HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Pens' supposed "playoff embarassment" since '09

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2013, 06:36 AM
  #101
KIRK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 30,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkin4Top6Wingerz View Post
Well, similar logic could be used to say that we had a very respectable 11' season, no? We took TB to 7 games without 2 of the best players in the world and our goalie having a massively lower save percentage than theirs. That was the same team that ended up taking Boston, the eventual Cup champs, to 7 games. Those were the same Cup champs that were a goal away from losing Game 7 in OT to the Canadiens in the first round, a result that almost certainly would have gotten Claude Julien fired. We all know how things have gone for them since.

Point being that you get into pretty murky water when you hyper analyze things in that way, but I do agree that it's been a disappointing run since 09'. But really, except for Boston and Chicago I don't think our results look that that unfavorable to anybody since Bylsma took over, and keep in mind how close both of those team's coaches were to being fired at different points. I mean, check Chicago's board when they were down 3-1. Bylsma looks like Herb Brooks in comparison.
I remember Chicago's board when they were down 3-1.

So, here's a question: If they dropped the next game to Detroit, then is Quenville gone? I think you know he is, and that would've been three years removed from a cup no less.

Or, if Julien hadn't won the cup the year after blowing the 3-0 lead to Philly, then would he have been gone then? Would he have been gone just two years after the cup if Boston had lost game 7 to Toronto?

If you played this 'what if' history game, then I think both coaches would've been gone if history had gone a little differently, where 'a little differently' pretty much looks like what's happened with the Pens the last four years.

That's the problem that I've got with the 'see, patience paid off in Chicago and Boston' argument. It was 3 years of patience for Quenville. It was 1 year of patience and then 2 years of patience for Julien. Neither would've sniffed 4 years of playoff futility, no matter what the extenuating circumstances might have been.

When you win a cup and have so much young elite talent, the standard becomes cup or bust. It did for Chicago. It did for Boston. It did for Pittsburgh . . . until it ceased to be that in practice.

KIRK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 06:44 AM
  #102
TheSniper26
No cure for being...
 
TheSniper26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Youngstown
Country: United States
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
I'll ask you a question that I just asked above: Go back to June of 2009. The Pens won the cup. Now, I'm going to tell you that in the next four years, then Pens will win a total of three series, two against the Sens (one a year after winning the cup and one four years later against an injury depleted squad) and one against an Isles team that hadn't sniffed the playoffs in years and who's catalyst was playing in juniors in June 2009. There would be only one trip to the ECF, and the Pens would be swept in that series. And, again, I'm telling you in June 2009 that's all the Pens would have to show for the next four seasons.

What would you have said THEN?

What word would you have used THEN?

Would you have expected Bylsma still to be the coach THEN?

And, what would you have said to me if I'd have tried to rationalize things as 'Fleury sucked twice, team melted down against the Flyers, missed Sid and Geno one year and blew a 3-1 lead that year, etc'? What would you have said about the excuses THEN?

I'm with RRP. Results matter. And, if you'd have told me in June 2009 that this **** is all the Pens would have to show for the next four years, then no word but DISAPPOINTMENT would have been appropriate to use THEN.
Would I be disappointed? Of course. I'm disappointed every year we don't win the cup(aren't all fans?). But there's a big difference between being disappointed that we didn't win and thinking that not winning is some embarrassment.

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? What's your definition of a successful 4 year post-Cup run?

TheSniper26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 06:52 AM
  #103
KIRK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 30,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSniper26 View Post
Would I be disappointed? Of course. I'm disappointed every year we don't win the cup(aren't all fans?). But there's a big difference between being disappointed that we didn't win and thinking that not winning is some embarrassment.

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? What's your definition of a successful 4 year post-Cup run?
I find it curious that you'd see such a distinction between the words 'disappointment' and 'embarrassment' yet no difference at all between the concepts of 'not winning the cup for four years' and 'having three playoff wins against lesser teams and one ECF where you get swept' to show for the four years after winning the cup.

So, I guess that my definition of a successful post Cup run is what Bowman's was when the Hawks won . . . Quenville would've been out three years after if the Wings had closed that series. Or, it's what Chiarelli's was after Boston won . . . a first round exit, methinks, would've been it this year for Julien.

