HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[MXD]

What, the myth that the league was so much harder to score in the late 90's/early 2000's? Yeah, many folks (including me on this page) have proved that wasn't true. Scoring has been way down for half a decade now. Basically to the same levels of the so called DPE.

Or that the Avs 2 Cup runs featured competition that was so much more difficult than Pittsburgh? Yeah, no, other than the 96 Red Wings, which I've clearly stated are on their own level. But look at other versions of the Wings in that era. The 2015-16 Caps compared very favorably with just about all of them if looking at multiple metrics that were either brought up by myself or bathdog (GF/GA).

I don't know where you're getting at in the first paragraph. My posts aren't concerned with scoring levels.

As to the bolded, if a metric intended to predict playoff success puts the 15-16 (or 16-17) Caps on par with the Red Wings of the late 90ies/early '00ies, it's probably because it's not a very good one.

 

[quoipourquoi]

97 Red wings = 38 wins

That's not exactly the first way I would describe the 1997 Detroit Red Wings. Besides, they were 38-26-18, so they weren't accumulating a substantial amount of losses or anything. A conservative team that could have had anywhere between 38-56 wins had the loser point been in place. Instead, they went to OT 27 times and lost just twice.

At a certain point, we lose sight of exactly what we're arguing. Do really think a period of time in which the same three Western Conference teams win 7 of 8 President's Trophies (Pronger) and 13 of 14 Conference Finals spots (Pronger again) does not limit each team's ability to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals - thereby creating this scenario in which Sakic and Forsberg have more Conference Finals appearances than Crosby but fewer Finals runs (which was your bullet point as to why Crosby surpassed them)?

More than that, did you miss the thread in which we calculated everyone's offensive statistics against Colorado, Dallas, and Detroit?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2347351

We're not plugging our ears and screaming "Dead Puck Era" at you. We're saying that three teams can't fit in the Western Conference Finals, let alone the Stanley Cup Finals - no matter how many times people looked at a Colorado/Detroit, Colorado/Dallas, or Detroit/Dallas series and said this is the real Stanley Cup Final.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Actually i meant the 2016-17 Capitals but the 15-16 version is up there as well.

2016-17 President's trophy Caps won 53 games in regulation. They were +81 in goal differential.

Find me a Detroit or Dallas team between 97 and 04 that was noticeably better in those 2 metrics.

 

[bobholly39]

Actually i meant the 2016-17 Capitals but the 15-16 version is up there as well.

2016-17 President's trophy Caps won 53 games in regulation. They were +81 in goal differential.

Find me a Detroit or Dallas team between 97 and 04 that was noticeably better in those 2 metrics.

You have to consider that regular season is not the same as playoffs.

Look back to the 90s. And you likely think of Detroit, powerhouses with also legendary playoff performers. Avs? Same thing. Even Dallas to a slightly lesser extent.

Washington? You mostly think of Regular Season Champs - and perennial underachievers in the playoffs. "Chokers" even.

so yeah - even if Washington was a better regular season team in the past 2 years than any competition Detroit/Colorado faced in the playoffs, regular season is not equal to playoffs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You have to consider that regular season is not the same as playoffs.

Look back to the 90s. And you likely think of Detroit, powerhouses with also legendary playoff performers. Avs? Same thing. Even Dallas to a slightly lesser extent.

Washington? You mostly think of Regular Season Champs - and perennial underachievers in the playoffs. "Chokers" even.

so yeah - even if Washington was a better regular season team in the past 2 years than any competition Detroit/Colorado faced in the playoffs, regular season is not equal to playoffs.

I think beating Washington is a major accomplishment. But also... Crosby was 0-2-2, -3 in 6 games in 2016. Much better this year (though the team won the game he missed), but who were the only two Penguins getting talked up for the Conn Smythe coming out of the 2nd round? Fleury and Malkin.

As an individual, I just don't know that he should be receiving the bulk of the credit for the Penguins' procession to a greater number of Finals series in the way presented by ImporterExporter.

 

[MXD]

(...)

2016-17 President's trophy Caps won 53 games in regulation. They were +81 in goal differential.

Find me a Detroit or Dallas team between 97 and 04 that was noticeably better in those 2 metrics.

...Again... If a number or a metric or whatever makes the 16-17 Capitals a stronger playoff team than the Wings or even the Stars, it probably a sign that it's not a very good one.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching

...Again... If a number or a metric or whatever makes the 16-17 Capitals a stronger playoff team than the Wings or even the Stars, it probably a sign that it's not a very good one.

