HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

The Misguided Myth of the Modern Big Bad Bruins

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-28-2013, 07:33 AM
  #76
Lshap
Registered User
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
Thanks for contributing. I found this objective and real.
I grew up on the Big Bad Bruins and Broadstreet Bullies. Today's Bruins and league itself doesn't come close.
Accusations of Bruins 'gooning it up ' are pretty far fetched too. What the Bruins do have is something else I believe. They refuse to be intimidated. They also stick up for each other. No Bruin is ever 'left alone'. Which in my opinion was the Canucks greatest weakness.
So I guess size to me matters. Not the size of the individuals but what the group (size) is willing to do in the name of one.
The "No Bruin left alone" philosophy makes sense, but I think that mantra has become standard operating procedure for pretty well every team. Or at least much more than in previous years. The Habs adopted that idea last year, added tougher players, and have become really quick on the trigger if another player takes a run at one of their own. Same story with the Sabres -- teams not known for physical payback changing the recipe to add more pepper.

I think it's fair to say that at least some of this was a response to Boston's model, which worked well for you guys in 2011. The Canucks tried to play the nice guy (the famous scene of Sedin allowing himself to become a punching bag for Marchand) and found it cost them more in morale than it profited them in power-plays.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ladd View Post
I disagree.

I think teams lose games because they get intimidated. I think Milan Lucic intimidated the Sabres and that derailed their entire season. I've seen defensemen bail on retrieving pucks -in the playoffs- because they hear footsteps. That leads to wins.

The Bruins intimidated the Canucks. I don't think the Bruins win the Cup without that element to their game.

That's not to say intimidation is an easy-button to winning, but I do think it can be another tool in your toolbox.

That said...

I think there's some confusion in the thread. I think some folks are seeing the thread title challenging the "Big, Bad Bruins" moniker and disagreeing because they see the B's as being plenty intimidating. I agree, the B's are plenty intimidating, but I don't think that was necessarily the point of the OP. To me, this thread is really about whether or not the Bruins would benefit from getting bigger and/or better along the walls, specifically at the 3rd line LW position. That, I believe is a worthwhile debate.
I realize we're both guessing what the mood on Buffalo's bench really was after Lucic hit Miller, but from my POV it looked more like unfocused road-rage than intimidation. They were royally pihssed but there was no protocol on what to do about it. It's not like they could go break a stick over Lucic's head. Plus they'd just lost their starting goalie. But I don't agree that they became fearful because of one player -- it's not like these guys had never been checked or hit before. They just looked like a team with a lot of anger but no mechanism in place to direct it on the ice.

As to your second point about getting bigger to gain the zone, that's become a league-wide debate. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it living in the market I'm in, but all I hear is SIZE SIZE SIZE, as if, all by itself, it's this magical element that'll make you win. In Montreal it's become a fetish that drives me nuts. Yeah, you need to have critical mass for your forwards to penetrate the zone and crash the net, and it definitely takes a toll on the other guy's D if your guys are banging them around. Size is important. But once you already have size -- as the Bruins do -- I don't think adding MORE size is the element that'll take you over the top. I don't think more size is what the Bruins are missing. Size is probably the easiest commodity to get, which is why so many teams have instantly become bigger. Skill is harder to find, and ultimately more of a difference-maker.

Lshap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 10:02 AM
  #77
Bill Ladd
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Bill Ladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellesley, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
I realize we're both guessing what the mood on Buffalo's bench really was after Lucic hit Miller, but from my POV it looked more like unfocused road-rage than intimidation. They were royally pihssed but there was no protocol on what to do about it. It's not like they could go break a stick over Lucic's head. Plus they'd just lost their starting goalie. But I don't agree that they became fearful because of one player -- it's not like these guys had never been checked or hit before. They just looked like a team with a lot of anger but no mechanism in place to direct it on the ice.
Even if your interpretation of their mood/inability to cope is correct, it's still the result of getting run over by an intimidating team.