BTW, 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. BUT, again, one ECF in which you get swept, the close call against the Isles and a pair of wins against the Sens (once when they were injury depleted) only to show as wins for the last four years . . . sorry, your 'well, it doesn't really matter since only winning the cup matters' argument doesn't pass the smell test.


Last edited by KIRK: 09-29-2013 at 06:58 AM.
KIRK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 06:53 AM
  #104
Malkin4Top6Wingerz
Can you like, shutup
 
Malkin4Top6Wingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 4,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
I remember Chicago's board when they were down 3-1.

So, here's a question: If they dropped the next game to Detroit, then is Quenville gone? I think you know he is, and that would've been three years removed from a cup no less.

Or, if Julien hadn't won the cup the year after blowing the 3-0 lead to Philly, then would he have been gone then? Would he have been gone just two years after the cup if Boston had lost game 7 to Toronto?

If you played this 'what if' history game, then I think both coaches would've been gone if history had gone a little differently, where 'a little differently' pretty much looks like what's happened with the Pens the last four years.

That's the problem that I've got with the 'see, patience paid off in Chicago and Boston' argument. It was 3 years of patience for Quenville. It was 1 year of patience and then 2 years of patience for Julien. Neither would've sniffed 4 years of playoff futility, no matter what the extenuating circumstances might have been.

When you win a cup and have so much young elite talent, the standard becomes cup or bust. It did for Chicago. It did for Boston. It did for Pittsburgh . . . until it ceased to be that in practice.
I actually don't think Quenneville gets canned if they lost last year. They were absolutely dominant during the regular season and they've already won a Cup just 3 years back. Fans did want him gone though, and I wouldn't have been shocked to see it happen. Losing in that fashion after two first round exits would put any coach on the hot seat.

I definitely think Julien gets fired if they don't beat Montreal in 2011, but I doubt if they lost against Toronto and the following year in another disappointing finish that he'd be canned. Winning a Cup and then following it up with good regular season success buys you time, perhaps too much in some cases (certainly you'd argue Bylsma is an example of this).

I think the main point to take away from the close calls those franchises had with losing their coach is just how fine that line can be between winning and losing. Bylsma certainly wouldn't be the first coach to win a championship after people said that he couldn't or severely doubted that he would.

I see both sides of this issue and don't have a strong opinion either way. I don't like the way this team has performed since 09' in the playoffs, period. I also think people look at other teams with a 'grass is always greener' approach and fail to recognize that other fanbases, even the more successful ones, experience many of the same frustrations and share the same negative outlook regarding their coach. Having said all that, we do need to perform better when it matters most, and Bylsma has to be looked at if some of these same issues aren't corrected, and sticking with arguably the biggest culprit in our failure over the last 4 years in MAF surely is no feather in his cap.

Malkin4Top6Wingerz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 06:58 AM
  #105
Malkin4Top6Wingerz
Can you like, shutup
 
Malkin4Top6Wingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 4,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
So, I guess that my definition of a successful post Cup run is what Bowman's was when the Hawks won . . . Quenville would've been out three years after if the Wings had closed that series. Or, it's what Chiarelli's was after Boston won . . . a first round exit, methinks, would've been it this year for Julien.
This is where I strongly disagree. There is simply too much parity and randomness to be going around firing top tier coaches because of a couple disappointing playoff performances. You don't seem to grasp that there is an extremely likely chance that you're setting back your team with a move like that.

Malkin4Top6Wingerz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 07:05 AM
  #106
KIRK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 30,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkin4Top6Wingerz View Post
I actually don't think Quenneville gets canned if they lost last year. They were absolutely dominant during the regular season and they've already won a Cup just 3 years back. Fans did want him gone though, and I wouldn't have been shocked to see it happen. Losing in that fashion after two first round exits would put any coach on the hot seat.

I definitely think Julien gets fired if they don't beat Montreal in 2011, but I doubt if they lost against Toronto and the following year in another disappointing finish that he'd be canned. Winning a Cup and then following it up with good regular season success buys you time, perhaps too much in some cases (certainly you'd argue Bylsma is an example of this).