No metric factors in coaching.

 

[bobholly39]

I think beating Washington is a major accomplishment. But also... Crosby was 0-2-2, -3 in 6 games in 2016. Much better this year (though the team won the game he missed), but who were the only two Penguins getting talked up for the Conn Smythe coming out of the 2nd round? Fleury and Malkin.

As an individual, I just don't know that he should be receiving the bulk of the credit for the Penguins' procession to a greater number of Finals series in the way presented by ImporterExporter.

I agree that Pittsburgh (or Crosby - since the thread is about him) beating Washington in 2 years is a big accomplishment. Huge one. All i'm saying is that beating 2017 Washington in the playoffs is likely less an accomplishment than beating the Avs or Detroit in the playoffs in the late 90s would be (or even Chicago or LA a few years ago in the west would have been). They're a fantastic regular season team, but until they rise up in the playoffs too they aren't as tough a competition as their regular season indicates.

Crosby should definitely not be receiving the "bulk" of the credit for beating washington. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that. He's the captain/leader of a team who beat them twice in 2 years. More playoff success for him, that adds to his legacy, but by no means were those 2 some of his best 2 playoff series ever.

Malkin and Fleury were probably the 2 favorites to the conn smythe after round 2. Though I personally still favored Crosby. I didn't watch all of the games, but it seemed to me that he was instrumental in many of the games when it came to turning the tide. He was often the spark that got things going for his team, or that started a rally. But I admit that opinion is derived mostly from watching highlights of the games vs the games themselves.

Finally - going back to Crosby - him not being the favorite to the conn smythe after 2 rounds yet winning is actually better for him. It shows that he played very strongly in rounds 3 and 4 - something he's been accused in the past of not doing as well.

 

[ImporterExporter]

That's not exactly the first way I would describe the 1997 Detroit Red Wings. Besides, they were 38-26-18, so they weren't accumulating a substantial amount of losses or anything. A conservative team that could have had anywhere between 38-56 wins had the loser point been in place. Instead, they went to OT 27 times and lost just twice.

At a certain point, we lose sight of exactly what we're arguing. Do really think a period of time in which the same three Western Conference teams win 7 of 8 President's Trophies (Pronger) and 13 of 14 Conference Finals spots (Pronger again) does not limit each team's ability to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals - thereby creating this scenario in which Sakic and Forsberg have more Conference Finals appearances than Crosby but fewer Finals runs (which was your bullet point as to why Crosby surpassed them)?

More than that, did you miss the thread in which we calculated everyone's offensive statistics against Colorado, Dallas, and Detroit?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2347351

We're not plugging our ears and screaming "Dead Puck Era" at you. We're saying that three teams can't fit in the Western Conference Finals, let alone the Stanley Cup Finals - no matter how many times people looked at a Colorado/Detroit, Colorado/Dallas, or Detroit/Dallas series and said this is the real Stanley Cup Final.

And at some point people lose/lost sight that the real value in determining value on a players career (especially in the postseason) is how often they reach the pinnacle.

Is it THE end all and be all? No. But noticing the Avs went 2-4 in Conference Finals doesn't give me all kinds of reasons to hold them in higher regard than other teams who have much better results in rounds 3 and 4. Whether we're looking at the Penguins or another team from another era.

The 97 Red Wings beat a favored Colorado team in the Conference Finals.

The 98 Oilers, with their losing record beat a division winner Colorado team in round 1.

The Avs lost to the Stars in back to back CF's in 99 and 00. The 99 Stars were certainly the favorites but the 00 match-up was basically a coin flip.

In 2003 the Avs got bounced in round 1 by the Wild, who were in 3rd place in the NW Divsion.

In 2004, we had another coin flip match-up in round 2. The Avs get bounced by the Sharks.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Is it THE end all and be all? No. But noticing the Avs went 2-4 in Conference Finals doesn't give me all kinds of reasons to hold them in higher regard than other teams who have much better results in rounds 3 and 4. Whether we're looking at the Penguins or another team from another era.

