HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

If Samuelson did not Knee on knee Neely...

View Poll Results: Would boston have won if Neely was not taken out?
Boston would have won with Neely in the lineup 109 56.77%
Pittsburgh would have still won 63 32.81%
Undecided. Hard to say 20 10.42%
Voters: 192. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2007, 10:48 AM
  #51
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownExile View Post
Wow. What kind of logic is that? Lemieux made Ray Bourque look stupid, Boston had a hard time handling Stevens and Recchi in the later games too, along with marginal Pens like Phil Bourque. I think the Pens were caught flat-footed in games 1&2, but they battled back from similar deficits throughout the playoffs. The 1991 Pens were too good as a team to lose to Boston, who was, as you admit, a 2 player team.

If you're going to start a thread like this, back up your reasoning better than "Neely was pretty tough."
Uh, no. The Pens played just as hard in games 1 and 2 as the rest of the series, they just didn;t have to contend with a guy like Neely anymore who can score 50 goals in 44 games. Im not only saying "Neely was tough". Im saying to the pens, he was unstoppable, and they could not contain him from lighting them up every game. It took a dirty hit to put a stop to him. With him in the lineup, the pens had no solution. The pens spent the majority of the time defending when he was on the ice, and they were terrible at it, something they had no problem with after he was injured severely.
The pens had no solution. NONE. While Neely was healthy, other than "Take him out".
If someone on the bruins took that knee on knee on Lemieux, it would have started a civil war.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 11:22 AM
  #52
jaws
Registered User
 
jaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stittsvegas
Country: Canada
Posts: 128
vCash: 500
This is just another link to one of the dirtiest, most costly hits in the past 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8cDxL_5IE

And to add on the fact that Bruins put 3 more tough guys in the lineup...they had Chris Nilan - so why they just didn't get him to start that civil war the poster above me said is beyond me.

PS, Its a damn shame the hockey world has forgotten about Lyndon Byers, whata plug.

jaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 01:15 PM
  #53
HandshakeLine
pro sports bettor
 
HandshakeLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Praha, CZ
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 18,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J0e Th0rnton View Post
Uh, no. The Pens played just as hard in games 1 and 2 as the rest of the series, they just didn;t have to contend with a guy like Neely anymore who can score 50 goals in 44 games. Im not only saying "Neely was tough". Im saying to the pens, he was unstoppable, and they could not contain him from lighting them up every game. It took a dirty hit to put a stop to him. With him in the lineup, the pens had no solution. The pens spent the majority of the time defending when he was on the ice, and they were terrible at it, something they had no problem with after he was injured severely.
The pens had no solution. NONE. While Neely was healthy, other than "Take him out".
If someone on the bruins took that knee on knee on Lemieux, it would have started a civil war.
I'm not saying the series wasn't changed by that hit or it wasn't a dirty hit, but that's the breaks. The Pens won a Stanley Cup the next year after Graves busted Lemieux's hand. Good teams find a way to fight through losing a star player.

I think the Pens would have won a close Game 3 and 4, lost 5, and won 6 and 7. It would have been tough, but that team had a way of rallying when everyone thought them out. They were supposed to be done in the first series when Jersey went up 3-1. The Rangers were supposed to be more experienced and give the Pens trouble. They spent more time in the Playoffs battling back than actually taking leads.

Honestly, I think you just started this thread to give yourself the big "EVERYBODY LOVES NEELY" bump that didn't happen on the main board with your other Cam Neely threads.

Don't get me wrong, I think Neely was a talented hockey player that anyone would be stupid to pass up. He was hard nosed and feisty. He was everything I'd want in a teammate, but this is getting ridiculous.

Give me another reason why the Bruins win besides "Neely's 50 in 44" (which didn't happen until 1993-94 anyway).

HandshakeLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 03:13 PM
  #54
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownExile View Post
I'm not saying the series wasn't changed by that hit or it wasn't a dirty hit, but that's the breaks. The Pens won a Stanley Cup the next year after Graves busted Lemieux's hand. Good teams find a way to fight through losing a star player.