I think the main point to take away from the close calls those franchises had with losing their coach is just how fine that line can be between winning and losing. Bylsma certainly wouldn't be the first coach to win a championship after people said that he couldn't or severely doubted that he would.

I see both sides of this issue and don't have a strong opinion either way. I don't like the way this team has performed since 09' in the playoffs, period. I also think people look at other teams with a 'grass is always greener' approach and fail to recognize that other fanbases, even the more successful ones, experience many of the same frustrations and share the same negative outlook regarding their coach. Having said all that, we do need to perform better when it matters most, and Bylsma has to be looked at if some of these same issues aren't corrected, and sticking with arguably the biggest culprit in our failure over the last 4 years in MAF surely is no feather in his cap.
Fair points all.

And, I'll grant that luck has a lot to do with it. The Pens got lucky in their opponents in 2009 if you want to be brutally honest about it. Philly, Washington, and Carolina weren't good defensive teams. None of them had the structure and goaltending that Montreal had in 2010 or Boston had last year. And, unlike 2008, it was Malkin healthy and Datsyuk, the one guy who really could deal with him from that Wings squad, unhealthy.

It's why I try to take myself out of the passions of the moment and go back in the time machine. No way, if you'd have told me then what was to come over the next four playoffs, that I wouldn't have asked then 'when was Bylsma fired' (and I was as much on that bandwagon at that time as anyone here).

Yeah, the word for me is DISAPPOINTMENT, and it goes beyond the homerish 'I'm disappointed that the Pens didn't win the cup'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkin4Top6Wingerz View Post
This is where I strongly disagree. There is simply too much parity and randomness to be going around firing top tier coaches because of a couple disappointing playoff performances. You don't seem to grasp that there is an extremely likely chance that you're setting back your team with a move like that.
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.

KIRK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 07:07 AM
  #107
TheSniper26
No cure for being...
 
TheSniper26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Youngstown
Country: United States
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
I find it curious that you'd see such a distinction between the words 'disappointment' and 'embarrassment' yet no difference at all between the concepts of 'not winning the cup for four years' and 'having three playoff wins against lesser teams and one ECF where you get swept' to show for the four years after winning the cup.

So, I guess that my definition of a successful post Cup run is what Bowman's was when the Hawks won . . . Quenville would've been out three years after if the Wings had closed that series. Or, it's what Chiarelli's was after Boston won . . . a first round exit, methinks, would've been it this year for Julien.

BTW, 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. BUT, again, one ECF in which you get swept, the close call against the Isles and a pair of wins against the Sens (once when they were injury depleted) only to show as wins for the last four years . . . sorry, your 'well, it doesn't really matter since only winning the cup matters' argument doesn't pass the smell test.
Where you and I differ is that I just don't think this is true. You admitted just a couple posts up that the standard is "cup or bust". So I'm having a hard time buying that everyone would be much happier with 4 slightly more impressive playoff losses. I think we'd still end up right here with you wanting Bylsma tarred and feathered.

TheSniper26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 07:10 AM
  #108
KIRK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 30,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSniper26 View Post
Where you and I differ is that I just don't think this is true. You admitted just a couple posts up that the expectation is "cup or bust". So I'm having a hard time buying that everyone would be much happier with 4 slightly more impressive playoff losses. I think we'd still end up right here with you wanting Bylsma tarred and feathered.
In the same way that you distinguish between 'disappointment' and 'embarrassment', I see 'disappointment' here as having two meanings. The first is 'I'm disappointed the Pens don't win the cup every year' that obviously is irrational. The second is the 'disappointment' that flows from the time machine test, where there's no other rational way to describe in June 2009 what would follow over the next four years.

KIRK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 07:16 AM
  #109
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 34,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
BTW, 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. BUT, again, one ECF in which you get swept, the close call against the Isles and a pair of wins against the Sens (once when they were injury depleted) only to show as wins for the last four years . . . sorry, your 'well, it doesn't really matter since only winning the cup matters' argument doesn't pass the smell test.
If you expect to be in 3 cup finals and 1 ECF every 6 years, then you are going to be disappointed an awful lot. Its just not a realistic expectation. I'm disappointed that we haven't done better. The worst was clearly the circus that was the Philly series, but getting swept by Boston really stings too.

