Maybe it's all just random mathematical chance in the end and nothing really matters in terms of effort, grit, toughness, skill, etc. Like it's either just your year or it's not. You can take steps to put yourself in best position to win and maximize those chances, but even then you're still dependent on bad breaks, officiating, injuries, individual streakiness/fatigue, etc. We all know even the best team in the league only wins something like 40% of cups in the fabled President's Trophy "curse" (highly overstated by people who don't understand probs and stats).
I'm not a big believer in personifying organizations. Like, organizational cultures do exist, but they're set and carried out by individual people. The team doesn't have agency, doesn't make decisions, doesn't take actions. Only people do. So the idea that there's some kind of Bruins characteristic that has spanned 1973-2023 when they've gone through hundreds of players, 20 coaches, 4 GMs, a handful of presidents doesn't stand to reason for me. It's complete turnover. And if Bergeron retires there won't even be a single link back to the 2010 Flyers series beyond Neely being in the front office. How can there be a persistent lack of winning edge when it's fundamentally not even the same team it was 5 years ago. Is there some kind of curse every set of Bruins rookies inherit, are they instructed by Jeremy Jacobs to not have the killer instinct? Or is it all just luck?
If Daugavins hits an open net and that Bruins' core is a dynasty. On the other hand, if Nathan Horton's shot in game 7 gets blocked by Jeff Halpern and the Habs take it up ice and score, Thomas, Julien, and Bergeron go down in history as chronic losers and chokers with no cups.
You just win some and lose some, and probability generally has you losing more than you win, which is exactly what the Bruins have given us. Things like Tampa, Pittsburgh, and Chicago winning multiple cups are the anomalies. We couch it behind platitudes like the other team just wanted it more or tried harder, but by playoff time the talent and coaching spread between teams is usually so thin that you get into the margin of error where it goes down to the bounces. Was Tkachuk really "trying harder" and "wanted it more" than Marchand or is it just that Brad just barely missed on that breakaway because you probably only score on about 33% of your breakaways and this was one of the other 2/3?
