2018-19 Stanley Cup - Bruins vs Blues

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

To say the Steelers are close to average is accurate, if we’re counting their entire history.

1933-73 - ZERO titles or even championship appearances. Over a 40-year period, this is abysmal as the Packers, Giants, Bears, Browns, Colts, Lions, Rams and Eagles all had multi championships and periods of domination. The Steelers were the doormat.

1974-present - SIX titles, which is an excellent number and tied for first with the Patriots, though other teams have five (Cowboys, Niners) and four (Giants, Packers.)

Put it together. Half your existence at the league’s bottom rung, half your existence at the league’s top rung. For math experts, that’s what we’d call an average franchise over the course of its existence.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That makes perfect sense to me. Once the NYFL decided to start playing like the AFL the league took off.

Do you consider the 60s Bills and Chargers to be football world champions deserving of a ring count along with NFL and Super Bowl champions? Not trying to be argumentative, but that’s the reasoning for not including the AFL until it’s post-merger. Otherwise, another championship appearance for the Pats would go into the formula. Official NFL record books do not recognize these championships.

 

[XLIX]

8 Championship Game appearances in 86 seasons.

I don't give a **** about championships appearances, I care about championships.

Sorry I thought this was a Patriots forum where nothing trumps a championship. Didn't realize I stumbled into the Bills forum where all they care about is appearances.

How are the Bruins not more impressive? In roughly the same amount of time, they have as many championships and way more championship appearances. Why is that a stupid conclusion to draw?

I didn't say a damn thing about the Bruins. I am responding to the people who think Pittsburgh's NFL history is "closer to average than elite."

They are tied for 4th in NFL championships, and tied for 1st in the Super Bowl era. There's a couple dozen NFL franchises that wished they were that "average".

 

[XLIX]

To say the Steelers are close to average is accurate, if we’re counting their entire history.

1933-73 - ZERO titles or even championship appearances. Over a 40-year period, this is abysmal as the Packers, Giants, Bears, Browns, Colts, Lions, Rams and Eagles all had multi championships and periods of domination. The Steelers were the doormat.

1974-present - SIX titles, which is an excellent number and tied for first with the Patriots, though other teams have five (Cowboys, Niners) and four (Giants, Packers.)

Put it together. Half your existence at the league’s bottom rung, half your existence at the league’s top rung. For math experts, that’s what we’d call an average franchise over the course of its existence.

Well for sports experts, it doesn't all merely average out the way you think it does mathematically.

What color is the sky on your world where being tied for 4th in championships is merely "average"? Since you're going back almost a century, that's 4th out of what? 40 teams?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I don't give a **** about championships appearances, I care about championships.

Sorry I thought this was a Patriots forum where nothing trumps a championship. Didn't realize I stumbled into the Bills forum where all they care about is appearances.

I didn't say a damn thing about the Bruins. I am responding to the people who think Pittsburgh's NFL history is "closer to average than elite."

They are tied for 4th in NFL championships, and tied for 1st in the Super Bowl era. There's a couple dozen NFL franchises that wished they were that "average".

6 championships in 86 years. The idea that their franchise is average - considering the amount of years they’ve had to do it - is a more valid than the idea that they are the most successful franchise in the NFL, which many their fans think.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Well for sports experts, it doesn't all merely average out the way you think it does mathematically.

What color is the sky on your world where being 4th in championships is merely "average"?

Does every team have an equal amount of attempts in this world? Or do some get to play in a small league for 35 years with the opportunity to rack up a lot of hardware?

 

[bormio]

Textbook is right.
Refused to take the bait at the one end, and took it out by absolutely leveling the first guy he could in a hit that was clean and made hockey sense.

Thomas was so glad Binnington held the puck. He really did not want to contemplate actually having to move.

 

[XLIX]

Does every team have an equal amount of attempts in this world? Or do some get to play in a small league for 35 years with the opportunity to rack up a lot of hardware?

If you're going to go back 83 years to make your point, I get to use the teams that existed over the course of those 83 years.

 

[robbomango]

They went from 40 years of being the league’s worst franchise - to a brief 6 year period of dominance - to another 25 years of zilch - to a 4 year window producing two more SBs - and now 10 more and counting of futility. Regarding that last team of 2005-08, that team/tenure has now turned themselves into unredeemable PT Bartum exhibits.