I said it last night, we SHOULD have a few more wins and probably an extra series win or two. We should have beaten Montreal. We should have won a game or two against Boston and an extra game or two against Philly and probably taken the series. We have messed up enough to give away that much. Another finals appearance? We could have, but other teams have been good enough every year to deserve those appearances too. We have never been a strong enough favorite that anything short of the finals was underachieving. Disappointing as a fan? Sure. But you're talking about being disgusted with the team. That's a fine word for the Philly series. Hell, I can understand it for getting swept by Boston even. But some of you are talking like anything short of the finals every other season is disgusting and excessive underachievement. Its not. Its unreasonable expectations.

I am disappointed with our recent lack of success and would have been disappointed if I had taken your time machine test. That doesn't make the negative reactions of some around here any less over the top. Or the positive responses by others just as over the top. There are some here who if you did your time machine test and just said "in 2013 we haven't won a Cup since 2009" who would say its embarrassing. And those people are ridiculous.

ps: there was no close call against the Isles. We won in 6. It happens.


Last edited by Ogrezilla: 09-29-2013 at 07:24 AM.
Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 07:56 AM
  #110
KIRK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 30,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
If you expect to be in 3 cup finals and 1 ECF every 6 years, then you are going to be disappointed an awful lot. Its just not a realistic expectation. I'm disappointed that we haven't done better. The worst was clearly the circus that was the Philly series, but getting swept by Boston really stings too.

I said it last night, we SHOULD have a few more wins and probably an extra series win or two. We should have beaten Montreal. We should have won a game or two against Boston and an extra game or two against Philly and probably taken the series. We have messed up enough to give away that much. Another finals appearance? We could have, but other teams have been good enough every year to deserve those appearances too.
We have never been a strong enough favorite that anything short of the finals was underachieving. Disappointing as a fan? Sure. But you're talking about being disgusted with the team. That's a fine word for the Philly series. Hell, I can understand it for getting swept by Boston even. But some of you are talking like anything short of the finals every other season is disgusting and excessive underachievement. Its not. Its unreasonable expectations.

I am disappointed with our recent lack of success and would have been disappointed if I had taken your time machine test. That doesn't make the negative reactions of some around here any less over the top. Or the positive responses by others just as over the top. There are some here who if you did your time machine test and just said "in 2013 we haven't won a Cup since 2009" who would say its embarrassing. And those people are ridiculous.

ps: there was no close call against the Isles. We won in 6. It happens.
Did you actually read what I wrote? The part that I marked in bold from your post actually is my position. My comment about losing four years in a row in the cup finals was a direct reply to sniper26's saying 'it's cup or bust, so people would see no difference between four cup losses in a row and what the Pens have done the last four playoffs'. I called BS on that, and I think rightfully so.

People here are getting too caught up in word games. And, frankly, it's become an excuse to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room. So, I'll repeat myself: It's June 2009. The Pens have just won a cup. Now, I'm a psychic, so I'm going to tell you about the next four years. They'll win a grand total of 3 playoff series. They'll beat a Sens squad that had missed the playoff the year before and was swept by the Pens the year before that in 6 games the year after winning the cup. In 2013, they'll beat an Isles team that hadn't sniffed the playoffs for years and an injury depleted Sens team before getting swept in their one ECF appearance in the four years after winning the cup.

Go back to June 2009. Sid is 21. Geno is 22. And, what I've told you is coming is in fact all they'll have to show for the four years that would come. Would you have cared then about excuses?

This has become comical. Arguments if a word choice is right. Someone else basically saying 'well, it's cup or bust, so who cares what happened since you didn't win'. Others saying, 'well, only Chicago and Boston have more to show for the last four years'.

Honestly, at some point, the excuses become a crutch. A year with a bad break, maybe even two out of four? I get it. But, name one year where you can say 'the Pens laid it all out there but just came up short'. Name one year where the word 'underachievement' wouldn't apply to what the Pens did in the playoffs.

Again, I'm not talking about a bad break or expecting the Pens to win every series. But, in June 2009, if you'd have asked me what can we reasonably expect from the Pens in the next four postseasons, I'm pretty sure that my answer would've been 'not this ****'.