I think the Pens would have won a close Game 3 and 4, lost 5, and won 6 and 7. It would have been tough, but that team had a way of rallying when everyone thought them out. They were supposed to be done in the first series when Jersey went up 3-1. The Rangers were supposed to be more experienced and give the Pens trouble. They spent more time in the Playoffs battling back than actually taking leads.

Honestly, I think you just started this thread to give yourself the big "EVERYBODY LOVES NEELY" bump that didn't happen on the main board with your other Cam Neely threads.

Don't get me wrong, I think Neely was a talented hockey player that anyone would be stupid to pass up. He was hard nosed and feisty. He was everything I'd want in a teammate, but this is getting ridiculous.

Give me another reason why the Bruins win besides "Neely's 50 in 44" (which didn't happen until 1993-94 anyway).
I have no idea what you are talking about. This is the first thread I ever made with Cam Neely as a topic. I made one other later about who their best playoff performer was other than Orr, and I commented on Ulf's dirty hit in an older Cheapshot thread. You like making things up don't you?

Anyways, why should I find another reason the bruins would have won?

The whole point of this thread is that Neely WOULD have been the reason they won, not to find reasons that they could not win without him. The penguins were a team that could not stop him from scoring 2-3 goals a game, ever, until they took a leg out from him.

Not to mention the bruins would not have gotten off their gameplan and added 3 goons to try to get even if Neely had not been taken out. They woukld have stuck to playing hockey, and it would have been business underway.

He was a 2 time 50 goal scorer before the hit, and probably would have been a 70 goal scorer if not for the hit considering how much he lit it up on 1 leg in 44 games after it.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 05:59 PM
  #55
trenton1
Paille Good
 
trenton1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Loge 31 Row 10
Country: Belize
Posts: 7,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownExile View Post
Wow. What kind of logic is that? Lemieux made Ray Bourque look stupid, Boston had a hard time handling Stevens and Recchi in the later games too, along with marginal Pens like Phil Bourque. I think the Pens were caught flat-footed in games 1&2, but they battled back from similar deficits throughout the playoffs. The 1991 Pens were too good as a team to lose to Boston, who was, as you admit, a 2 player team.

If you're going to start a thread like this, back up your reasoning better than "Neely was pretty tough."
That doesn't really work though.
The 1993 Penguins were also too good to lose to the Islanders who had no one of even Bourque's calibre. But they did lose.
While it's true that the Bruins may have only had two superstars in 1991, they were not a "two player team."

trenton1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2007, 08:26 AM
  #56
Brandinho
Registered User
 
Brandinho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: República de Cuba
Country: Cuba
Posts: 10,271
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Brandinho Send a message via Skype™ to Brandinho
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunb View Post
I'm confident that I'm a pretty neutral observer and I can honestly say, without any bias, that the Boston Bruins probably would've won the series and the Stanley Cup had the hit not occurred. With a 2-0 series lead the lead in Game 3, Boston would've cruised to victory. Boston really hurt their own chances by changing their game-plan and injecting toughness at the expense of skilled players who carried the team so far.

However, this is a moot point because they ended up losing. Champions don't make excuses because they're completely responsible for their own fates. Part of the lure of being the winner isn't simply winning hypothetical situations but winning in spite of obstacles. If the Bruins were truly champions, they would of won despite all odds. Champions win regardless of dirty hits and would've prevailed even with the hit. The Bruins failed to mentally and emotionally triumph past their loss and succumbed to the Penguins. You can blame it on Milbury's insertion of goons or the lack of Neely. The only truth that we know, the only truth that we care about and the only truth that matter is that the Penguins won.
You think they'd have cruised to victory against a clearly more talented Pens team? That's laughable.

Brandinho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2007, 11:02 AM
  #57
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyug View Post
You think they'd have cruised to victory against a clearly more talented Pens team? That's laughable.
The momentum only changed after Neely was taken out. Up till then, even in game 3, they were dominating.