You know from 1996-2004, the Avalanche had 10 more playoff wins than the next closest Western Conference team and 27 more playoff wins than the next closest Eastern Conference team, right? That they went 2-4 in the Conference Finals is a product of what several of us have been trying to explain:

1996 Detroit Red Wings
1997 Detroit Red Wings
1999 Dallas Stars
2000 Dallas Stars
2001 St. Louis Blues
2002 Detroit Red Wings

2008 Philadelphia Flyers
2009 Carolina Hurricanes
2013 Boston Bruins
2016 Tampa Bay Lightning
2017 Ottawa Senators

Same three teams limiting each other's success versus a free-for-all.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think beating Washington is a major accomplishment. But also... Crosby was 0-2-2, -3 in 6 games in 2016. Much better this year (though the team won the game he missed), but who were the only two Penguins getting talked up for the Conn Smythe coming out of the 2nd round? Fleury and Malkin.

As an individual, I just don't know that he should be receiving the bulk of the credit for the Penguins' procession to a greater number of Finals series in the way presented by ImporterExporter.

Yeah, he wasn't good in 2016 vs Washington. Not arguing that.

The Penguins also lost game 3 which he was injured within the first minutes. So they were 1-1 without him.

And yes, following round 2 (this year) Crosby was probably 3rd on the Pens in terms of Conn Smythe rankings. But guess what? That only shows how damn good he was in the Conference Finals and SCF. The fact that he continued to get better as the playoffs went on and surpass the other players (namely Malkin) and win the bulk of the 1st place votes, is a great for him.

Lastly, I never said he should receive the "bulk" of the credit. Malkin was key in 09 and just behind Sid in 2017. MAF was brilliant in the 2008 run. Letang, Kessel, Murray, Bonino, etc all stepped up and played huge roles in 2016.

Looking at the Pens 4 Cup runs:

2008 he certainly was the Penguins best player throughout with MAF of all folks right behind him (Finals loss).

2009 he was neck and neck with Malkin through 3 rounds, but Malkin had a better finals and rightfully won the Conn Smythe, although Sid still finished with 31 points so it was an excellent run (Finals win)

2016, was literally the epitome of a team effort. Nobody exceeded 22 points, but Crosby had a slew of huge goals and assists (especially in the Tampa series). It was also his best defensive play I've ever seen from him in the postseason (minus the Washington series). No bulk credit given.

2017, from round 2 onward, Crosby was the lifeblood. He was on an absolute tear in games 1 and 2 of the Washington series. Got taken out, and still came back to produce at better than a PPG clip the rest of the way. He won the Conn Smythe, because like Malkin in 2009, was the best player in the Finals by a pretty wide margin. I was at game 5 in Pittsburgh (won 6-0) and it is without a doubt the pinnacle of Crosby's SCF career and possibly his entire playoff career. Malkin might have edged Sid by 1 point but Crosby also missed 2 games (all but 1 minute of game 3 against Wash and then all of game 4). He routinely faced every #1 D pairing from the other team and took more defensive zone draws the entire way as well.

 

[MXD]

And at some point people lose/lost sight that the real value in determining value on a players career (especially in the postseason) is how often they reach the pinnacle.

Is it THE end all and be all? No. But noticing the Avs went 2-4 in Conference Finals doesn't give me all kinds of reasons to hold them in higher regard than other teams who have much better results in rounds 3 and 4. Whether we're looking at the Penguins or another team from another era.

The 97 Red Wings beat a favored Colorado team in the Conference Finals.

The 98 Oilers, with their losing record beat a division winner Colorado team in round 1.

The Avs lost to the Stars in back to back CF's in 99 and 00. The 99 Stars were certainly the favorites but the 00 match-up was basically a coin flip.

In 2003 the Avs got bounced in round 1 by the Wild, who were in 3rd place in the NW Divsion.

In 2004, we had another coin flip match-up in round 2. The Avs get bounced by the Sharks.

But the same can be said for the Penguins.

They lost a coin flip in the 1st round against the Sens in 2007.
They lost what should've been an easy round against the Habs in 2010.
They lost another coin flip in the 1st round against the Lightning in 2011.
They lost a round where they were probably slightly favorites against the Flyers in 2012.
I don't know how to rank 2013 (I'd say, slightly favorites at worse), but they lost 4-0, so...
They lost in round 2 against the Rangers when they probably should've been favorites in 2014.
They probably predictably loss in 2015 to the Rangers, but there was issues with that Penguins edition, as you know.

 

[ImporterExporter]

But the same can be said for the Penguins.

They lost a coin flip in the 1st round against the Sens in 2007.
They lost what should've been an easy round against the Habs in 2010.
They lost another coin flip in the 1st round against the Lightning in 2011.
They lost a round where they were probably slightly favorites against the Flyers in 2012.
I don't know how to rank 2013 (I'd say, slightly favorites at worse), but they lost 4-0, so...
They lost in round 2 against the Rangers when they probably should've been favorites in 2014.
They probably predictably loss in 2015 to the Rangers, but there was issues with that Penguins edition, as you know.