And I disagree that anybody could do it. Yeah, anybody can run a goalie, but only Milan Lucic can run a goalie, have nobody respond, score the winning goal and eventually beat the piss out of your toughest player, leaving you completely frustrated and without closure.

Quote:
As to your second point about getting bigger to gain the zone, that's become a league-wide debate. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it living in the market I'm in, but all I hear is SIZE SIZE SIZE, as if, all by itself, it's this magical element that'll make you win. In Montreal it's become a fetish that drives me nuts. Yeah, you need to have critical mass for your forwards to penetrate the zone and crash the net, and it definitely takes a toll on the other guy's D if your guys are banging them around. Size is important. But once you already have size -- as the Bruins do -- I don't think adding MORE size is the element that'll take you over the top. I don't think more size is what the Bruins are missing. Size is probably the easiest commodity to get, which is why so many teams have instantly become bigger. Skill is harder to find, and ultimately more of a difference-maker.
Yeah, I don't think anybody here is saying that size is more important than skill. I think you need a balance of size, skill and speed. You mentioned that the B's already have size, well, I think it's fair to say they have skill and speed as well.

In the context of this discussion and what our 3rd line needs, I'll take the 15 goal scorer with size over the 15 goal scorer without it- because (that line is already pretty fast and skilled for a "3rd line" and) I think a player who's strong on the walls and hard to knock off the puck brings an added element that makes you harder to play against.

__________________
Bill Ladd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 10:44 AM
  #78
Bone for your jar
Registered User
 
Bone for your jar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Boston, Mass.
Posts: 2,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
Size is probably the easiest commodity to get, which is why so many teams have instantly become bigger. Skill is harder to find, and ultimately more of a difference-maker.
That's also a function of different magnitudes of variation. The skill differentials from player to player can be massive compared to size differentials. The shortest players (e.g., Gerbe) are still 80% the height of the very tallest (Chara); the lightest players (e.g. Ennis) are roughly 60% the weight of the heaviest (Byfuglien). By contrast, skills like goal-scoring ability have much greater variation. If you take actual goals scored as a proxy indicator, the forwards who net the least goals per season (5 or less) are less than 10% as skillful as those, like Stamkos, who net 60. (I know, I know, this is far from a reliable indicator, but hopefully the general point stands),

Bone for your jar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 11:00 AM
  #79
smithformeragent
Moderator
 
smithformeragent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester NH
Country: United States
Posts: 8,808
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to smithformeragent
Big Bad Bruins?

More like just plain deep Bruins. There's no secret that PC built this team based on depth. While a team like the Rangers have tried to emulate the Penguins model and be more top heavy, Boston chooses to stay the course. You look at the line up, and nobody truly scares you in terms of pure ability. (Seguin very well may develop into a legit star) It's not like when you look at the Blackhawks and say you need to contain Teows and Kane, or the Pens with Crosby and Malkin or NYR with Gaborik and Nash.

The strength is down the middle, but Krejci, Bergeron, Kelly and Campbell are not household names for casual fans. There's nothing sexy about this group of forwards (outside of Seguin perhaps) I am too young to have seen the Big Bad Bruins outside of my dad's VHS tapes, but perhaps this team bears more of a resemblance to the post BBB's Lunch Pail teams. They roll 4 lines and out work you. When they work harder than the opponent, they win. Take a night off though, and they don't have the talent to carry them.

It's hard to get geared up for every single game, and there are going to be nights when they look like they're going through the motions because it's impossible to sustain the emotion of a Montreal game over the course of an 82 game schedule. Even when they won the cup, they were clearly not the most talented team in the league. They were perhaps the deepest and hardest working though, and they definitely had the best goaltending.

__________________
Don't put metal in the science oven.
smithformeragent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 11:46 AM
  #80
bb_fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: boston
Posts: 8,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt.45Orr View Post
This has bugged me for awhile, and I didn’t want to bring it up so that people could misquote me as saying “size = winning” or something of the sort, but after hearing the HNIC guys speculate that the Rangers picked up Arnott (6’5) to help counter the size of the Bruins, I thought I would finally address this myth that has seemingly become fact in the minds of many.