Neely being taken out = they lose.
Neely stayed = Pens had no answer to him and bruins win.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2007, 07:33 PM
  #58
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,826
vCash: 500
I still don't think the Bruins. The 1993 Penguins were one of the deepest rosters of all time.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2007, 07:46 PM
  #59
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,692
vCash: 500
You're projecting alot from Neely's first 2 games. Maybe the Pens adapt and use a different strat against Neely and he's shut down the entire series.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2007, 09:16 AM
  #60
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTENOUGHBREWER View Post
You're projecting alot from Neely's first 2 games. Maybe the Pens adapt and use a different strat against Neely and he's shut down the entire series.
He was tearing them up at the start of game 3 too before Ulf smoked him with a knee. The Pens had nobody who had what it took to stop him.

The absolute only way they had to stop him was taking his knee out.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-23-2007, 05:25 PM
  #61
Nordic*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tellus
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 13,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J0e Th0rnton View Post
The Pens had nobody who had what it took to stop him.

They had Robocop.

Nordic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2007, 01:53 AM
  #62
Randall Graves*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownExile View Post
Sounds like someone just can't let it go. I'm a pretty big Neely fan, but there's no way the Bruins win that series, even with him in the lineup.

And for crying out loud, isn't this your 4th thread about Neely-Samuelsson in 24 hours?
No way? they were up 2-0 at the time of the injury.

Randall Graves* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2007, 04:59 AM
  #63
clefty
What?
 
clefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Fujairah
Posts: 15,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyKiller View Post
No way? they were up 2-0 at the time of the injury.
Big deal. Those Pens teams came back from deficits worse than that one en route to Cup wins, most notably a 3-1 defecit to Washington. Hell, its a huge reason why they were so good.

Quote:
Up till then, even in game 3, they were dominating.
Game 1 was 6-3. Game 2 was a 5-4 OT win. That is hardly domination. And when Neely went down, the game was something like 8 minutes old, so I don't know how you can make an assertion they were 'dominating' that gam either.

clefty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 02:39 AM
  #64
Randall Graves*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clefty View Post
Big deal. Those Pens teams came back from deficits worse than that one en route to Cup wins, most notably a 3-1 defecit to Washington. Hell, its a huge reason why they were so good.



Game 1 was 6-3. Game 2 was a 5-4 OT win. That is hardly domination. And when Neely went down, the game was something like 8 minutes old, so I don't know how you can make an assertion they were 'dominating' that gam either.
So what? to say the Bruins had no chance is absolutely assinine. Even a Pens homer should be able to understand how stupid that sounds.

Randall Graves* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 07:23 AM
  #65
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clefty View Post
Big deal. Those Pens teams came back from deficits worse than that one en route to Cup wins, most notably a 3-1 defecit to Washington. Hell, its a huge reason why they were so good.



Game 1 was 6-3. Game 2 was a 5-4 OT win. That is hardly domination. And when Neely went down, the game was something like 8 minutes old, so I don't know how you can make an assertion they were 'dominating' that gam either.
The score was 1 nothing Bruins, and the bruins had the puck in the attacking zone for most of the time before Neely went off from the dirty intentional hit.

Boston's played a different game of "get even" after that hit, and that, among losing the best scorer of the playoffs is what did them in.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 08:21 AM
  #66
neelysbiggestfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 803
vCash: 500
Firstly, the hit everyone links here isn't the hit that injured Neely. It was a hit on his thigh in the corner later in that game that did it - but the orders were out for ULfie to take Neely out.

The Penguins were a better team in 1991 - but the Bruins were going to win that series.
Mario is obviously a better player than Neely (and better than everyone else too besides Orr) and that Pens team was so deep so you could never count them out of any series.
However, people here who don't follow the Bruins closely don't realize how good Neely was in 1991. He was just entering his prime (25 years old) and was completely unstoppable. The best wing in the game at the time - hands down. The Ulf hit changed the course of the franchise and cost them the series.

Also, lets not forget that Boston also lost DAVE POULIN in Game 4 for the series and Mario killed them after that - and like others said - Bourque couldn't handle Mario.

neelysbiggestfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 09:53 AM
  #67
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neelysbiggestfan View Post
Firstly, the hit everyone links here isn't the hit that injured Neely. It was a hit on his thigh in the corner later in that game that did it - but the orders were out for ULfie to take Neely out.