Crosby was 19, Malkin 20, first playoff run in 2007. Just as I'm not going to punish McDavid for not having a great postseason this past season in his first go around, it would be foolish to use that year as a way to diminish Pittsburgh exiting against a superior Ottawa team.

2011 Crosby didn't play. Neither did Malkin. Both out entire series.

 

[Michael Farkas]

- We got worked by Ottawa in 2007. It was a team of teenagers against a team that should have competed...it was Crosby/Fleury vs. all. Series wasn't close.
- Pens blew it after back to back runs to the Final, yes. Halak stole the series.
- No Crosby/Malkin. Still no excuse for blowing a 3-1 series lead. But they weren't going anywhere without at least one of them.
- Worst series in the history of hockey. Maybe the only example of what the game would look like without coaching. Horrendous.
- Out-coached in the ECF by Boston. Bylsma continued "island hockey" against a layered defense. Two goals in the series...haha, garbage. Pens were absolutely stacked. Shouldn't have scored twice in a series. That's absurd.
- 2014 tried a defensive style of play...bleh series...I think we blew a 3-1 there too? If that was game where the Rangers scored twice in the overtime in Pittsburgh, then I believe we did blow a 3-1 lead...I was there for game 1...
- 2015 defensive style of coach, every game was tight, but our offense was neutered as we tried to re-learn the fundamentals of hockey that were lost under Bylsma. It was that re-learning of fundamentals that paved the way for Sullivan to have success...

I'm not making hay with the post, just providing some insight as to what happened from someone who hasn't missed a Pens playoff game in 20 years...

 

[ImporterExporter]

- We got worked by Ottawa in 2007. It was a team of teenagers against a team that should have competed...it was Crosby/Fleury vs. all. Series wasn't close.
- Pens blew it after back to back runs to the Final, yes. Halak stole the series.
- No Crosby/Malkin. Still no excuse for blowing a 3-1 series lead. But they weren't going anywhere without at least one of them.
- Worst series in the history of hockey. Maybe the only example of what the game would look like without coaching. Horrendous.
- Out-coached in the ECF by Boston. Bylsma continued "island hockey" against a layered defense. Two goals in the series...haha, garbage. Pens were absolutely stacked. Shouldn't have scored twice in a series. That's absurd.
- 2014 tried a defensive style of play...bleh series...I think we blew a 3-1 there too? If that was game where the Rangers scored twice in the overtime in Pittsburgh, then I believe we did blow a 3-1 lead...I was there for game 1...
- 2015 defensive style of coach, every game was tight, but our offense was neutered as we tried to re-learn the fundamentals of hockey that were lost under Bylsma. It was that re-learning of fundamentals that paved the way for Sullivan to have success...

I'm not making hay with the post, just providing some insight as to what happened from someone who hasn't missed a Pens playoff game in 20 years...

Glad somebody else brought up more details about 2010 to 2015 (figured i'd get worked over for being to biased haha). Coaching. Absolutely horrendous (Bylsma and Johnston). Christ did they blow.

 

[MXD]

- Pens blew it after back to back runs to the Final, yes. Halak stole the series.

No.
Halak was actually very good, don't get me wrong, but...

That's an awfully low bar for "stealing a round". He DID steal the round against the Capitals. He didn't steal it against the Penguins. In fact, I wouldn't even consider Halak the best Canadiens player in that round (that would be Mike Cammalleri).

 

[Michael Farkas]

I give Mr. Peanut (Johnston) some credit, because someone had to fall on the sword for Bylsma's sins...I don't want to get into too much inside baseball right here, but I'm privy to some information about the state of the team/locker room at that time...it really came pretty unglued in that time and it manifested itself in just crazy games/series including back-to-back (2012 ECQF vs. Philadelphia, 2013 ECQF vs. Islanders). Johnston - an offensive creator by trade - came in and addressed how stupid we play. Equivalent to when a bantam team is coached by someone's dad...players just went out and played and despite the roster, the team stunk out loud...

 

[Michael Farkas]

No.
Halak was actually very good, don't get me wrong, but...

That's an awfully low bar for "stealing a round". He DID steal the round against the Capitals. He didn't steal it against the Penguins. In fact, I wouldn't even consider Halak the best Canadiens player in that round (that would be Mike Cammalleri).

Fair. I'll concede the point in exchange for not having to re-live game 7 in my head again...

