The Pens' supposed "playoff embarassment" since '09

[Ziggyjoe21]

Maybe, but don't you think Bylsma should have changed the lines around? If I recall, the Blachawks were having trouble generating offense in Game 1 against the Bruins until their coach finally switched up the lines, allowing them to tie the game and send it into OT.

What do you expect DB to do? They played like crap in game 2 and responded by outplaying the Bruins in both games 3 and 4 (imo). Bylsma can't teach three 50 goal scorers, a 40 goal scorer, and 1st team all NHL winger how to score.

 

[Ogrezilla]

What do you expect DB to do? They played like crap in game 2 and responded by outplaying the Bruins in both games 3 and 4 (imo). Bylsma can't teach three 50 goal scorers, a 40 goal scorer, and 1st team all NHL winger how to score.

I expect him to put players in a position that makes some amount of sense. Put guys who compliment one another together. Oh, and tell someone to get to the front of the freaking net.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

A couple . . . sure, that's a fun debate. How about four of them, in the fashion that the Pens lost. Again, in June 2009, if I'd have told you what's coming, then would you have cared about the excuses? What's the statute of limitations on this?

BTW, I'm asking for an opinion, because I know there's no set formula.

I think that last year was the "proof" that DB really can't be a PO coach, because there isn't an easy excuse like the previous 3 years.

"They were tired from the Cup last year and ran into a hot goalie..."
"Sid and Geno were hurt so you can't possibly be expected to win a PO series..."
"MAF is the worst goalie ever..."


What's the excuse for last year? Vok was great. Sid and Geno were pretty healthy. And were well rested cause of the lockout.

Maybe, just maybe the real problem with this team is the guy behind the bench, not just the excuses.

 

[ColePens]

I expect him to put players in a position that makes some amount of sense. Put guys who compliment one another together. Oh, and tell someone to get to the front of the freaking net.

This is all I want. He can put players in better positions. Case and point: MT to Bylsma. They needed a different system. Same thing applies now.

 

[Zero Pucks]

What do you expect DB to do? They played like crap in game 2 and responded by outplaying the Bruins in both games 3 and 4 (imo). Bylsma can't teach three 50 goal scorers, a 40 goal scorer, and 1st team all NHL winger how to score.

Did you forget how badly our PP was struggling and Bylsma refused to change it? It really could have used a right handed shot on the left half board. And who did we trade for that had an elite right handed shot? Really, I don't know what Bylsma was suppose to do either.

 

[KIRK]

Where did I say "who cares what happens since you didn't win"? Your exact words in one of your posts were:
"When you win a cup and have so much young elite talent, the standard becomes cup or bust"

Ok, that's fine. Then you turn around and say "if the Pens had lost every year in the finals (or even had a finals loss and an ECF loss to show for the last four years), then I think a lot of people, starting with me, would feel a lot less disgusted with the last four years."

I mean these are your exact words in consecutive posts. What am I meant to take from that? You seem to think that this fan base is far more rational and much easier to please than I do. If the Pens had strong showings in the playoffs every year, but always ultimately came up short, I think we'd still be seeing most of the same complaints we're seeing right now. I don't think for one second that we'd be sitting here distinguishing between bad losses and acceptable losses. Everybody would still be just as frustrated at the lack of cups since 09. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, people were complaining when we winning in the first two rounds this past year. It's tough to imagine a scenario where any kind of loss would have been accepted. The fact that people are looking back and calling 2011 an embarrassment kind of reinforces this belief. If there was ever a loss you could accept, it's that one. That doesn't appear to be the case though.

So, let me see if I've got this right. First, you pose a question:

What would you have wanted to hear back in June 09? That we win the cup every year? Well of course we'd all want that, but nobody in their right mind can expect anything close to that in today's NHL. Would you want to hear that we lose every year in the finals? Would that really make anyone feel any better? /QUOTE]

I answered the question by saying 'yes', it would be hard to argue about being disappointed in a practical sense (in the 'fan' sense is another matter . . . that conception of disappointment is 'cup or bust').

Clearly, you disliked THAT answer so much that you ignored it and then did the 'oh, well sure I've been disappointed about some things'.

Let me help you out here: The thread that RRP started asked if the Pens playoff record for the last four years has been THAT embarrassing.