The Penguins were a better team in 1991 - but the Bruins were going to win that series.
Mario is obviously a better player than Neely (and better than everyone else too besides Orr) and that Pens team was so deep so you could never count them out of any series.
However, people here who don't follow the Bruins closely don't realize how good Neely was in 1991. He was just entering his prime (25 years old) and was completely unstoppable. The best wing in the game at the time - hands down. The Ulf hit changed the course of the franchise and cost them the series.

Also, lets not forget that Boston also lost DAVE POULIN in Game 4 for the series and Mario killed them after that - and like others said - Bourque couldn't handle Mario.
I actually covered that in another post. Ulf's first hit pretty much ruined Neely for the rest of the series and made him ineffectual. It was his second intentional Knee to the back if the thigh hit(Marchement style) on Neely in game 6 that prematurely ruined his career)

The fact that Ulf Knee on Knee'd Neely twice within 3 games pretty much shows how he was intentionally trying to take Neely out, and make those trying to say it was an accident look silly.

J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 11:14 AM
  #68
Strafer
Registered User
 
Strafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: da Hub
Country: United States
Posts: 5,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunb View Post
I'm confident that I'm a pretty neutral observer and I can honestly say, without any bias, that the Boston Bruins probably would've won the series and the Stanley Cup had the hit not occurred. With a 2-0 series lead the lead in Game 3, Boston would've cruised to victory. Boston really hurt their own chances by changing their game-plan and injecting toughness at the expense of skilled players who carried the team so far.

However, this is a moot point because they ended up losing. Champions don't make excuses because they're completely responsible for their own fates. Part of the lure of being the winner isn't simply winning hypothetical situations but winning in spite of obstacles. If the Bruins were truly champions, they would of won despite all odds. Champions win regardless of dirty hits and would've prevailed even with the hit. The Bruins failed to mentally and emotionally triumph past their loss and succumbed to the Penguins. You can blame it on Milbury's insertion of goons or the lack of Neely. The only truth that we know, the only truth that we care about and the only truth that matter is that the Penguins won.
Aah, Champions don't make excuses because they won the game/series, no need to.
It's like the old joke: a plane crashes on the Canadian, American border, where do you bury the survivors?
I agree with everything else you said though.

Strafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 12:50 PM
  #69
Krejci Knows Techno
Playoffs *****
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashua NH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
the pens would still have won, but i think boston might have won sometime after that (Allison-Geurin/Thornton-Neely)

Krejci Knows Techno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 02:43 PM
  #70
nmbr_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,618
vCash: 500
I voted Boston, BUT I am completely biased!
It is hard to say, Lemiuex was one of the best ever, but Neely might have meant more to the Bruins than Lemiuex did to the Pens.
Honestly, I should have voted undecided, but I am a Homer.

nmbr_24 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 05:22 PM
  #71
clefty
What?
 
clefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Fujairah
Posts: 15,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J0e Th0rnton View Post
The score was 1 nothing Bruins, and the bruins had the puck in the attacking zone for most of the time before Neely went off from the dirty intentional hit.
1-0!? Whoop-de-freaking-do! The game was 8 minutes old. 8 minutes. You're just a very bitter homer.

Quote:
Boston's played a different game of "get even" after that hit, and that, among losing the best scorer of the playoffs is what did them in.
Compare that to the Pens.

On the brink of elimination and with Tom Barrasso injured, the Pens won two games on theb ack of outstanding goaltending by the obscure Frank Pietrangelo against New Jersey to win the series.

In 1992 against New York and with the Penguins trailing in the series, Adam Graves slashes and breaks Mario Lemieux's wrist, and Joey Mullen is also lost through injury in the same game. Neither player would take part in the remainder of the series against the Rangers, who were arguably the hot favourites that year. Pens win in 6.

If Boston deserved to win, they would have done so, regardless of who was on the ice.

Quote:
So what? to say the Bruins had no chance is absolutely assinine. Even a Pens homer should be able to understand how stupid that sounds.
No chance, huge chance, I don't care, it doesn't matter.