So they were a dominant team for six (steroid tainted) years, out of an 86 year history.

What an amazing franchise. Has any team ever won more than six titles in 86 years? Or is this a record?

In the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s combined, they have 2 title game appearances (no wins)

Well the Pats have truly stolen all the glory over the past two decades and the steelers have been their *****es much of that time. I just want them curb stomped in the opener, nice way to close out the decade.

I never minded the them to much, Cower was okay, had some tough players. This latest iteration with Tomlin and Ben are repulsive. Ben's antics calling players out, unapologetically throwing game sealing pics. Two bozo's they deserve each other.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

How could they not call a penalty on the shenanigans to Krug, he took out his frustration perfectly but that's a penalty. The Blues inexperience showed in game 1.

 

[Joker]

I am and have always been a HUGE Robbomango fan....hammer pounds nail every single time he posts

 

[Bruins29]

I see what Ice is saying. Its like stating that the Celtics 17 championships are more impressive than the Yankees 27 championships because the Celtics won a higher % of the championships available.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

If you're going to go back 83 years to make your point, I get to use the teams that existed over the course of those 83 years.

As for your comment about championship appearances, or top-2 finishes not mattering in your book, they are very important in record books.

1st is the best, 16/17th is average. (I didn't do 17-32 for time constraints but 16/17 is average, not worst.)

Championships Per Eligible Season
1. Packers (1929-2018) - 13 Championships in 89 seasons. (6.9)
2. Patriots (1967-2018) - 6 Championships in 51 seasons. (8.5)
3. Bears (1929-2018) - 9 Championships in 89 seasons. (9.9)
4. Giants (1929-2018) - 8 Championships in 89 seasons. (11.1)
5. Cowboys (1960-2018) - 5 Championships in 58 seasons. (11.6)
6. 49ers (1950-2018) - 5 Championships in 68 seasons. (13.6)
7. Steelers (1933-2018) - 6 Championships in 85 seasons. (14.2)
8. Colts (1953-2018) - 4 Championships in 65 seasons. (16.3)
9. Browns (1950-2018) - 4 Championships in 68 seasons. (17)
10. Broncos (1967-2018) - 3 Championships in 51 seasons. (17)
11. Raiders (1967-2018) - 3 Championships in 51 seasons. (17)
12. Redskins (1932-2018) - 5 Championships in 86 seasons. (17.2)
13. Eagles (1933-2018) - 4 Championships in 85 seasons. (21.3)
14. Lions (1930-2018) - 4 Championships in 88 seasons. (22)
15. Dolphins (1967-2018) - 2 Championships in 51 seasons. (25.5)
16. Rams (1936-2018) - 3 Championships in 82 seasons. (27.3)

Top-2 Finishes Per Eligible Season
1. Giants (1929-2018) - 22 Top-2s in 89 seasons. (4.0)
2. Patriots (1967-2018) - 11 Top-2s in 51 seasons. (4.6)
3. Bears (1929-2018) - 19 Top-2s in 89 seasons. (4.7)
4. Packers (1929-2018) - 18 Top-2s in 89 seasons. (4.9)
5. Broncos (1967-2018) - 8 Top-2s in 51 seasons. (6.4)
6. Cowboys (1960-2018) - 8 Top-2s in 58 seasons. (7.3)
7. Browns (1950-2018) - 9 Top-2s in 68 seasons. (7.6)
8. Redskins (1932-2018) - 11 Top-2s in 86 seasons. (7.8)
9. Colts (1953-2018) - 7 Top-2s in 65 seasons. (9.3)
10. Raiders (1967-2018) - 5 Top-2s in 51 seasons. (10.2
11. Dolphins (1967-2018) - 5 Top-2s in 51 seasons. (10.2
12. Steelers (1933-2018) - 8 Top-2s in 85 seasons. (10.6)
13. 49ers (1950-2018) - 6 Top-2s in 68 seasons. (11.3)
14. Eagles (1933-2018) - 7 Top-2s in 85 seasons. (12.1)
15. Rams (1936-2018) - 6 Top-2s in 82 seasons. (13.7)
16. Lions (1930-2018) - 6 Top-2s in 88 seasons. (14.7)


1st is the best, 4th/5th is average, 8th is worst.