The Bruins are NOT the biggest team in the league.

In fact, on average (which is what a “team” is) we are one of the smallest teams in the entire league!



Obviously, having Chara and Lucic as 2 of the main faces of your franchise (I would argue they are the #1 and 2 faces of the franchise now with Thomas gone) has skewered everyone’s view of what the Bruins are. Do we have some big, tough players? Absolutely. Does every other team? Yes. I’m more interested in the average player here who laces em up for the Bruins,

I cannot tell you how many times a variety of friends (who all cheer for different teams... but mainly the Canucks) will lament about how nice it must be to be a fan of the “biggest, baddest team in the league”. I disagree that we are. Now (for those of you who skim read or just read the first paragraph) this isn’t to say that I am calling for a dozen roster changes –I do, however, think this is something that needs to be addressed. For the record, I’m not 100% sure we need to get any “badder” but I do think we need to get “bigger”.

Our D is fine, and bring our average up. Our forwards need an injection of size.


I am not wanting to turn us into the Caps, but last year in the playoffs Vs. the Caps we were expected to bounce em early but I must say that I thought their big bodies up-front game them a big advantage over the 7 game grind. Ward and Hendricks were beauts for them (and Chimera did his job knocking McQuaid out of action earlier). They really worked our D over, and our forwards didn’t return the favour on theirs. We didn’t even come close to matching their size:

Ovechkin: 230pds
Knuble: 229
Joel Ward: 229
Beagle: 215
Brouwer: 213
Chimera: 213
Backstrom: 212
Hendricks: 211
Laich: 210
Semin: 209
Johansson: 205

For comparison: Kelly and Paille were our 4th BIGGEST forwards @ 198 pds. While they had 9 players that were 210pds+, we had 8 forwards in that were still in the 100s.

I think the ‘Big Bad Bruins’ thing really works for us, but for our TEAM to have that reputation, we need more players on our TEAM with at least manageable size. I would bet large amounts of $ that we have the smallest set of left wingers in the NHL… even with Lucic. Think about that for a minute.

I would never imagine getting rid of Lucic, Marchand or Paille… so I guess that leaves an obvious area to upgrade. If Bourque starts sniping like fellow mini-rookie Conacher in Tampa has been doing, then he can stay, but that is the only way we can afford to have TWO 5’8 left-wingers on this team. If not, we need a big bodied presence on the left wing to upgrade our forward size. A Winnick type (210+pds with some finish) would be great, but those guys are hard to come by.

IMO, we need some size, speed, hustle and hitting added to upgrade this forward unit for a long playoff run. So what are the options?

1) Caron (has some size) seems to be Julien’s default button, but I’m not a fan of him at all.
2) Sauve (always see him listed at 6’2) has 6” on Bourque and has speed to burn but no real hitting. I’d like to see him get a bunch of games in so he either takes the role fully or makes himself more valuable at the deadline as a trade chip.
3) Move Paille up to the 3rd line, and put in MacDermid on the 4th. Tell the kid to just worry about putting pucks deep and start laying on the body.
4) Trade for big-bodied forward
5) Wait for DKH's boy, Knight, who can make some hits
6) Call up Camara on emergency basis for the rest of the year

This is getting too long, so I’ll cut it off but I would like to hear some input from your guys on this. I’m not saying: size = winning directly --but some teams are getting bigger to battle us and I think we are not keeping pace at all. I think, over time, we also got a false sense of how big and tough this team is because, for years, we had 3 of the softest teams in the entire league (Leafs, Sabres and Habs) in our division and we looked like brutes beating up on them.
agree 100%

while i like what Neely and Chia have done in the draft, the addition of some size in the prospect pool and the line up is needed. (and by size, it goe with out saying, people with size that can play and use it)

bb_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 01:03 PM
  #81
Lshap
Registered User
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ladd View Post
Even if your interpretation of their mood/inability to cope is correct, it's still the result of getting run over by an intimidating team.