But the fact the series was 2-0 is a dead point. The fact Neely was injured is merely a convenient excuse for the Bruins performance the rest of the way. If they were a true championship team, they would have banded together in the face of adversity (and all those other cliches that go along with it) like the Penguins had to. They didn't, and they lost. That is the fault of the Boston Bruins, not Ulf Samuelsson.

And if they needed one player to get them through, then thats not good either.

clefty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 05:59 PM
  #72
aic90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 56
vCash: 500
A few points of consideration coming from an admitted Boston homer:

- To those that point out how dominant a player Lemieux was that season (and beyond) and how much better he was than Neely, I submit Wayne Gretzky circa 1982-83. He was at least as dominant as Lemieux and better than any member of the New York Islanders. So...? Islanders over Oilers in a 4 game sweep.

- Arguing this would have happened vs. that would have happened is pointless. That being said, as dominant as Lemieux was, it isn't really clear what would have changed the momentum (down 0-2 in games and behind again early at home in game 3) of the series as drastically as the Neely removal. The historical record of teams behind 0-2 in series is not nearly as good as those up 2-0. Back to 1983: Down 0-2 in games, the Oilers were still the more talented team than the Islanders. That and 4 more wins than they ended up with would have gotten them past the "inferior" Islanders.

Perhaps the Pens were the better team at that moment in time. It's not exactly unheard of for an inferior team to defeat a superior one. And if the Pens were so superior why would they need to resort to such tactics? (This Bruins fan has wondered many times why Lemieux didn't suffer a similar fate after the targeting of Neely by a many-times-over proven hatchet man. Instead of dressing more/different "goons", why no tit for tat in other words?)

- If memory serves, didn't Dino Cicciarelli (granted no angel himself) suffer an inadvertent (of course) injury caused by Samuelsson in the Minnesota series that followed?

- IMHO, the most valid knock on the 1991 Bruins is that a championship caliber team would have maintained their compusure and fought through the adversity of having their most effective player targeted for removal. They didn't and they lost. Period.

aic90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 07:20 PM
  #73
J0e Th0rnton*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clefty View Post
1-0!? Whoop-de-freaking-do! The game was 8 minutes old. 8 minutes. You're just a very bitter homer.
Im a homer for saying, as Long as Neely was on the ice healthy, the bruins were always winning? its historical fact buddy. The series changed from that hit onward.

Im hardly the only one who thinks so. That's why the poll is in favor of the bruins winning.

Quote:
If Boston deserved to win, they would have done so, regardless of who was on the ice.

No chance, huge chance, I don't care, it doesn't matter.

But the fact the series was 2-0 is a dead point. The fact Neely was injured is merely a convenient excuse for the Bruins performance the rest of the way. If they were a true championship team, they would have banded together in the face of adversity (and all those other cliches that go along with it) like the Penguins had to. They didn't, and they lost. That is the fault of the Boston Bruins, not Ulf Samuelsson.

And if they needed one player to get them through, then thats not good either.
What a cop out. Notice however, that you are in the minority? Its hardly unheard of for a weaker toeam to dominate a better team through the work of a few clutch players. Neely was captain clutch. He had more goals at the time than Lemieux had points in this series, and the Pens had NO answer to him. They put 2 guys on him at all times, and he went through them and scored up a storm in the first games.
You can call me a homer, and I can call you a homer for denying the obvious. Your team had no answer to Cam, so it took the dirty, Bobby Clarke on Kharlamov route to win.

The thing that really pisses off most people is that after the first knee on knee in game 3 which made Neely highly ineffectual, he did a *Bryan Marchment* knee on knee to the boards on Cam in game 6 from behind, and smoked him in the knee again(Which was the hit that ended his career).
Ulf's job was to hurt people. Plain and simple. He was picked by ESPN to be the dirtiest hockey player of all time for a reason. His job was not to protect Lemieux. His job first and foremost was to hurt star players.
The thing that was most annoying about Samuelsson was that if challenged, he wasn't even man enough to drop the gloves. He would turtle up everytime.