Legacy Teams (Pre-1940) Championships Per Eligible Season
1. Packers (1929-2018) - 13 Championships in 89 seasons. (6.9)
2. Bears (1929-2018) - 9 Championships in 89 seasons. (9.9)
3. Giants (1929-2018) - 8 Championships in 89 seasons. (11.1)
4. Steelers (1933-2018) - 6 Championships in 85 seasons. (14.2)
5. Redskins (1932-2018) - 5 Championships in 86 seasons. (17.2)
6. Eagles (1933-2018) - 4 Championships in 85 seasons. (21.3)
7. Lions (1930-2018) - 4 Championships in 88 seasons. (22)
8. Rams (1936-2018) - 3 Championships in 82 seasons. (27.3)

Legacy Teams (Pre-1940) Top-2 Finishes Per Eligible Season
1. Giants (1929-2018) - 22 Top-2s in 89 seasons. (4.0)
2. Bears (1929-2018) - 19 Top-2s in 89 seasons. (4.7)
3. Packers (1929-2018) - 18 Top-2s in 89 seasons. (4.9)
4. Redskins (1932-2018) - 11 Top-2s in 86 seasons. (7.8)
5. Steelers (1933-2018) - 8 Top-2s in 85 seasons. (10.6)
6. Eagles (1933-2018) - 7 Top-2s in 85 seasons. (12.1)
7. Rams (1936-2018) - 6 Top-2s in 82 seasons. (13.7)
8. Lions (1930-2018) - 6 Top-2s in 88 seasons. (14.7)

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I see what Ice is saying. Its like stating that the Celtics 17 championships are more impressive than the Yankees 27 championships because the Celtics won a higher % of the championships available.

Yes, this is a way of looking at it, though honestly I'd never go there because both these teams are actual dynasties who dominated their sports without question and have the hardware to show for it. If you look at the history of the Yankees, this is a freaking monster dynasty; same with the Canadiens; same with the Celtics, though the Lakers are very close. These teams are powerhouses. The Steelers are not even in that category. They don't even have half as many titles or appearances as the Packers.

Yankees - 27 titles (40 appearances)
Canadiens - 24 titles (34 appearances)
Celtics - 17 titles (21 appearances); Lakers 16 titles (31 appearances) - NBA much younger league
Packers - 13 titles (18 appearances)

The Steelers with their 6 titles (8 appearances), are just another team over the course of sports history. They've played in 8 title games in 85 years? Lol. This team's fanbase thinks they are dynastic somehow. In reality, this franchise is 3-4 tiers below an actual dynasty. Their rather comical and desperate claim to greatness: they are within the pack of numerous teams with roughly 4-6 SB wins or 8-10 appearances since 1967, which also includes the Patriots, 49ers, Cowboys, Packers, Giants, and Broncos, without much separation from teams like the Raiders and Redskins. Even the post-67 run is clustered in a watered down greatness whereby a bunch of other teams are right next to them. This would be like saying the Spurs, Bulls, or Warriors should mentioned alongside the Celtics and Lakers as the NBAs most preeminent franchises. It's a joke.

Let's look again at how many championship games the Steelers have played in, as these are the typically the most significant for a franchise, with a championship series putting them on the map for American top-4 sports cultural significance. Their success would be in a different (similar) chart, but I'm listing top-2 finishes here because that's what we think of when we think of significant teams.

Yankees - 40
Canadiens - 34
Lakers - 31
Red Wings - 24
NY Giants - 22
Celtics - 21
Maple Leafs - 21
Bruins - 20
SF Giants - 20
LA Dodgers - 20
Bears - 19
StL Cardinals - 19
Packers - 18
Cubs - 17
Athletics - 14
Red Sox - 13
Blackhawks - 13
Patriots - 11
Redskins - 11
NY Rangers - 11
Tigers - 11
Warriors - 10
Reds - 9
Braves - 9
76ers - 9
Knicks - 8
Browns - 9
Flyers - 8
Cowboys - 8
Broncos - 8
Steelers - 8

THE STEELERS ARE ROUGHLY AN AVERAGE BIG 4 AMERICAN SPORTS FRANCHISE, CONSIDERING THEY STARTED IN 1933. THEIR IMPACT ON THE NATIONAL SPORTS LANDSCAPE IS SO SPARSE AND OVERRATED BY THEIR DELUSIONAL FANS. THEY ARE NOWHERE NEAR A FREAKIN' DYNASTIC TEAM.