 

[MXD]

Fair. I'll concede the point in exchange for not having to re-live game 7 in my head again...

Sergei Gonchar was very fun to watch as a Hab fan.

(I'm also not disputing that Halak completely outplayed MAF for the whole round, because that's obvious)

 

[ImporterExporter]

I give Mr. Peanut (Johnston) some credit, because someone had to fall on the sword for Bylsma's sins...I don't want to get into too much inside baseball right here, but I'm privy to some information about the state of the team/locker room at that time...it really came pretty unglued in that time and it manifested itself in just crazy games/series including back-to-back (2012 ECQF vs. Philadelphia, 2013 ECQF vs. Islanders). Johnston - an offensive creator by trade - came in and addressed how stupid we play. Equivalent to when a bantam team is coached by someone's dad...players just went out and played and despite the roster, the team stunk out loud...

Bylsma and Shero ruined the team. Johnston came into a pretty tough spot, I'll give him that but he tried to put a square peg into a round hole. Obviously the ship has been righted but isn't it funny that it took another GM and 2 more coaches to find the "perfect" fit.

The problem with Bylsma is he rode lighting in a bottle in 09 and then never once tried to adapt to the league or roster he was coaching. He had a grinders mentality as a coach, no matter what the scenario or opponent, because that's what he was as a player (you see this A LOT in hockey actually). And a grinders mentality with a team like Pittsburgh is beyond idiotic. Players like Tanner Glass, Matt Cooke and Craig Adams (who was a BIG part of those locker room issues we've all heard about) were becoming more and more obsolete yet they were given excessive ice time then they should have gotten and no matter how bad they were, never seemed to find themselves on the pine (or off the team).

Mike Sullivan has been a revelation. The most obvious skills you see is he does't put one plan in motion and then stick his head in the sand. He adapts, shift by shift, game by game, etc. Obviously he is a great communicator/motivator and is a take charge, no nonsense guy and a team like Pittsburgh needed that. It was lacking tremendously under the previous 2 peons. He didn't do so well his first go around in Boston, got fired, played the roulette game for a while and ADJUSTED his approach to coaching. It's very rare to see that happen.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Sully's adaptation and adjustment ability (no doubt aided by Jacques Martin) are splendid...he's really been the driving force behind both of these Cups...

 

[bathdog]

Is it THE end all and be all? No. But noticing the Avs went 2-4 in Conference Finals doesn't give me all kinds of reasons to hold them in higher regard than other teams who have much better results in rounds 3 and 4. Whether we're looking at the Penguins or another team from another era.

Are we discussing teams or players?

Here is how they went in the final series of their CF+ runs whether they got knocked out or won the Cup.

96 SC
Sakic lead in series team in scoring (tied with Forsberg)
Forsberg lead in series team in scoring (tied with Sakic)

97 CF
Sakic lead in series team in scoring
Forsberg bad

99 CF
Sakic 3rd in series team in scoring
Forsberg lead in series team in scoring

00 CF
Sakic bad
Forsberg lead in series team in scoring

01 SC
Sakic lead in series team in scoring
Forsberg didn't play

02 CF
Sakic 2nd in series team in scoring
Forsberg lead in series team in scoring

TOTAL
Sakic 33PTS in 38GP, 0.87PPG.
Forsberg 26PTS in 30GP, 0.87PPG.

-----

08 SC
Crosby 2nd in series team in scoring
Malkin 3rd in series team (tied with Gonchar)

09 SC
Crosby bad
Malkin lead in series team in scoring

13 CF
Crosby bad
Malkin bad

16 SC
Crosby 2nd (3-way tied with Hagelin and Kessel)
Malkin bad

17 SC
Crosby lead in series team in scoring
Malkin bad

TOTAL
Crosby 20PTS in 29GP, 0.69PPG.
Malkin 18PTS in 29GP, 0.62PPG.

-----

Thank god for all the support the Avs duo had come crunch time! (bad = not top3 on team)

2016, was literally the epitome of a team effort. Nobody exceeded 22 points, but Crosby had a slew of huge goals and assists (especially in the Tampa series). It was also his best defensive play I've ever seen from him in the postseason (minus the Washington series). No bulk credit given.

Can you really score "a slew of huge goals" when you score the least goals of any CS winning forward in history?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

And as I correctly pointed out using the regulation win metric AND countering bathdog's GF/GA metric, the Avs didn't face a tougher road when they won both of their Cups.