Some people here, LIKE YOU, have argued about the word choice OR the interpretation of a specific point in the four years OR created that sarcastic 'some people wouldn't be happy with four cup losses' straw man in order to IGNORE the real question here:

In June 2009, what would YOU have expected to come from the next four years in the playoffs? Clearly, you are desperate to giving the rational answer: NOT THIS ****.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I mean these are your exact words in consecutive posts. What am I meant to take from that? You seem to think that this fan base is far more rational and much easier to please than I do. If the Pens had strong showings in the playoffs every year, but always ultimately came up short, I think we'd still be seeing most of the same complaints we're seeing right now. I don't think for one second that we'd be sitting here distinguishing between bad losses and acceptable losses. Everybody would still be just as frustrated at the lack of cups since 09. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, people were complaining when we winning in the first two rounds this past year. It's tough to imagine a scenario where any kind of loss would have been accepted. The fact that people are looking back and calling 2011 an embarrassment kind of reinforces this belief. If there was ever a loss you could accept, it's that one. That doesn't appear to be the case though.

I addressed that already, but you never responded.

We were complaining because we were doing things that we knew would get exploited against better teams in future rounds. We were able to beat the Sens with Iggy out of place or with DB not making in-game adjustments, but we knew what was coming. The fact that were were winning, in spite of all those problems, made DB not fix them.

The Boston series shows how right we were to be worried about those issues.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Okay, so since the Penguins WON the cup in 2009. Wouldn't that make them more successful since they've won it more recently than the Red Wings, Devils, and Flyers since we aren't taking into account other playoff failures or missing the playoffs altogether?

Again, no one is excusing the Penguins embarrassing playoff exits, but you're logic is very badly flawed.

This thread is about Po performance since 2009 so I'm not sure what anything done before it matters. I know we won in 09, but that doesn't give a team (or coach) a 4 year free pass to underachieve in the POs.

 

[KIRK]

I think that last year was the "proof" that DB really can't be a PO coach, because there isn't an easy excuse like the previous 3 years.

"They were tired from the Cup last year and ran into a hot goalie..."
"Sid and Geno were hurt so you can't possibly be expected to win a PO series..."
"MAF is the worst goalie ever..."


What's the excuse for last year? Vok was great. Sid and Geno were pretty healthy. And were well rested cause of the lockout.

Maybe, just maybe the real problem with this team is the guy behind the bench, not just the excuses.

You know, I don't even care anymore WHO or WHAT is to blame. The excuses have become a crutch. The word debate has become a crutch. The debate about how to classify any isolated series has become a crutch.

So, let's end it. RRP, Sniper26, and anyone else here who is desperate to whitewash the Pens playoff history since 2009:

Go back in the time machine to June 2009. Kirk the psychic is telling you that the Pens will win two playoff series against the Sens, one against the Isles, and have one ECF series in which they were swept to show for the next four year's of Sid and Geno's careers.

What would the hockey journalists have expected THEN? For me, the answer is 'not THAT ****', and I suspect that it would have been the clean version of the same answer from people like Kevin Allen or Scott Burnside.

What would YOU have expected THEN? For you, the answer is different. Fine. Some fans need the whitewash. Other people here are able to stop being fans for a few minutes and take a cold, honest historical look at what's happened with the Pens in the playoffs since winning the cup.

 

[Ogrezilla]

can you please drop the psychic schtick? You are ignoring everything about how it happened both positively and negatively. Its meaningless.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I didn't acknowledge it because ultimately, a playoff series win is a playoff series win, and a playoff series loss is a playoff series loss. By that objective standard, our results have been among the best in the league (even if we believe we could do better).

The thread was created to take the over-excitable element out of the equation and look at what truly matters.

They may be your benchmark in a black and white world, but most of us don't live in a black and white world.

And we really haven't had great results, let alone among the best in the league. Hell going by your "a playoff series loss is a playoff series loss" standard, making the ECF last year doesn't matter because we lost.

We have won two 1st round series and one 2nd round series. That's it. Saying we made it to the 3rd round doesn't matter because it wasn't a success and "a playoff series loss is a playoff series loss".

 

[KIRK]

can you please drop the psychic schtick? You are ignoring everything about how it happened both positively and negatively.

