View Single Post
Old
05-28-2011, 12:45 PM
  #57
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
Revisionist history at best.

Hope you understand that we were leading 3-1 in game 4, and we played like garbage. It's not the bruins who played amazing, we played like garbage from here on out. And Price definitely didn't do his part there either. There's no way we should have lost that game. Leading 1-0, 3-1, 4-3 and managed to lose ? C'mon. Was that really the bruins playing like the bruins suddenly ?

Or wait, was it when they scored 2 goals quick in game 3, and we dominated the rest of the game, and if it had not been for Price's retarded gimme, that one was going to OT with us having all the momentum ?

Or wait, was it when the bruins won their last 3 games in OT ? Against our insanely depleted squad ?

Please.

Not only did the seas part (east was so weak) for this insanely lucky team, but... it took them everything to beat the weak injured teams they faced showing everyone they were no better than the team they did beat.
And that's revisionist to. Point is they have been able to beat us with NO PP success whatsoever. We DOMINATED them? Yeah, 1 period here, 1 other period there, but not during 3 freakin consecutive periods within the same game which always was the same problem we had all year. So scoring 2 quick goals means nothing?

Strange that what applies to us doesn't apply to others. Remember when some, including myself, said that Halak himself changed the course of the playoffs last year? Well some were saying that it wasn't true, that the number of shots didn't indicate the real story and all....Isn't it then possible that Thomas, while good, didn't need to be THAT great? Did we always finished with 40 good scoring chances against 7 in all the games? We were not consistant enough, the Bruins played great defensively mostly on the road. Yet, it did came down to 1 goal.

But they were the overall better team. Whether it's for great goalie performance..whether it's the timely and clutch goals....whether it's the overall defensive performance, I see it as Boston taking us for granted during the first 2 games....And then, if some agree that we dominated after while we losing, tough to think that we were that bad...how can you dominated while being bad?

Yes, it's always more than one team being great, the other team being bad. Tons of outside factors coming in. We were without players and lately, it seems we always are so either we need to find a way to deal with it, either we have to see why it's always happening.

Everything is revisionist at this point. Just depends now what part of the "revision" you want to see it. Surely, you can badmouth them after our series and mention how weak they are but then...they beat the Flyers. We would have beat the Flyers in 4? And now they beat the Lightning...They are the Eastern Champions. Problem is that there were A LOT of people saying how lucky we were in 1993 and I HATED that. So I choose to apply it even if it's about my enemy now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E = CH² View Post
The 1993 team was a million times better than the bruins squad this year.

D
Desjardins, Schneider, Daigneault, Odelein, Brisebois, Haller
G
Roy

Compare that to the ruins joke of a defense. It would be one thing if Chara was on top of his game, but he's a shadow of himself. I'm sure he's got something pretty bad afflicting him.

Then up front we had Damphousse who was better than anyone on the bruins offense. Muller was still pretty good back then, probably either of their center's equal. '93 playoffs Leclair >>> Lucic.

And despite that team being better, they still needed a lot of luck and the seas parting I agree. But Bruins it goes beyond that. Two game 7s. Habs back then rolled their opponent despite the wins in OT. They won the cup tying the record for least losses in 4 rounds I believe.

Hell, bruins are the first team to ever win a playoffs series without scoring one PP goal. Heck they even got scored once while on the PP. They're ****ing abysmal. And if we had been any good at all we'd have taken advantage of that 2-0 lead to beat them. But game 4 was a killer with the squandered leads after squandered leads. Sad.
Quebec, Buffalo, NYIsles and LA Kings. No matter how good you think we were, we finished with 102 points. Pretty good record that made us the 6th best team in regular season. Thing is, we played against teams that had respective records of 104, 86, 87 and 88 points. Compared to Boston right now who finishied with 103 points. And faced teams with 96, 106, 103 and now 117 points. So no matter how good we were, we were only tested during the 1st round. Boston will be tested during the 4 rounds. A really bad team loses at one point. Yes, a bad team can win 1 round...maybe 2...but 3? If they win the Cup....will they still be bad?

It's always a little bit of everything. You usually need more than just to be good...you need your opponent to be worst....but then are you actually playing so that the opponent looks bad? Or are they just playing bad by themselves?

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote