Reasons for Downfall
- Thread starter Blowfish
- Start date
DKH
Worst Poster/Awful Takes
- Feb 27, 2002
- 76,671
- 57,728
It's really simple
They had a great run coupled with 3-4 years of poor drafts
As the salaries rose the cost effective prospects weren't there to supplement
They needed to rebuild a bit
BUT
Egos and #1 they wanted to charge higher ticket costs wouldn't allow them to say the truth
Oh and there's l'affaire Tea-Lair Say-gun
They attempted to restool/restock while going to the other end of the spectrum and bringing in pricey vets
You can't have it both ways unless you are sitting on a beach at the end of Trading Places
They had a great run coupled with 3-4 years of poor drafts
As the salaries rose the cost effective prospects weren't there to supplement
They needed to rebuild a bit
BUT
Egos and #1 they wanted to charge higher ticket costs wouldn't allow them to say the truth
Oh and there's l'affaire Tea-Lair Say-gun
They attempted to restool/restock while going to the other end of the spectrum and bringing in pricey vets
You can't have it both ways unless you are sitting on a beach at the end of Trading Places
AlpineLager
Registered User
Number8
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2007
- 18,840
- 19,271
This one really pisses me off and, in the end, will be the biggest reason for failure should we fall short.
Through Feb 10 (before Dobby went on his little run), our backups were a staggering 1 Win / 12 Losses. A whopping 3 out of 24 possible points.
Now Rask is not playing well and is apparently hurt. Guess we have to run with Dobby and hope he can pull miracles out of his ass.
Not a single team in the entire East who's backups have let them down so badly........ and our management did nothing. Can't fix bad drafting history, bad trades, and slow development overnight. But if you're telling me you can't immediately come up with a backup solution that projects to more than 66 points over a full season I call bull ****.
Blowfish
Count down ...
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
This.
Same thing simplified every year:
Marchand - Bergeron - Pastrnak
XXX - Krejci - Backes(Eriksson)
Krug - XXX
Chara - Carlo (Seidenberg)
Those XXX's are the missing secondary scoring making Krejci a threat as well as a legitimate top pairing RHD to reduce the Chara - Carlo minutes to 2nd line where they belong.
No one on the roster has been able for years now to replace those holes and management has been unwilling to do so as well.
Teams can put all efforts into neutralizing the top line while exposing the fatigue of Chara and his partner.
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
Paddington
Registered User
In 1 word, the problem is depth. From there, you can run down the list of problems that stem from a lack of depth.
The Blueline - The D isn't good enough/deep enough to hold other teams at bay. Chara was one of the best D-men of his generation. His mere presence changed the way teams would approach the Bruins' zone. You can make the argument that he impacted a game more than any player in the league, in his prime. At this point, Chara is probably a #2 guy. After him, you have a bunch of guys slotting in at least one spot above where they should be. The lack of depth can be masked for stretches of a game or season but mistakes and poor positioning will get exposed by good teams.
Forwards - This is a 1-line team right now. The second line shows flashes but isn't anywhere near as consistent as they need to be. I don't thinkI need to go into the bottom 6. I just hope they don't screw up too badly.
Goaltending - There are 2 clearly defined groups on this forum. The 'Rask Sucks' group vs the 'Rask gets hung out to dry' group. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Given a good team in front of him, Rask is great. Hear me out before you say "duh, no kidding". Having a good D/forward group drops Rask's workload tremendously. I watch the guy make great saves and give up a stinker or two in the same game. I think he's both mentally and physically fatigued. If he can have a good team in front of him, he'll get back to superstar goaltender status. He still has it in him to be the guy who allowed 2 goals in a series vs the Pens. I know some people will come back with, "Carey Price doesn't have a good team but he's still great". Well, ok, he's Carey Price. He's the best goalie in the league. That's like comparing Player X to Sidney Crosby. How many goalies in the league are doing Price-like things with mediocre teams?
