everlong
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,492
- Reaction score
- 5,878
As to the Bruins game, a couple of thoughts:
1. I have followed the Bruins for a long time. That's one of the few perks of being old. Great memories. Growing up they were awful. Think about it. They were in a 6 team league where 4 make the playoffs......and they were NEVER in the playoffs.
That's why Bobby Orr might be the most impactful player ever to come to Boston. His arrival COMPLETELY changed not only how the team played on the ice, but on how hockey itself was perceived in this city.... literally. His arrival sparked a building boom of Municipal rinks across Massachusetts and made it a hot bed of hockey talent.
Summers I worked at bars through most of the 70's. A number of which the Bruins of that era often frequented. I worked at a bar Sanderson owned and played softball with him in the bar league. Twice I had to throw Wayne Cashman out when he had too much. Now THAT was a wild group of guys who knew how to party. Even then you noticed Orr. He was quiet, never a problem, but you couldn't miss that special aura about him, and how he carried himself.
Later I got to coach Mike O'Connell, who had a great career with the Blackhawks and later as a GM for the Bruins. But when I knew him he was the QB on my JV football team who was tough enough to play LB on defense. Great kid.
2. Like football, hockey has changed a LOT since the 70's and 80's. And like football its a lot less physical. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that. Watching end to end action in a hockey game is thrilling, but I sometimes miss the contact.....even the occasional fight. I think because of the lack of fighting, which can be a form of self policing, the game's physical play become more of a cheap shot contest. There was a time where if someone "slew footed" you, he'd be in for a beating, and thus you didn't see it as much.
3. After missing that call in game 5, you might have suspected that calls in game 6 might have tipped a bit to the Bruins side. You'd have been wrong. Quite the opposite. I thought the Blues got away with a lot of things that the B's were being called for. I don't mind if the swallow the whistle, but I expect it to be called the same way for BOTH sides. That didn't happen in game six.
4. Carlo's goal once again shows how random it is sometimes to score a goal. Sometimes luck is critical to a team's success.
5. I'm not sure of the answer, but it seems to me that in this series the team who scores the first goal of the game wins it. So obviously getting the first one will be critical in game 7.
6. The Kuhlman goal was a thing of beauty. So was the Marchand goal. What an incredible angle to find a 3 inch opening.
7. What is stunning to be about Rask's goal tending is just how EASY he makes it look. His movements are so controlled and fluid. His positioning is always impeccable. He's very rarely making hurky jerky splits or a lot of hand waving. He just RADIATES calm.
8. I think the Blues are a better team than it's being reported. Preseason they were thought to be a real contender to come out of the West, but had just a HORRENDOUS start. However that being said, their tactic of just shooting the puck into the opposing team's zone and chasing it with great forechecking, his starting to get old. The B's did a much better job getting the puck out this game. After seeing how the Blues successfully attacked them for 5 games, they finally started to get it and defeat it.
9. I expect the B's to win on Wednesday, but I worry. The B's got a lucky goal that was key to their victory. What if it happens for the Blues and gives them the lead? However if the luck is evenly dispersed, the game is called fairly, then the "best" will team win. I fully expect to watch ANOTHER parade through the streets of Boston.
Agree on the refs calls. The Blues get a 50/50 on the without a doubt calls and get zero calls on anything marginal.
Games 1 and 2 the team that scored first lost.
