Here's a novel view from a long-time lurker: Maybe we just weren't that good after all.
Sure, we have 5 or 6 players that are elite but beyond that, look at our 2nd and 3rd liners: Palat, Miller, Gourde, Killorn, Johnson. All meh, mediocre (Cirelli, I agree is on the rise). Certainly no better than the other playoff teams, worse than many. The notion of this incredibly 'stacked' roster was nonsense. Same on D - sure a healthy Hedman and McDonagh are elite, but Coburn, Stralman, and Girardi are all well past their peaks, and Sergachev can be a train wreck. I look at the final 8 teams in these playoffs and I see deeper 3-5 D's on many, if not most, of them.
I also think that our 62 wins were tinged with a lot of good fortune. Personally, I felt like only about a dozen of those games were really 'easy'. Our record made it seem like a lot of our games were of the Canada vs. Ukraine variety when in fact the vast majority were tight.
Playoff fragility? I don't really buy it. Over the past 5 or 6 years the Bolts have won more playoff series than they lost. Versus NJ and Boston last year the Bolts looked physically and mentally stronger than their opponents, as well as more skilled. If we were as wimpy and fragile as some suggest we wouldn't have won the 9 or 10 series we have over the past half dozen years. Sure, we haven't lifted the cup (how many teams have?) but it's not like we get our butts kicked in all our playoff series.
Besides not really being as talented as most thought, our demise was due to:
1. Vasi not making big saves.
2. PK fell back into the shell reminiscent of a year ago.
3. Long time without playing a meaningful game, whereas Columbus came in full bore (Ok - that's a type of mental thing).
4. Hedman either dazed or out and Cooper's weird choice not to play Coburn but Rutta - and with Sergachev at that!
5. We played as if we were entitled to victory, as in the regular season. Like it was just going to happen for us because... Bolts.