." How much of that year's success is because of Bylsma and how much of it is because of luck, of getting hot at the right time, and of "we no longer have MT!!!!" ? For half of this board, it's 100% Bylsma. For the other half, it's 100% the other factors. The further we get from 2009 without success, the more you have to believe it wasn't about Bylsma.

Oh, is that what the data in this thread suggests?

The Penguins will not win the Stanley Cup as long as Pascal Dupuis is on the Crosby line. I will be happy to put my money where my mouth is, let me know, I'm your biggest fan, this is Flo.

Betting on the field against one team. Bold.

RRP.. it comes down to one thing. Being the favorite pretty much every year and falling short. Montreal, Philly, Boston. I would say each of those are pretty sloppy. Also blowing a 3-1 lead in any series is tough.

Cole, I don't think there was anything sloppy about the 2010 Montreal series. We had a ****** goalie and played against a red-hot one. The Boston series wasn't sloppy outside of Game 2 and the gong-show 3rd period of Game 1.

The Bruins blew a 3-0 series lead with a 3-0 lead in Game 4 back in 2010. The Wings have blown a 3-1 series lead (with a full contingent of players). Philly's been sloppy as hell when they've been in the playoffs. Montreal got destroyed by the team we "cakewalked" through and apparently deserve no credit for soundly beating.

Every team has "embarrassments", which is why we should take emotion out of the equation and focus on the actual results over the 4 year sample size vs. the league.