And I disagree that anybody could do it. Yeah, anybody can run a goalie, but only Milan Lucic can run a goalie, have nobody respond, score the winning goal and eventually beat the piss out of your toughest player, leaving you completely frustrated and without closure.
Well, Milan is your guy, so I get why that whole chain of events leaves you with a smile on your face. I'll agree to disagree since we're both speculating on other people's state of mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ladd View Post
Yeah, I don't think anybody here is saying that size is more important than skill. I think you need a balance of size, skill and speed. You mentioned that the B's already have size, well, I think it's fair to say they have skill and speed as well.

In the context of this discussion and what our 3rd line needs, I'll take the 15 goal scorer with size over the 15 goal scorer without it- because (that line is already pretty fast and skilled for a "3rd line" and) I think a player who's strong on the walls and hard to knock off the puck brings an added element that makes you harder to play against.
I think everyone would take the whole package of size and skill, but players like that are not easy to find. Here's a more interesting question: Would you take a 10-goal scorer with size over a 15-goal scorer without it? Both answers can be right, depending on the team's philosophy.

Lshap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 01:18 PM
  #82
Bone for your jar
Registered User
 
Bone for your jar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Boston, Mass.
Posts: 2,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
Would you take a 10-goal scorer with size over a 15-goal scorer without it? Both answers can be right, depending on the team's philosophy.
Also, depending on who else is currently on your roster, and in what category you have more of a deficit.

Bone for your jar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 01:19 PM
  #83
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,948
vCash: 500
my "who cares?" post got deleted so I guess I'll elaborate. My point is that as long as the B's are a successful team, who cares how big they are? The current team is really not any smaller than the cup-winning team. I reject the notion that the Bruins need to add size for the sake of getting bigger when you consider that when the Bruins swapped out Stuart and Wheeler for Kelly and Peverley they got significantly smaller and it improved the team.

For so many years the Bruins were frustrating to watch because they were always trying to be big and bad and then would lose to smaller, more skilled teams like the Habs. With Chia at the helm, this franchise has come so far to get away from that mentality and it has produced the first cup in 40 years so I don't know why anyone would suggest that we need to shift philosophy back in that direction.

RussellmaniaKW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 01:57 PM
  #84
Bone for your jar
Registered User
 
Bone for your jar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Boston, Mass.
Posts: 2,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
my "who cares?" post got deleted so I guess I'll elaborate. My point is that as long as the B's are a successful team, who cares how big they are? The current team is really not any smaller than the cup-winning team..
To the bolded part: if the Bruins' success (and by this I assume you refer to the Cup two seasons ago) nullifies the need for any improvements, then the same applies to any other characteristic of the roster: who cares how much scoring skill they have? Who cares how good the goalies are? Who cares how fit they are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
I reject the notion that the Bruins need to add size for the sake of getting bigger when you consider that when the Bruins swapped out Stuart and Wheeler for Kelly and Peverley they got significantly smaller and it improved the team. For so many years the Bruins were frustrating to watch because they were always trying to be big and bad and then would lose to smaller, more skilled teams like the Habs. With Chia at the helm, this franchise has come so far to get away from that mentality and it has produced the first cup in 40 years so I don't know why anyone would suggest that we need to shift philosophy back in that direction.
The fact that it made sense to trade size (mind you, in Wheeler's case, it was size that for the most part he did not use) for speed a couple of years ago to address a glaring deficit (we were slooow) doesn't mean that today we should overlook potential deficits in size in certain key positions. This isn't an either/or thing, and we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Size (and to be more precise: effective size that facilitates moving bodies out of the way, staying in place in front of the net, and possibly intimidation) will always be relevant; speed will always be relevant; and skill will always be relevant. Our first line, two seasons ago, was endowed with a tremendous amount of effective size. Whether that continues to be the case, in the wake of Horton's concussion issues, remains an open question mark. Our second line doesn't have great size but makes up for it via tenacity (Marchy & Bergy) and tremendous strength on the stick (Bergy). Our third line currently has a small left winger. Again, whether this means he will "play small" remains an open question. The fourth line is fine, size-wise. My point is that this is a case-by-case, line-by-line question.

