Mentioning Iafrate here only hurts your case. Not only was he bad defensively before he hurt his knee...... Twice in the season with Washington, he blew out his knee and they traded him quickly. In the final Bruins regular season game, he blew out his knee against Hartford. We all know what happened then. He had 4 points in 13 playoff games he probably should not have been playing, had offseason surgery to repair his knee and did not play Hockey again until the 96-97 season, shortly before he realized he was done.
If you're implying Iafrate was a non-factor, you're wrong. Flat out wrong.
"blew out his knee against Hartford".....Hyperbole at its best. He didnt blow out his knee in the Hartford game. He blew it out years earlier. He re-injured it either late in the 1994 season or in the playoffs. He played through the pain.
He scored a goal in the 3rd period in the Hartford game. Also here's this from Game 1 against the Habs:
Those present went wild when they saw Bourque. But it was Al Iafrate who turned in the physically dominating performance of the night. Iafrate, acquired at the trade deadline from Washington for Joe Juneau, was selected No. 1 star.
``In crucial times, Al rises up,'' Sutter said. ``He and Eric Lindros are probably the two biggest and strongest men in the league. And when you make them a little bit ornery, they're a little bit bigger and a little bit stronger.''
Sutter evidently had some choice words to motivate Iafrate.
``He knows what to say to make me realize what I have to do,'' said Iafrate, who is 6 foot 3, 220 pounds. ``If I'm not skating and hitting, I won't be a factor. I just can't repeat exactly what he said.''
Iafrate played in some pivotal moments when Bourque, who hadn't played in a month and was on the ice for both Montreal goals, came off.
http://articles.courant.com/1994-04-17/sports/9404170418_1_bruins-boston-garden-al-iafrate
Iafrate also played well in the first two wins over the Devils. He scored a tying goal in the 3rd period of game two. In the entire postseason, he was second on the Bruins in shots (49).
Iafrate made one glaring mistake in the Devils series -- his failed clearing attempt in Game 6 that was picked off and ended up in the deciding goal. In the four straight losses to the Devils (where Terreri won three of them, not Brodeur), Iafrate was literally better than Bourque defensively. Forget the plus minus.
One (of several possible) examples: In the 2-0 loss, Bourque was caught up ice in the last minute of the 2nd and Bobby Carpenter wired a laser off a 2-on-1 pass from either Miller or Lemieux. Iafrate, who was not Bourque's regular partner was the lone guy back on the 2-on-1. That was a critical goal in a 1-0 game in Game 5. Bourque was on the ice also for Millen one-time goal from the slot off a behind-the-net pass from Carpenter. Bourque blew his coverage and let a guy half his size get positioning in the slot and slam dunk the opening goal early in the 2nd.
Two crushing goals in a pivotal game 5 of a 2-2 series. Bourque not only on the ice for both of them, but directly responsible for the goals.
The only way you can "debunk that" is to show video proof showing otherwise. (here's a hint: it wont)
In the last four games of the Devils series, an alleged one-legged Iafrate was 1-0-1 (PPG) and a -3 while Bourque was 1-1-2 (PPG) and a -7. They were not a pairing.
Wesley was a different case. He was a good player on their blueline, although more offensively than defensively. Their forward depth was still in the toilet. Not only because Neely was unable to play, but because their secondary scoring was just a tier below other teams of the time. With all-due respect to a 22 year old Smolinsky and 21 year old Murray, and an inept Donato, the other teams of the time who were winning had better two way players and better experienced depth and goaltending AND defense. Oates was the only real scoring forward on that team.
Key word -- other teams were better defensively. That's because Bourque was not at his best. had Bourque been at his best, the Bruins would have gone further. The Devils scored 16 goals in the last four games of the Devils series -- Bourque was on the ice for most of them.
??
Game 1: Bourque 2 points and -2, Boston wins 3-2
Game 2: Bourque 1 point and -1, Montreal wins 3-2
Game 3: Bourque 0 points and +1, Boston wins 6-3
Game 4: Bourque 0 points and +1, Montreal wins 5-2
Game 5: Bourque 0 points and +1, Montreal wins 2-1
Game 6: Bourque 2 points and +/-0, Boston wins 3-2
Game 7: Bourque 1 point and +2, Boston win 5-3
Bourque played every game against Montreal and was a key player in the win even though he could barely skate because of the knee injury.