KIRK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 08:14 AM
  #111
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 34,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
Did you actually read what I wrote? The part that I marked in bold from your post actually is my position. My comment about losing four years in a row in the cup finals was a direct reply to sniper26's saying 'it's cup or bust, so people would see no difference between four cup losses in a row and what the Pens have done the last four playoffs'. I called BS on that, and I think rightfully so.
Then we pretty much agree. I didn't read the entire back and forth between the two of you. I was responding to what I quoted. You were making a point and responding to him, but other people seem to actually expect us to be in the finals or ECF every year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
People here are getting too caught up in word games. And, frankly, it's become an excuse to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room. So, I'll repeat myself: It's June 2009. The Pens have just won a cup. Now, I'm a psychic, so I'm going to tell you about the next four years. They'll win a grand total of 3 playoff series. They'll beat a Sens squad that had missed the playoff the year before and was swept by the Pens the year before that in 6 games the year after winning the cup. In 2013, they'll beat an Isles team that hadn't sniffed the playoffs for years and an injury depleted Sens team before getting swept in their one ECF appearance in the four years after winning the cup.

Go back to June 2009. Sid is 21. Geno is 22. And, what I've told you is coming is in fact all they'll have to show for the four years that would come. Would you have cared then about excuses?
It would be disappointing for sure. But its hard to judge though without knowing who we lost to or how/why we lost. You aren't mentioning Sid and Geno being out. You aren't mentioning that we are losing to teams that are every bit as good as we are in most years. You aren't mentioning that we acted like 3 year old's who just had a toy taken away. You aren't mentioning that we blew a 3-1 lead in one of them. Its just not enough information to make a real educated opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
This has become comical. Arguments if a word choice is right. Someone else basically saying 'well, it's cup or bust, so who cares what happened since you didn't win'. Others saying, 'well, only Chicago and Boston have more to show for the last four years'.

Honestly, at some point, the excuses become a crutch. A year with a bad break, maybe even two out of four? I get it. But, name one year where you can say 'the Pens laid it all out there but just came up short'. Name one year where the word 'underachievement' wouldn't apply to what the Pens did in the playoffs.
2010-2011 was over-achievement if anything. Missing Sid and Geno, we took a team that was a game away from the finals to a game 7 and only gave up 1 goal. Blowing a 3-1 series lead sucks. But the fact that we ever had a 3-1 series lead against anybody that year was pretty damn unlikely considering Letestu, Kovalev and Kennedy were staples of our offense. Blowing that series lead sucks. But if I had a time machine to right after Sid and Geno went out and could tell you that THAT team minus Sid and Geno would take the conference runner up to 7 games, would you call that underachievement?

Montreal was the worst as far as underachieving goes. Philly was the most embarrassing because of how childish we were and how we lost, but nobody should have looked at that series as an easy win. The 4 seed losing to the 5 seed is nothing shocking. Similarly, getting swept is rough. But that was another series where losing it really isn't all that shocking. Boston was a really good team. The 2 seed beat the 1 seed.

The way we have lost has been very disappointing. The actual results as far as series wins isn't all that surprising when you realize we have lost to 3 teams that were pretty much on par with us. Montreal is clearly the most disappointing result. I guess I'm weird because I think both the results AND the way they happen are important. And even though the way the losses have happened suck and make them disappointing, the results still put us into the category with the other top teams in the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
Again, I'm not talking about a bad break or expecting the Pens to win every series. But, in June 2009, if you'd have asked me what can we reasonably expect from the Pens in the next four postseasons, I'm pretty sure that my answer would've been 'not this ****'.
Right. That's fine. I expected better than this too. But not to the extent that others seem to.


Last edited by Ogrezilla: 09-29-2013 at 08:20 AM.
Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 08:28 AM
  #112
KIRK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 30,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
Then we pretty much agree. I didn't read the entire back and forth between the two of you. I was responding to what I quoted. You were making a point and responding to him, but other people seem to actually expect us to be in the finals or ECF every year.