Do the B's have less need to acquire size than most other teams? Yes. Does this mean that the team would not be improved by the acquisition of more size at certain positions? No. Does the fact that we could be improved by more size at certain positions mean that size trumps all other considerations, and we can stop looking for speed and skill? No and no!

Bone for your jar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 03:06 PM
  #85
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone for your jar View Post
To the bolded part: if the Bruins' success (and by this I assume you refer to the Cup two seasons ago) nullifies the need for any improvements, then the same applies to any other characteristic of the roster: who cares how much scoring skill they have? Who cares how good the goalies are? Who cares how fit they are?



The fact that it made sense to trade size (mind you, in Wheeler's case, it was size that for the most part he did not use) for speed a couple of years ago to address a glaring deficit (we were slooow) doesn't mean that today we should overlook potential deficits in size in certain key positions. This isn't an either/or thing, and we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Size (and to be more precise: effective size that facilitates moving bodies out of the way, staying in place in front of the net, and possibly intimidation) will always be relevant; speed will always be relevant; and skill will always be relevant. Our first line, two seasons ago, was endowed with a tremendous amount of effective size. Whether that continues to be the case, in the wake of Horton's concussion issues, remains an open question mark. Our second line doesn't have great size but makes up for it via tenacity (Marchy & Bergy) and tremendous strength on the stick (Bergy). Our third line currently has a small left winger. Again, whether this means he will "play small" remains an open question. The fourth line is fine, size-wise. My point is that this is a case-by-case, line-by-line question.

Do the B's have less need to acquire size than most other teams? Yes. Does this mean that the team would not be improved by the acquisition of more size at certain positions? No. Does the fact that we could be improved by more size at certain positions mean that size trumps all other considerations, and we can stop looking for speed and skill? No and no!
Well the jury is still out on Bourque, but I think he has played well so far and I guess my rebuttal to the OP is that if that slot is the only place where we can try and get bigger in the near-term I would argue that we'd be hard pressed to find someone who is 6'3 and has Bourque's skillset without having to give up significant assets. I mean yeah it would be nice to get bigger, but I don't see it as a pressing need just yet and I really don't see it as something that we can afford to get an upgrade on.

Colt mentioned going after Nino for the 3rd line slot and while it would be great to have a talent like him in the system, I haven't seen anything out of him to suggest that he would make this team right now even if we did acquire him.

RussellmaniaKW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 03:14 PM
  #86
Lshap
Registered User
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone for your jar View Post
Also, depending on who else is currently on your roster, and in what category you have more of a deficit.
True enough.

Of course, what constitutes a deficit can be open to interpretation, depending on what you're trying to build.

Lshap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 03:26 PM
  #87
Neely08
Registered User
 
Neely08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
It's not a straw man if the title of the thread is "The Misguided Myth of the Modern Big Bad Bruins"... If Colt didn't want to be challenged, he could have changed his wording to "The Bruins Could Use More Size on the Wing".

As it stands, I'm not too worried about our forechecking prowess. This team isn't too-too different from the team that won the Cup with the most effective physical play in the league. We're down a Recchi and a Ryder and COULD definitely use something to replace their strength... But it's hardly something I would consider a large concern. Not yet, anyway.
I never worry a/b their willingness to work hard and forecheck. However there are guys who worry me at times in terms of effective board play. Especially the way teams lock it down in the playoffs, like the Caps did. Maybe a better way to say it is; I never worry a/b Bergeron or Lucic in terms of effective board play. We could use another man that's better than 50/50 when it comes to board battles.

Edit: Just a point of interest...Claude Julien on Tyler Seguin's empty net goal: "That's why he was out there [to score an ENG]. It certainly wasn't for his board work."