The 09-14 Bruins were a machine who could roll 4 lines and 3 D pairs. After Savvy went down, they didn't have guys that you would consider top scoring threats (which may have cost them a series or two....Washington) but they were able to grind teams down over and over. Not just physically, but with scoring opportunities and well as stifling team D. These guys just don't have the horses. The thing that makes it so shocking is that it happened so fast. They went from President's trophy to DNQ. Now, you can blame the lack of depth on scouts, GM, coaching, or whoever you want. From an on-ice standpoin, they don't have enough good players.
The Blueline - The D isn't good enough/deep enough to hold other teams at bay. Chara was one of the best D-men of his generation. His mere presence changed the way teams would approach the Bruins' zone. You can make the argument that he impacted a game more than any player in the league, in his prime. At this point, Chara is probably a #2 guy. After him, you have a bunch of guys slotting in at least one spot above where they should be. The lack of depth can be masked for stretches of a game or season but mistakes and poor positioning will get exposed by good teams.
Forwards - This is a 1-line team right now. The second line shows flashes but isn't anywhere near as consistent as they need to be. I don't thinkI need to go into the bottom 6. I just hope they don't screw up too badly.
Goaltending - There are 2 clearly defined groups on this forum. The 'Rask Sucks' group vs the 'Rask gets hung out to dry' group. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Given a good team in front of him, Rask is great. Hear me out before you say "duh, no kidding". Having a good D/forward group drops Rask's workload tremendously. I watch the guy make great saves and give up a stinker or two in the same game. I think he's both mentally and physically fatigued. If he can have a good team in front of him, he'll get back to superstar goaltender status. He still has it in him to be the guy who allowed 2 goals in a series vs the Pens. I know some people will come back with, "Carey Price doesn't have a good team but he's still great". Well, ok, he's Carey Price. He's the best goalie in the league. That's like comparing Player X to Sidney Crosby. How many goalies in the league are doing Price-like things with mediocre teams?
The 09-14 Bruins were a machine who could roll 4 lines and 3 D pairs. After Savvy went down, they didn't have guys that you would consider top scoring threats (which may have cost them a series or two....Washington) but they were able to grind teams down over and over. Not just physically, but with scoring opportunities and well as stifling team D. These guys just don't have the horses. The thing that makes it so shocking is that it happened so fast. They went from President's trophy to DNQ. Now, you can blame the lack of depth on scouts, GM, coaching, or whoever you want. From an on-ice standpoin, they don't have enough good players.
This could be part of the equation. 
Pre Nashville
21-9-3 / 1.97 GAA / .926 SV%
Post Nashville
12-12-1 / 2.98 GAA / .886 SV%
Pre Nashville
21-9-3 / 1.97 GAA / .926 SV%
Post Nashville
12-12-1 / 2.98 GAA / .886 SV%
22Brad Park
Registered User
Bmessy
Registered User
They rebuilt on the fly sacrificing NHL roster depth for 3 seasons. Luckily the future looks ok.
BruinsNeedaRussian
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 7,412
- 21
Terrible asset management and drafting.
Sure you can pinpoint plenty of minor decisions that cost a few games, but to take the stacked roster full of young talent we saw from 2009-2013 and turn it into the current Bruins shows a tremendous failure. Takes more than a few poor decisions to drop off in talent that much without an aging team.
Sure you can pinpoint plenty of minor decisions that cost a few games, but to take the stacked roster full of young talent we saw from 2009-2013 and turn it into the current Bruins shows a tremendous failure. Takes more than a few poor decisions to drop off in talent that much without an aging team.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Absurdity
light switch connoisseur
- Jul 6, 2012
- 11,404
- 8,040
1. The core of this team apart from Marchand and Bergeron.
2. Every forward, not named Marchand and Bergeron, does not care and does not give 100% with the playoffs on the line which allows less-talented teams, that give 100%, to outwork the Bruins (problem all season).
2. Every forward, not named Marchand and Bergeron, does not care and does not give 100% with the playoffs on the line which allows less-talented teams, that give 100%, to outwork the Bruins (problem all season).
