VanNuck Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 After watching the Bruins manhandle us to national robbery, it's easy to see how everyone would jump to the conclusion that we aren't tough enough. But I would argue that the Bruins didn't win simply because they were more physical. To prove my point, I will dig up more examples: SCF 96-97: Flyers vs. Wings The Flyers were the toughest team in the league and with Eric Lindros, they could steamroll anyone - until they ran into the Wings. The Wings didn't even try to match them physically, rather, they outsmarted them. Those same Wings, btw, divested most of their tough guys and still won in 2008. Minnesota Wild If you want to talk tough, the Wild has been the toughest team of the decade and could manhandle anyone. They had a great coach in Lemaire and some talented guys. But where is their first Cup? SCF 00-01: Avalanche vs. Devils The Devils were much tougher than the Avs and could manhandle them - and to an extent they did. But the Avs still won. There are more examples I could dig, but I will cut to the chase: the issue isn't physical toughness. It's mental toughness, being able to stick to your game and not get intimidated. You don't have to be able to beat someone up to do that - you just got to not let them get to you. The Bruins won because they were mentally tougher, stood together as a team, and didn't relent in shoving their stuff. We could have done the same - we wouldn't win manhandling them. Rather, we could have used our speed, smarts, and goaltending, but we didn't have enough guts to shove our stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigsaw99 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 AV isn't that smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Well said. Interesting fact: out of the 4 teams Boston faced, 3 of them were more "skilled" teams: Vancouver, Tampa Bay, and Montreal. All 3 teams managed to take it to Game 7, and in fact Tampa and Montreal could easily have won Game 7. The one tough team they faced (Philadelphia) was easily swept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsandlak83 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 There was definately toughness issues, but they won because we couldn't score. Our powerplay dried up, and that had nothing to do with toughness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWhom Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 There was definately toughness issues, but they won because we couldn't score. Our powerplay dried up, and that had nothing to do with toughness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I agree that teams certainly don't win with toughntess alone - it isn't that simple - but 'mental toughness' is not enough either Yes - the Wings won with a post-toughness style of hockey - ala Edmonton skill, speed and puck possession.... - the idea that Minnesota was the toughest team of the decade? They never won because they were a defense only team that could not put the puck in the net often enough - most people would not have considered them exceptionally tough. The Bruins were not only mentally tough (or united) - they also have a lot of good two way hockey players, great goaltending, and were healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understand Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 We sure need to be more physical and get more toughness in the lineup. Bitz should be our regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Well said. Interesting fact: out of the 4 teams Boston faced, 3 of them were more "skilled" teams: Vancouver, Tampa Bay, and Montreal. All 3 teams managed to take it to Game 7, and in fact Tampa and Montreal could easily have won Game 7. The one tough team they faced (Philadelphia) was easily swept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yawn.3x Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I'm pretty sure we lost the SCF because our entire team was injured to the point of going on fumes. Hank, kes, hamhuis, raymond, edler, who else? I bet even AV had a sore jaw from chewing so much gum in frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mircrowave Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 We were one minutes away from winning the whole thing for god's sakes. Why do you think we have so many problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underachieving Hero of CDC Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Biggest reason why the Bruins won is because Tim Thomas played unbelievably. Their goon style helped them, but without Thomas, it wouldn't have been enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snucks Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 AV isn't that smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blömqvist Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Most of our Pokémon were at 0HP, but that's what happens when you go through the gruelling ironman challenge of the Elite 4. Even then, though, our rival Gary was calling all the shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWhom Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yeah, maybe he should not be giggling his head off in games. It is nothing to laugh about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CupisAll Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Biggest reason why the Bruins won is because Tim Thomas played unbelievably. Their goon style helped them, but without Thomas, it wouldn't have been enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Lesnar Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 no it was in fact mental toughness. they came back from a 2-0 series deficet and won both games when they were facing elimination. if we had been down 2-0 we would have given up and lost the series in 4 straight games. we also found a way to lose the only elimination game we faced in the SCF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CupisAll Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 if we had any mental toughness that series would have been over in 4 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanNuck Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 There was definately toughness issues, but they won because we couldn't score. Our powerplay dried up, and that had nothing to do with toughness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanNuck Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 To that extent, if I were going to make trade deadline moves, I would have dealt Ballard (impossible with his injury) to Edmonton for Gagner, then dealt him and Booth to LA for Richard. Lastly I would have done a trecherous one: Kesler, Higgins, and Raymond to Calgary for Iginla and Camelleri - which would never happen, but if it could, it would have given us enough mental toughness and leadership to get back to the Finals and win. Camelleri and Richard are especially good against the Bruins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanNuck Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 I'm pretty sure we lost the SCF because our entire team was injured to the point of going on fumes. Hank, kes, hamhuis, raymond, edler, who else? I bet even AV had a sore jaw from chewing so much gum in frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.