 

[IllegalContact]

IMO, he launched into Thomas. He did leave his feet a fraction before he made contact.

you don't know what you are talking about

 

[IllegalContact]

I haven't been "slapped" by anyone, and you continuing to clown yourself doesn't change that. Cassidy even had to pull the Bergeron line off of the Blues top line, because they were getting drubbed. But you keep being you. I'll just ignore you from now on, since you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

another one who doesn't know what he's looking at

 

[Dorito Dink]

I haven't been "slapped" by anyone, and you continuing to clown yourself doesn't change that. Cassidy even had to pull the Bergeron line off of the Blues top line, because they were getting drubbed. But you keep being you. I'll just ignore you from now on, since you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Yes, Deus, Cassidy trying to expose the Blues depth by putting his best players against a weaker line to get some scoring is a great example of how the Bruins sucked on Monday. That statement right there is in a nutshell how little you know about the game yet you're still the loudest one in the room.

Here's a cheat sheet for ya: Home team has the last change. Being at home enables Cassidy to be strategic with matchups whether that be putting the scrappy/defense-first 4th line on the Tarasenko line or putting the Bergy line against their weak/slower 3rd line. Happens every single game.

Lastly, LOL at your "getting drubbed" assessment of the Bergy line. What a moron

 

[maust]

Yes, Deus, Cassidy trying to expose the Blues depth by putting his best players against a weaker line to get some scoring is a great example of how the Bruins sucked on Monday. That statement right there is in a nutshell how little you know about the game yet you're still the loudest one in the room.

Here's a cheat sheet for ya: Home team has the last change. Being at home enables Cassidy to be strategic with matchups whether that be putting the scrappy/defense-first 4th line on the Tarasenko line or putting the Bergy line against their weak/slower 3rd line. Happens every single game.

Lastly, LOL at your "getting drubbed" assessment of the Bergy line. What a moron

Before you get too big of a head for getting placed on the Deus ignore list all it really means is you're one of the 67,596 people here who has called out his woeful ignorance and bested him. Welcome to the club. We don't have meetings or a special handshake but there is an annoying clown car that may bounce off your ankles from time to time, so there's that.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yes, Deus, Cassidy trying to expose the Blues depth by putting his best players against a weaker line to get some scoring is a great example of how the Bruins sucked on Monday. That statement right there is in a nutshell how little you know about the game yet you're still the loudest one in the room.

Here's a cheat sheet for ya: Home team has the last change. Being at home enables Cassidy to be strategic with matchups whether that be putting the scrappy/defense-first 4th line on the Tarasenko line or putting the Bergy line against their weak/slower 3rd line. Happens every single game.

Lastly, LOL at your "getting drubbed" assessment of the Bergy line. What a moron

Before you get too big of a head for getting placed on the Deus ignore list all it really means is you're one of the 67,596 people here who has called out his woeful ignorance and bested him. Welcome to the club. We don't have meetings or a special handshake but there is an annoying clown car that may bounce off your ankles from time to time, so there's that.

I'm on Deus' ignore list too and my experience on this board improved by a factor of 8.

 

[RobertWeathers]

How could they not call a penalty on the shenanigans to Krug, he took out his frustration perfectly but that's a penalty. The Blues inexperience showed in game 1.

No and who cares if he was frustrated? You can't get 2 minutes for frustration.

Lets argue whether he intended to play the puck or not. It was essentially on Thomas' stick when Krug flattened him so no.

Lets argue if he was charging. He came in fast but was gliding to deliver the hit. No charging.

Lets argue if he was guilty of launching. He didn't leave his feet until after making contact. No launching.

It was a clean, devastating hit.

Case closed. On to Game 2.