It would be disappointing for sure. But its hard to judge though without knowing who we lost to or how/why we lost. You aren't mentioning Sid and Geno being out. You aren't mentioning that we are losing to teams that are every bit as good as we are in most years. You aren't mentioning that we acted like 3 year old's who just had a toy taken away. You aren't mentioning that we blew a 3-1 lead in one of them. Its just not enough information to make a real educated opinion.



2010-2011 was over-achievement if anything. Missing Sid and Geno, we took a team that was a game away from the finals to a game 7 and only gave up 1 goal. Blowing a 3-1 series lead sucks. But the fact that we ever had a 3-1 series lead against anybody that year was pretty damn unlikely considering Letestu, Kovalev and Kennedy were staples of our offense.

Montreal was the worst as far as underachieving goes. Philly was the most embarrassing because of how childish we were and how we lost, but nobody should have looked at that series as an easy win. The 4 seed losing to the 5 seed is nothing shocking. Similarly, getting swept is rough. But that was another series where losing it really isn't all that shocking. Boston was a really good team. The 2 seed beat the 1 seed.

The way we have lost has been very disappointing. The actual results as far as series wins isn't all that surprising when you realize we have lost to 3 teams that were pretty much on par with us. Montreal is clearly the most disappointing result. I guess I'm weird because I think both the results AND the way they happen are important. And even though the way the losses have happened suck and make them disappointing, the results still put us into the category with the other top teams in the league.



Right. That's fine. I expected better than this too. But not to the extent that others seem to.
What extent do others expect? I didn't catch those critical of the Pens playoff record saying 'cup or bust every year, and anything less reinforces the position that the Pens are playoff disappointments or embarrassments' or whatever else you want to call it. I did catch some people here defending what the Pens have done using that as a straw man argument, basically saying some people here would have been as critical if the Pens had lost the last four seasons in the cup finals every year.

Should have beaten Montreal. Shouldn't have been embarrassed against Philly. Could have found a way to capitalize on the 3-1 lead against Tampa. Should have dominated one playoff round the last four years like 2008 (all rounds in the east) or 2009 (the ECF). Should've won a game against Boston . . .

As I said, some of this is about the proverbial breaks. But, ALL of the breaks going against you . . . at some point, it ceases to be about luck and becomes about chronic underachievement. While one can debate where precisely that point is, the Pens already have crossed it. And, THAT, rather than isolated instances of losing or bad breaks, is what makes the four year record disappointing.

KIRK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 08:42 AM
  #113
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 34,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
What extent do others expect? I didn't catch those critical of the Pens playoff record saying 'cup or bust every year, and anything less reinforces the position that the Pens are playoff disappointments or embarrassments' or whatever else you want to call it. I did catch some people here defending what the Pens have done using that as a straw man argument, basically saying some people here would have been as critical if the Pens had lost the last four seasons in the cup finals every year.
There are people saying teams who aren't even making the playoffs yearly have been more successful than us. There are people on the cusp of denouncing the penguins as their team because they are so upset with how they've done. And for whatever reason every single one of these arguments has to start at 4 years ago instead of 5 or 6 because for whatever reason it is unfair to include our successes in arguments about how unsuccessful we have been. Its largely gotten better lately I suppose. The first half of this summer was just about unbearable though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
Should have beaten Montreal. Shouldn't have been embarrassed against Philly. Could have found a way to capitalize on the 3-1 lead against Tampa. Should have dominated one playoff round the last four years like 2008 (all rounds in the east) or 2009 (the ECF). Should've won a game against Boston . . .
We pretty clearly dominated Ottawa this year. We outscored them 22-10, won in 5 and the only loss was in double OT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
As I said, some of this is about the proverbial breaks. But, ALL of the breaks going against you . . . at some point, it ceases to be about luck and becomes about chronic underachievement. While one can debate where precisely that point is, the Pens already have crossed it. And, THAT, rather than isolated instances of losing or bad breaks, is what makes the four year record disappointing.
I don't blame any of it on breaks. I just think its perfectly reasonable to give credit to other teams for being good instead of always taking credit away from our team for blowing it. These other teams were all good enough to win those games.

For the most part I think we agree. You just come away with a slightly harsher opinion about what you expect from them.

Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 08:46 AM
  #114
TheSniper26
No cure for being...
 
TheSniper26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Youngstown
Country: United States
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK View Post
Did you actually read what I wrote? The part that I marked in bold from your post actually is my position. My comment about losing four years in a row in the cup finals was a direct reply to sniper26's saying 'it's cup or bust, so people would see no difference between four cup losses in a row and what the Pens have done the last four playoffs'. I called BS on that, and I think rightfully so.

People here are getting too caught up in word games. And, frankly, it's become an excuse to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room. So, I'll repeat myself: It's June 2009. The Pens have just won a cup. Now, I'm a psychic, so I'm going to tell you about the next four years. They'll win a grand total of 3 playoff series. They'll beat a Sens squad that had missed the playoff the year before and was swept by the Pens the year before that in 6 games the year after winning the cup. In 2013, they'll beat an Isles team that hadn't sniffed the playoffs for years and an injury depleted Sens team before getting swept in their one ECF appearance in the four years after winning the cup.

Go back to June 2009. Sid is 21. Geno is 22. And, what I've told you is coming is in fact all they'll have to show for the four years that would come. Would you have cared then about excuses?

This has become comical. Arguments if a word choice is right. Someone else basically saying 'well, it's cup or bust, so who cares what happened since you didn't win'. Others saying, 'well, only Chicago and Boston have more to show for the last four years'.

Honestly, at some point, the excuses become a crutch. A year with a bad break, maybe even two out of four? I get it. But, name one year where you can say 'the Pens laid it all out there but just came up short'. Name one year where the word 'underachievement' wouldn't apply to what the Pens did in the playoffs.

Again, I'm not talking about a bad break or expecting the Pens to win every series. But, in June 2009, if you'd have asked me what can we reasonably expect from the Pens in the next four postseasons, I'm pretty sure that my answer would've been 'not this ****'.
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.

TheSniper26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 11:18 AM
  #115
IcedCapp
IcedCapp The White
 
IcedCapp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
Is every $2 bill worth more than every $1 bill?



Still can't make the designation, eh?



It doesn't take away from the fact that the team wasn't running at anywhere near its full ability, like any other team missing its two biggest stars.



If you call a team embarrassing, it has to be in relation to something besides your own arbitrary expectations that apparently shouldn't apply to any other team.



I don't recall saying anything about what team I'd rather have, or what team is a "winner". Only that one can discern a certain degree of quality given results alone, subjective opinions on the "how" aside.

Nobody's lost sight of that. The point is that very, very few have done it more often than the Pens.

The Sharks are considered perennial chokers despite having had more success than the Pens the last 4 years. The Sharks also weren't just coming off consecutive Finals appearances and a Cup, which is why they've gotten that label.



They are. But it's a cap world with many great players, and only one team has had more Cup wins post-lockout.



I'm much more comfortable giving Dupuis the money he got than giving 2.5 mil per to an older, less effective Cooke.



Like Bortuzzo?

Last time I checked, Shawn Thornton was still getting playoff minutes over Jordan Caron and Carl Soderberg.



The Bruins had to do it because it was after the trade deadline, not because of a dedicated youth movement.



The Pens have both. /godsgifttohockeyminds



There's nothing hypocritical about it. Regular season success doesn't equal playoff success, it only ensures better playoff seeding.



Is this real life? What part of the OP, which outlines nothing but playoff results, hides behind the regular season?



No ****, Sherlock. Open your eyes and read the OP.
It'd be cool if you could read. Have fun talking to yourself.

IcedCapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 11:30 AM
  #116
UnrealMachine
Registered User
 
UnrealMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,553
vCash: 500
RRP,

You never really addressed, or even acknowledged my earlier post of just how pitiful our playoff losses to the Flyers/Bruins were. In the Flyers series, the Pens set an NHL record for goals against in a 6-game series. The next season, they set an NHL record for fewest goals scored in a series. When you set all-time worst defensive and offensive records in back-to-back years, what else is left? Special teams? I believe we set an all-time worst PK% in the Flyers series as well. Tied for worst PP ever with 0% in the Buins series. Given the talent level, Jack Adams coach, and award winning GM, how can you not be embarrassed by those results? They were among the worst ever losses in the history of the playoffs.

UnrealMachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 11:50 AM
  #117
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
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.
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.

Shockmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 11:59 AM
  #118
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 34,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockmaster View Post
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.
no, but we are only looking at the last 4 years because **** anything positive.

Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 12:05 PM
  #119
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
no, but we are only looking at the last 4 years because **** anything positive.
And the fact that the failures of the Red Wings, Devils, and Flyers don't count apparently.

Shockmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 12:05 PM
  #120
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
Spreadin Cheer;Mumps
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 44,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IcedCapp View Post
It'd be cool if you could read. Have fun talking to yourself.
You said I was hiding behind regular season records when the entire premise of the thread is based on playoff results.

It'll be more productive talking to myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnrealMachine View Post
RRP,

You never really addressed, or even acknowledged my earlier post of just how pitiful our playoff losses to the Flyers/Bruins were. In the Flyers series, the Pens set an NHL record for goals against in a 6-game series. The next season, they set an NHL record for fewest goals scored in a series. When you set all-time worst defensive and offensive records in back-to-back years, what else is left? Special teams? I believe we set an all-time worst PK% in the Flyers series as well. Tied for worst PP ever with 0% in the Buins series. Given the talent level, Jack Adams coach, and award winning GM, how can you not be embarrassed by those results? They were among the worst ever losses in the history of the playoffs.
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.


Last edited by Rowdy Roddy Peeper: 09-29-2013 at 12:13 PM.
Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 12:06 PM
  #121
BrunoPuntzJones
Biscuit Scorer
 
BrunoPuntzJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
no, but we are only looking at the last 4 years because **** anything positive.
When you think about it though, if you can only win one Cup, you might as well not win anything except the draft lottery. For that reason I would consider the Oilers a more successful team over the last decade.

BrunoPuntzJones is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 12:12 PM
  #122
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunoPuntzJones View Post
When you think about it though, if you can only win one Cup, you might as well not win anything except the draft lottery. For that reason I would consider the Oilers a more successful team over the last decade.
Well in that case let's tank it baby!

Shockmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 12:13 PM
  #123
Ziggyjoe21
Registered User
 
Ziggyjoe21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pitt
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,306
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ziggyjoe21
In general, the Pens have fared well, but due to their stacked roster they have high expectation. Unfortunately, there's always something that gets in their way. Weather it's Fleury (2010, 12), absurdly hot goaltending (Halak, Rask), or injuries (2011), they can't seem to put it all together.

2013 was easily their best chance. IMO they played very well against Boston outside of game 2. If a goalie is hot there's not much you can really do.

Luckily Shero is a good enough GM to keep the core long term so they'll have ample opportunities to try again this year and numerous years after that.

Ziggyjoe21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 12:27 PM
  #124
Shockmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggyjoe21 View Post
In general, the Pens have fared well, but due to their stacked roster they have high expectation. Unfortunately, there's always something that gets in their way. Weather it's Fleury (2010, 12), absurdly hot goaltending (Halak, Rask), or injuries (2011), they can't seem to put it all together.

2013 was easily their best chance. IMO they played very well against Boston outside of game 2. If a goalie is hot there's not much you can really do.

Luckily Shero is a good enough GM to keep the core long term so they'll have ample opportunities to try again this year and numerous years after that.
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.

Shockmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2013, 12:56 PM
  #125
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 16,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkin4Top6Wingerz View Post
Yeah that's some bizzaro logic re: 2013 Wings / 2011 Pens. Clearly Detroit had much more going for them in that series.

Also pretty sure most people who don't know RG would be blown away to find out that he's actually a diehard Fleury apologist. There's a man we can be all embarrassed about.

Edit: My first post in three months? It feels longer.
I've soured on MAF since the NYI series. I was willing to give him a pass on the Philly series as the whole team ******** the bed, but to do it vs the Isles was my tipping point. I don't hate him like many do but I don't have faith in him anymore. He was my favorite player so I did a bit of the RRP excuse generator for him, but that's done.

I also used to be a card holing member of the In Shero We Trust crew, but that's in the past as well.

Ragamuffin Gunner 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 03:13 PM.

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.