In fact, it's quite easy to see that the Pens 2016 run was as tough or tougher than either of the Avs runs, whether looking at GF/GA or their ALL 4 opponents regulation win totals from the regular season. Plus none of the Pens 4 opponents in the 2016 playoffs had fewer than 42 regulation wins. Between the 96 and 2001 runs, the Avs faced FIVE (5) teams with fewer than 42 regulation wins. 3 one year and 2 the other.

Another thing,

97 Red wings = 38 wins (The Avs had 11 more wins and 13 more points, were the favored team and lost in the Conference finals)

98 Avs (first place in their division) lost to a team with a losing record (Edmonton) in round 1. Won't find a Pittsburgh debacle that bad in the Crosby era.

Other than the 1996 Red Wings (which the Avs bested and is a huge feat to be fair), what team did the Avs face in any other year that is definitively better than the President's trophy 2016-17 Washington Capitals? 53 Regulation wins and +81 in goal differential.

What about the Presidents trophy winning Caps the year before (15-16). They had 52 regulation wins and were a +59!

I find it funny people try and act like the 95-96 season was in any sort of DPE. Yeah it wasn't.

In 95-96 the most goals scored by a team was Pitt at 362. In 2015-2016 it was Dallas at 265. That's a 97 goal difference!

In fact 9 times scored more than the Dallas Stars of 2015-16. NINE. And a 10th (Montreal) scored the exact same amount.

Even in 2001, the league high was greater (295) then 2015-16 (265).

People act like the Penguins and teams from this era play ridiculously soft schedules and don't have the same difficulty scoring (actually it's been harder to score the past few years than in either years the Avs won the Cup)! It just isn't true. It's a myth.

Add that to the following:

You can find metrics that suit your argument, or you can use common sense. Nobody the Penguins faced in 2016 or 2017 was on the level of the 2001 Devils, or most of those late 90s/early 2000s Red Wings and Stars teams. I can give you the 96 Wings as being similar to the 16 or 17 Capitals as great regular season teams that choked in the playoffs, but from 97 onwards they were better than what Pittsburgh has had to deal with.

The Penguins themselves are an example of one elite team plus creampuffs being more difficult to deal with than a bunch of good teams. 2008 and 2013...Penguins had weak opponents and then played one truly great team, losing both times. 2016, played four good teams but no truly great ones, won the Cup. 2017, pretty similar story.

 

[daver]

And at some point people lose/lost sight that the real value in determining value on a players career (especially in the postseason) is how often they reach the pinnacle.

Is it THE end all and be all? No. But noticing the Avs went 2-4 in Conference Finals doesn't give me all kinds of reasons to hold them in higher regard than other teams who have much better results in rounds 3 and 4. Whether we're looking at the Penguins or another team from another era.

You certainly seem to give the impression it is the be all, end all when you cannot accept that the AVs were literally two or three goals away from multiple return trips to the Cup where they likely would have been favoured.

Not sure under what circumstances you would forgive the AVs for not advancing more.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Martin

- We got worked by Ottawa in 2007. It was a team of teenagers against a team that should have competed...it was Crosby/Fleury vs. all. Series wasn't close.
- Pens blew it after back to back runs to the Final, yes. Halak stole the series.
- No Crosby/Malkin. Still no excuse for blowing a 3-1 series lead. But they weren't going anywhere without at least one of them.
- Worst series in the history of hockey. Maybe the only example of what the game would look like without coaching. Horrendous.
- Out-coached in the ECF by Boston. Bylsma continued "island hockey" against a layered defense. Two goals in the series...haha, garbage. Pens were absolutely stacked. Shouldn't have scored twice in a series. That's absurd.
- 2014 tried a defensive style of play...bleh series...I think we blew a 3-1 there too? If that was game where the Rangers scored twice in the overtime in Pittsburgh, then I believe we did blow a 3-1 lead...I was there for game 1...
- 2015 defensive style of coach, every game was tight, but our offense was neutered as we tried to re-learn the fundamentals of hockey that were lost under Bylsma. It was that re-learning of fundamentals that paved the way for Sullivan to have success...

I'm not making hay with the post, just providing some insight as to what happened from someone who hasn't missed a Pens playoff game in 20 years...

Jacques Martin effect. 2010 masked the Canadiens defensive liabilities. 2016 and 2017, masked the penguins defensive liabilities, especially in 2017 with the loss of Letang, using Hainsey and Daley intelligently and buffering Kessell who was the Pens +/- playoff leader after being roughly 18th during the RS.