He also Knee on Knee hit Brian Bellows in the finals(Which became infamous because of the video circulating of Stevens and co cussing him out), and yes, he intentionally took out another cheap shot artist name Dino in the finals of another series. Merely stating Ulf's track record.

Ulf was the king of the cheap shot. Always his job was to take out other teams star players to give his team a better chance.

and more people think Boston would have won than the pens and undecided combined.


Last edited by J0e Th0rnton*: 03-27-2007 at 10:33 PM.
J0e Th0rnton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 10:18 PM
  #74
clefty
What?
 
clefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Fujairah
Posts: 15,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J0e Th0rnton View Post
Im a homer for saying, as Long as Neely was on the ice healthy, the bruins were always winning? its historical fact buddy. The series changed from that hit onward.
Sorry, its not a fact. Playoff series last 7 games, not 2.

Quote:
Im hardly the only one who thinks so. That's why the poll is in favor of the bruins winning.
So what?


Quote:
What a cop out. Notice however, that you are in the minority?
Based on what? A silly little internet poll?

The ultimate copout is this petty excuse for the Bruins performance that year.

Quote:
Its hardly unheard of for a weaker toeam to dominate a better team through the work of a few clutch players. Neely was captain clutch. He had more goals at the time than Lemieux had points in this series, and the Pens had NO answer to him.
The series was very young. Who knows what would have happened? Who knows how the Pens would have changed their gameplan? I mean, thats what they did against Washington when they trailed 3-1. They implemented a 1-4 trap that turned the tide. Playoff series are best 4 out of 7. As much as you want to pretend that you know what would have happened, you just don't. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can accept the fact the Bruins lost.

I'll say it again, because you obviously ignored it before. Its not like the Pens were blown out in games one and two. Hell, game two went into OT. It could have so easily been a 1-1 series going into game three.

Quote:
You can call me a homer, and I can call you a homer for denying the obvious.
I'm not denying the obvious, there is nothing obvious to deny.

I'm accepting the reality that the winners were the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Quote:
The thing that really pisses off most people is that after the first knee on knee in game 3 which made Neely highly ineffectual, he did a *Bryan Marchment* knee on knee to the boards on Cam in game 6 from behind, and smoked him in the knee again(Which was the hit that ended his career).
Ulf's job was to hurt people. Plain and simple. He was picked by ESPN to be the dirtiest hockey player of all time for a reason. His job was not to protect Lemieux. His job first and foremost was to hurt star players.
The thing that was most annoying about Samuelsson was that if challenged, he wasn't even man enough to drop the gloves. He would turtle up everytime. He also Knee on Knee hit Brian Bellows in the finals(Which became infamous because of the video circulating of Stevens and co cussing him out), and
Whoa, so now this is turned into a rambling tirade about Ulf Samuelsson?

Nobody is trying to say Ulf was a saint.

Quote:
yes, he intentionally took out another cheap shot artist name Dino in the finals.
That would have been a great trick, considering Ciccarelli wasn't even playing in the finals. In fact, he had moved on the Washington Capitals.....three years beforehand. Stop making it up as you go along.

Quote:
Ulf was the king of the cheap shot. Always his job was to take out other teams star players to give his team a better chance.
What do you want? A violin? Get over it.

Quote:
and more people think Boston would have won than the pens and undecided combined.
Even if they did, its a moot and erroneuos point.

Even if a million people say it, they DO NOT KNOW what would have happened, unless they had time travel ability.


Last edited by clefty: 03-27-2007 at 10:24 PM.
clefty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2007, 10:23 PM
  #75
clefty
What?
 
clefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Fujairah
Posts: 15,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aic90 View Post
And if the Pens were so superior why would they need to resort to such tactics?
Tactic? It was a lone incident. Everytime he played him, Samuelsson sought to get in Neely's face.

Even if it was a tactic, the Bruins failed miserably as a team in response.

The question is if the Bruins had such a handle on the series, why the need to call in the goon squad? There were two teams out there: one team trying to goon it up, one team trying to win a championship.


Last edited by clefty: 03-27-2007 at 10:32 PM.
clefty 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 06:35 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.