That's 1994. I was talking about the 1992 ADF. The Bruins won the final two games in Boston without Bourque. I thought the mention of how well the Bruins played in the Jagr game would make you realize that. Guess not.
Jersey of course, was smashing his injured knee he could barely skate on anyways every chance they got. Jersey with Hall of fame one of the top goaltenders ever to play Martin Brodeur was not exactly a bad team. Far Better coaching with less star power. They had the Rangers on the ropes too, but the Rangers had waaaaaaaay better depth and star power.
"Debunked". LOL
Terreri started in three of the four wins -- all in Boston
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/t/terrech01/gamelog/1994/
Now I have to question whether you even watched the series at any point. It was a huge controversy at the time because Lemaire went back to Brodeur in Game 5 where Marty pitched a 2-0 shutout, and then went right back to Terreri in Game 6. Terreri played all all three games in Boston.
You're not going to swin you're way out of that one. The Bruins took a 2-0 lead against Brodeur and forced the switch to Terreri. Home ice, back-up goalie.
As for Bourque's knee getting "smashed", how did Iafrate and his "blown out" knee manage to have a better defensive series? You just said Jersey was very deep with Hall of Famers, so it would be impossible for Bourque to be the only guy on the ice when these "knee-smashing Hall of Famers" went out to cripple and maim.
Just looking at 1993-94 when he missed the rest of the regular season after seriously injuring his knee, including the game he injured it in.
6 wins, 6 losses, 1 tie.
Why would you not include the game he was hurt in? He played the whole game and had 3 assists and was a -3. He wasnt hurt on the opening shift. The NHL recorded it as a game played, as will I:
The Bruins went 6-4-2 without Bourque in 1994. They went 5-1 without him in 1993. That's 11-5-2 in the 18 games he most certainly did not play in, in seasons where the Bruins finished with 51/109 (2nd overall) and 42/97 (T-6th overall).
While it's easy to say that the teams who beat the Bruins in the postseason were "deeper" or the cliche "they were the better team", the truth is that in both 1993 and 1994 (and several other postseasons as well), the Bruins were favored and on paper had "the better team". Bourque underperformed in both postseasons, specifically defensively, as proven, stated, documented above.
And? The reds wings went to the conference Finals with Yzerman out and Probert leading the team in scoring. Sometimes it happens.
The incarnation of the Habs they beat with Bourque sitting a few games after helping them to a comfortable 2-0 lead in the series were not a very good team.
The 1992 Habs underachieved. Doesnt mean they werent good. They won their division and had the best goalie and the best overall defense. They had the 5th best record in the NHL.
You can argue all day against the shortcomings of the 1992 Canadiens. It wont work. The Bruins beating the Habs without Bourque and completing only the second ever sweep in the Habs history was a huge accomplishment and it proves that the Bruins were deep enough to sustain the loss of their best player.
We already pointed out that he could not even grip his stick because of the cast that series, but you chose to ignore it.
Again, complete distortion of the truth.
Having a couple of Selke caliber defensive forwards, and two star forwards is not the same as having 3 solid two way lines with Selke caliber centers down the middle and star and superstar winger, not to mention far better defensive partners. You can mention an Iafrate who could barely skate and had to retire as if he is Rafalski, Coffey or Larry Murphy, but it is a complete distortion. You can mention a middling top 4 defenseman like Wesley and it is still a distortion.
And Boston in Bourque's Norris seasons either had forward depth with little star power, Or a solid Oates line with lacking depth on every other line. And outside of the Moog years, very questionable goaltending. Not to mention, the coaching, which is night and day different
.
How is it a distortion of truth. It's fact. You just dont like the truth. You're the one that brought in the voting results of teammates, and then when presented with similar data against Bourque, you claim the truth was "distorted".
1) You included Bourque's 3-assist game as a game he didnt play in because they lost the game, and you omitted the Calgary tie game.
2) You used both Hasek and Brodeur to beef up your weak attempts to justify two terrible series losses in which Bourque was terrible, even though the Sabres built a 3-0 series lead with a terrible Fuhr, and the Devils went down 0-2 with Brodeur, forcing Lemaire to pull him.
3) You claimed Iafrate was hobbled in the postseason and it impacted his play, much like Bourque in an attempt to show Bourque had no support, but it was proven with examples that Iafrate outperformed Bourque defensively and was the better, more reliable d-man in the Devils series.