Which shtick would you prefer, the Pollyanna one, because some of you guys will do anything to whitewash the past?

O'k, then, how about this: It's June 2009. I get to ask Allen, Burnside, and say another 4 hockey journalists what they think would be a reasonable expectation for the Pens for the playoffs for the next four years. What do you think they'd say?

I can assure you that they'd give you a polite version of 'not this ****'. I can assure you that they wouldn't turn it into a word debate or create straw men or become obsessed with a specific question so as to obfuscate the real question like some of you people here (and like you just did again, albeit unintentionally).

 

[Ogrezilla]

and that changes nothing because they still don't have any information about how or why anything happens. What is your opinion in 2009 about Sid missing over a year of time with concussion and spine problems. What about Geno having major knee surgery? What about the lack of composure against Philly? Fleury's meltdowns? Kovalev's glorious return to Pittsburgh?

Its just a stupid discussion just like ignoring all of that stuff like RRP is in his thread. I can assure you, if you asked a legitimate writer this stupid of a question they would politely decline to answer it.

 

[KIRK]

and that changes nothing because they still don't have any information about how or why anything happens. What is your opinion in 2009 about Sid missing over a year of time with concussion and spine problems. What about Geno having major knee surgery? What about the lack of composure against Philly? Fleury's meltdowns?

Its just a stupid discussion.

Despite your protestations otherwise, it's pretty clear that you are desperate to whitewash the last four years. How else to explain your 180 on the breaks. 12 hours ago, you said that you don't believe in them. Now, you're using them as a crutch because you didn't like my question.

Well, that's how history works. Historians will debate specifics like word choices and moments in time and create straw men to obfuscate in the same way that we debate 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 here.

BUT, RRP's thread is about a collective judgment of the 4 year body. Call questions stupid, debate word choices and characterize specific losses however you want. History, as the saying goes, is written by the victors, and your desperation here to whitewash the judgment of hockey history is no different than what one sees from a historian of any losing cause.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Despite your protestations otherwise, it's pretty clear that you are desperate to whitewash the last four years. How else to explain your 180 on the breaks. 12 hours ago, you said that you don't believe in them. Now, you're using them as a crutch because you didn't like my question.

Well, that's how history works. Historians will debate specifics like word choices and moments in time and create straw men to obfuscate in the same way that we debate 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 here.

BUT, RRP's thread is about a collective judgment of the 4 year body. Call questions stupid, debate word choices and characterize specific losses however you want. History, as the saying goes, is written by the victors, and your desperation here to whitewash the judgment of hockey history is no different than what one sees from a historian of any losing cause.

I have never once tried to whitewash anything. I specifically said that the last 4 years have been disappointing. I said we should have done better. I really don't know what the **** you are even going on about at this point. I'm just pointing out that your question is a stupid one even though we've established that I largely agree with you. What I'm trying to do is get people to discuss the topic rationally and remember that something other than the two extreme opinions are possible.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I think KIRK is trying to tell us he has psychic powers and a demanding type A sociopathic personality and implying he should become Penguins president for life.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I think KIRK is trying to tell us he has psychic powers and a demanding type A sociopathic personality and implying he should become Penguins president for life.

So THAT'S why he gets so upset about us passing on trades that we never even had a reason to believe were on the table

 

[KIRK]

I have never once tried to whitewash anything. I specifically said that the last 4 years have been disappointing. I said we should have done better. I really don't know what the **** you are even going on about at this point. I'm just pointing out that your question is a stupid one even though we've established that I largely agree with you.

I'm not sure that you largely agree with me. You agree that one or two more positive things should have happened. You have shown that the question WHY DIDN'T IT HAPPEN should matter, which is something on which we disagree. Unlike you, I think we've passed the point where the excuses become a crutch, and my question was further evidence of that (guys like Allen and Burnside would've stopped making excuses by now and looked at the four year picture of results).

I think KIRK is trying to tell us he has psychic powers and a demanding type A sociopathic personality and implying he should become Penguins president for life.

So THAT'S why he gets so upset about us passing on trades that we never even had a reason to believe were on the table

Anything for a good whitewash with you two, yes? Fair enough. I hear Disney is remaking Pollyanna. You two shouldn't have any problem finding work as extras.