Last edited by Neely08: 01-28-2013 at 11:24 PM.
Neely08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 03:38 PM
  #88
trenton1
Paille Good
 
trenton1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Loge 31 Row 10
Country: Belize
Posts: 6,639
vCash: 500
I like the mix these days. I remember the Bruins being pretty big and heavy from 2002-04 and they were slooooooww. It killed them against MTL.

trenton1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 03:44 PM
  #89
Neely08
Registered User
 
Neely08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
I realize we're both guessing what the mood on Buffalo's bench really was after Lucic hit Miller,
No. I'm pretty sure what is was. It was, "That's it boys, lets GET Lucic!!! But, YOU go first, eh?"

Neely08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 03:49 PM
  #90
Neely08
Registered User
 
Neely08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trenton1 View Post
I like the mix these days. I remember the Bruins being pretty big and heavy from 2002-04 and they were slooooooww. It killed them against MTL.
I agree, and I think they understand that. I like what Chia said a few years ago a/b that. He said he wanted this team to keep getting bigger and faster. More of a matter of the right guy becoming available, imo.

Neely08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 05:24 AM
  #91
Bruinsfan4477
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 2
vCash: 500
I think the title and subject of this thread is dead wrong. It's no "myth." I mean sure, we have some small guys, but we kick the crap out of some teams with our strength on the along the boards and in fights. We are the Big Bad Bruins. One of the way we won the Cup was through being strong but also skilled. We have been at the top of the list of teams with fight PIMs and this year has been much of the same. The nature of the game has changed where you just can't be as menacing as way back. I mean cmon, we have Chara. He's one of the strongest guys in the NHL and you can honestly post a thread that says the Big Bad Bruins are a myth. I know you mentioned Chara, but I just completely disagree. We check and fight just as much as any other team and are one of the most physical teams. Sorry but you post just pissed me off haha.

Bruinsfan4477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 07:15 PM
  #92
bostonbrit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1
vCash: 500
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog...

bostonbrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 04:07 PM
  #93
Colt.45Orr
Registered User
 
Colt.45Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,501
vCash: 500
Bump



...





....





......



For all of you saying we have "plenty of toughness" and there is nothing to worry about, I have one simple question.

Where is it?
Where is the toughness?


I think Rinaldo threw more hits today then all the Bruins team combined.
Krejci got hit every time he touched the puck (smart) but we also have B. Schenn taking a run at him (ala. Mike Richards on Krejci) and nobody on the team does a damn thing about it.


I mentioned some of my Canucks friends in the original post, but the same (after the Bruins were nationally telecasted here in Canada a couple times in the past week) are now backtracking now mocking the Bruins for their lack of overall grit. "This isn't the team I remember from 2011"... etc.

We don't have an 'energy' 4th line --we have a 4th line that can be very good, some games, at managing the puck. I've said for a long time that we need some hitting ability from a 4th line, and we still do not have it. We have 2 GREAT penalty killers on the 4th line, but they are not a crash-and-bang line that can change momentum or wear down other teams. Our D doesn't make anyone pay either --Giroux got none of the attention that Krejci got --Schenn has no reason to think twice about taking runs.

We don't have ANY real size or grit on the 3rd line... I cannot even talk about what an abomination that whole line has been ALL season. It sucked when Kelly was here too, so lets not play revisionist history with it either.

I said earlier that we are the (Somewhat) BIG (Selectively) BAD BRUINS and I would love for someone to prove me wrong on that.

Actually, I would love for this team to prove me wrong on that or lets just cut the silly nickname out --out of respect for past Bruins teams that actually earned the name.

Colt.45Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 04:18 PM
  #94
Dabruins
Registered User
 
Dabruins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt.45Orr View Post
Bump



...





....





......



For all of you saying we have "plenty of toughness" and there is nothing to worry about, I have one simple question.

Where is it?
Where is the toughness?


I think Rinaldo threw more hits today then all the Bruins team combined.
Krejci got hit every time he touched the puck (smart) but we also have B. Schenn taking a run at him (ala. Mike Richards on Krejci) and nobody on the team does a damn thing about it.