BTW, Ogre, I know the other guy is an ***clown, but on a serious RRP thread like this, somehow I expected better from you. My bad.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

How about take away the time machine argument and switch "Pens" to "Hawks".

If the Hawks only win 3 PO series in the next 4 years, losing to lower seeds every year, and get swept in the only WCF they make, would you say that it would be a disappointment and would Q still have a job after those 4 years?

 

[KIRK]

How about take away the time machine argument and switch "Pens" to "Hawks".

If the Hawks only win 3 PO series in the next 4 years, losing to lower seeds every year, and get swept in the only WCF they make, would you say that it would be a disappointment and would Q still have a job after those 4 years?

That's the problem with the time machine argument. We both know what the answer is. Nonetheless, expect one of them to make an idiotic crack and the other to call the analogy stupid and, despite saying breaks don't matter, give you a litany of excuses. It's what you get at the confluence of nihilism and intellectual stupidity/dishonesty.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I'm not sure that you largely agree with me. You agree that one or two more positive things should have happened. You have shown that the question WHY DIDN'T IT HAPPEN should matter, which is something on which we disagree. Unlike you, I think we've passed the point where the excuses become a crutch, and my question was further evidence of that (guys like Allen and Burnside would've stopped making excuses by now and looked at the four year picture of results).

guys like Allen and Burnside would have realized its a stupid question and ignored it like I should have done.

How about take away the time machine argument and switch "Pens" to "Hawks".

If the Hawks only win 3 PO series in the next 4 years and get swept in the only WCF they make, would you say that it would be a disappointment and would Q still have a job after those 4 years?

I have no idea because I have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical world.

Anything for a good whitewash with you two, yes? Fair enough. I hear Disney is remaking Pollyanna. You two shouldn't have any problem finding work as extras.

BTW, Ogre, I know the other guy is an ***clown, but on a serious RRP thread like this, somehow I expected better from you. My bad.

I was making a joke about your trend of being mad about passing on trades that may or may not have ever been possible. If we had just traded for Malone though just think of how Geno would have done. I apologize for disagreeing with you. Apparently that makes me an ass clown.

 

[Ogrezilla]

That's the problem with the time machine argument. We both know what the answer is. Nonetheless, expect one of them to make an idiotic crack and the other to call the analogy stupid and, despite saying breaks don't matter, give you a litany of excuses. It's what you get at the confluence of nihilism and intellectual stupidity/dishonesty.

we have slightly underachieved. We have had two series losses that losing was perfectly reasonable but were worse than they should have been. We had one legitimately bad series loss to Montreal that we definitely shouldn't have lost. We had one year where our best players were hurt and we still did surprisingly well. And your psychic/time machine scenario is still idiotic.

Take away excuses and we can just look at results. The results put us in the group of successful teams that haven't quite won the Cup. Unless you go back one year to when we won the Cup. In the last 4 years we probably rank somewhere around 7 or 8 for success. In the last 5 we would be tied for 3rd with LA. Go back 6 and we are tied for 2nd with Boston.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Anything for a good whitewash with you two, yes? Fair enough. I hear Disney is remaking Pollyanna. You two shouldn't have any problem finding work as extras.

BTW, Ogre, I know the other guy is an ***clown, but on a serious RRP thread like this, somehow I expected better from you. My bad.

Not taking you seriously is not the same as whitewashing.

 

[KIRK]

guys like Allen and Burnside would have realized its a stupid question and ignored it like I should have done.



I have no idea because I have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical world.

So, in trying to formulate a general historical judgment, hypothetical questions aren't allowed and specific excuses don't count unless needed as a crutch. I follow you now. Makes perfect sense.

Not taking you seriously is not the same as whitewashing.

Yes, I get it, you're a child who doesn't want to treat RRP's serious thread with the seriousness that it deserves. You didn't need to explain yourself.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

So, in trying to formulate a general historical judgment, hypothetical questions aren't allowed and specific excuses don't count unless needed as a crutch. I follow you now. Makes perfect sense.

Only bad historians give much weight to hypotheticals.

Yes, I get it, you're a child who doesn't want to treat RRP's serious thread with the seriousness that it deserves. You didn't need to explain yourself.

I take RRP seriously. I've said before he's one of the best posters here. I take this topic and most people's opinions seriously. I don't take you seriously.