I mentioned some of my Canucks friends in the original post, but the same (after the Bruins were nationally telecasted here in Canada a couple times in the past week) are now backtracking now mocking the Bruins for their lack of overall grit. "This isn't the team I remember from 2011"... etc.

We don't have an 'energy' 4th line --we have a 4th line that can be very good, some games, at managing the puck. I've said for a long time that we need some hitting ability from a 4th line, and we still do not have it. We have 2 GREAT penalty killers on the 4th line, but they are not a crash-and-bang line that can change momentum or wear down other teams. Our D doesn't make anyone pay either --Giroux got none of the attention that Krejci got --Schenn has no reason to think twice about taking runs.

We don't have ANY real size or grit on the 3rd line... I cannot even talk about what an abomination that whole line has been ALL season. It sucked when Kelly was here too, so lets not play revisionist history with it either.

I said earlier that we are the (Somewhat) BIG (Selectively) BAD BRUINS and I would love for someone to prove me wrong on that.

Actually, I would love for this team to prove me wrong on that or lets just cut the silly nickname out --out of respect for past Bruins teams that actually earned the name.
Could not agree more.

Dabruins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 04:23 PM
  #95
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 34,639
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt.45Orr View Post
Bump



...





....





......



For all of you saying we have "plenty of toughness" and there is nothing to worry about, I have one simple question.

Where is it?
Where is the toughness?


I think Rinaldo threw more hits today then all the Bruins team combined.
Krejci got hit every time he touched the puck (smart) but we also have B. Schenn taking a run at him (ala. Mike Richards on Krejci) and nobody on the team does a damn thing about it.


I mentioned some of my Canucks friends in the original post, but the same (after the Bruins were nationally telecasted here in Canada a couple times in the past week) are now backtracking now mocking the Bruins for their lack of overall grit. "This isn't the team I remember from 2011"... etc.

We don't have an 'energy' 4th line --we have a 4th line that can be very good, some games, at managing the puck. I've said for a long time that we need some hitting ability from a 4th line, and we still do not have it. We have 2 GREAT penalty killers on the 4th line, but they are not a crash-and-bang line that can change momentum or wear down other teams. Our D doesn't make anyone pay either --Giroux got none of the attention that Krejci got --Schenn has no reason to think twice about taking runs.

We don't have ANY real size or grit on the 3rd line... I cannot even talk about what an abomination that whole line has been ALL season. It sucked when Kelly was here too, so lets not play revisionist history with it either.

I said earlier that we are the (Somewhat) BIG (Selectively) BAD BRUINS and I would love for someone to prove me wrong on that.

Actually, I would love for this team to prove me wrong on that or lets just cut the silly nickname out --out of respect for past Bruins teams that actually earned the name.
Bruins get freight trained on the regular now.... I gave up long ago...sometimes we react. most times we don't. Nobody hits on this team at all....not even Lucic anymore...nobody starts a fight to fire the team up anymore...Nobody crashes the net...Nobody makes forwards pay in front of the net anymore...nobody does what it takes anymore it seems. Nobody sets the tone or rings the bell.... Could be a real bad spell....could be a team to fat to pay the price anymore...You know pretty much after seeing Lucic get shoved by Schenn in front of the net today and him looking down and skating away something is wrong with this team...Schenn found Richards diary in an empty locker today and tried to knock Krejci out of the game and nothing...Rinaldo ran around without getting put in place...Pathetic.

I hope Scott doesn't dress tomorrow...Cannot stomach ignoring him for the 4th time...or maybe we can take Stafford to task for that elbow two months ago...Or Ott boarding Krejci....I wouldn't count on it..Tomorrow is Easter so maybe we will see a resurrection of the Big Bad Bruins... (not pun intended,,well kinda)...

WBC8 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 05:02 PM
  #96
DougiesGoingDeep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
What I don't get is that the core roster is basically the same as it was during our cup run minus Ryder, Recchi and Kaberle....and it's not like any one of those 3 were throwing their body around left and right or playing a gritty, physical, in your face style of game. It comes down to the players this team counts on to provide that crash and bang tempo not doing their part consistently enough.
this team thrives when they play that way, and wear down the opponent by playing a physical brand of hockey

Maybe a guy like Clowe gives them a spark, but they shouldn't need him if Looch (not just him to blame) was doing his job consistently, that's why Ryder was great for that third line 2 years ago, the rest of the team was doing the dirty work and picking up the slack physically/defensively, we could afford giving a spot on the third line to a pure offensive minded player...now it doesn't matter whos playing, the physical game just isn't what it used to be just 2 years ago

Adam McQuaid is a very underrated loss right now for this team, and if he can't play again this season, they need to add a veteran defensman that plays the way Quaider does....which is why I wanted to see Doug Murray here before he was traded to the Pens (I wouldn't have given up 2 2nd rounders for him though)

The Bruins can go one or two ways at the deadline the way I see it...they either add more grit/size, and go into the playoffs trying to grind away and play solid defense and hopefully get the strong physical play going again. Maybe a move for one of these guys wakes up Looch and co.(Clowe/R Jones/Hecht/Nystrom/Hendricks/B Gordon/Yip...Smid/Hannan/O'Byrne/Regehr/Strachan)

Or they add a skill guy or two to this mix and hope that wakes up the offense and gets everyone going, then try to keep up with the other teams in this conference by scoring goals at a high rate and relying on Tuuka to get hot at the right time. (Streit/Whitney/MA Bergeron...Hemsky/Roy/Boyes-not sure what else is out there right now that fits here)

I think The size/grit options might be better at this point....shut teams down during the playoffs and hope to chip in 3 goals a game, which this team should be able to do easily given its talent level


Last edited by DougiesGoingDeep: 03-30-2013 at 05:22 PM.
DougiesGoingDeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 05:10 PM
  #97
pgm16
Registered User
 
pgm16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: St. John's NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,040
vCash: 500
Remember Cam said.....we initiate rather than retaliate.....well for a long time now, neither of those two are visible....when was the last time we saw Marchand piss off an opposing player....

pgm16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 05:29 PM
  #98
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,585
vCash: 500
And people want to trade Lucic...

This team needs more players like him, not less. Start with Clowe and go from there. Resign him in the offseason too and trade who you need too to make it fit. There are too many soft skill guys up front for a team that's supposedly big and bad.

Krejci, Horton, Bergeron, Marchand, Seguin, Kelly, Peverley, Paille, Campbell and Pandawful plus who ever is dressed in that other 3rd line spot on any given night... this team needs to take a close look their makeup and their goal (which last I heard was to be hard to play against). They have two lines who are very very easy to play against (Krejci line, and 3rd line) and that's no way to operate under such a premise.

3rd line needs a remake, top 6 needs a serious adjustment and the 4th line needs to be far scarier then what it is.

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 06:03 PM
  #99
BruinsPortugal
Registered User
 
BruinsPortugal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Portugal
Country: Portugal
Posts: 3,003
vCash: 500
I dont think the problem is being big or being small... physically. They are big enough. Its mental.

For some reason, they stopped playing like that this year.

That game against Montreal where chara fought emelin, i thought for sure it would be a turning point...instead they lost and it seems they dont want to play like that anymore. But its just not who they are.

The team needs to improve for sure, and if they can get bigger all the better but right now they are their biggest enemy and i would love to understand why.

Just look at Chara today against the Flyers...he was being abused like he was a 5'11 kid in his first nhl game. Just completely unacceptable.

BruinsPortugal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 06:15 PM
  #100
The Special K
Hoss MOFO, Hoss.
 
The Special K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,011
vCash: 500
We have the guys to be tough...they are just not doing it. Looch has been neutered by the league. Chara just seems like he is not into it, Thorts has not been the same he he got effed up...and nasty Nate....well he's more like nutless Nate nowadays.
We have the guys to do it...they just don't seem to give a ****. I am ready to start shipping a few guys out at this point.

The Special K is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.