11/05/24
May 14, 2010
Too many men, too few goals sinks Bruins (The Sequel): The Philadelphia Flyers overcame a couple of 3-0 deficits to finish off the Boston Bruins. For the Bruins, the season will be remembered for the colossal collapse. They're only the third team in NHL history to lose a series after winning the first three games.
The only other teams to win a series after trailing 3-0 were the 1942 Toronto Maple Leafs, who beat Detroit, and the 1975 New York Islanders, who eliminated Pittsburgh. The other 159 teams that won the first three games in a series all won them.
posted by tommytrump to hockey at 10:17 PM - 17 comments
A meaty, autumn-of-the-career moment of renewed raison d'etre for Shaughnessy, who will be writing about this series from now till judgment day.
No one covers "colossal collapses" with more vigor and relish than Doctor Dan.
posted by beaverboard at 11:16 PM on May 14, 2010
I went to see Ironman 2. What'd I miss?
Nothing historic, right?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:44 PM on May 14, 2010
I have to admit I was a doubting Thomas especially after going down 3-0 before the game was 15 minutes old. Coming back from a 3 goal deficit would take true grit luckily Philly was chock full of that tonight.
posted by HATER 187 at 11:59 PM on May 14, 2010
So now a Boston team has blown a 3-0 series lead in the playoffs. This fact comforts me, even though I don't care for the Flyers.
posted by dyams at 08:29 AM on May 15, 2010
I normally despise Philly teams, but I'm really happy for Coach Lavi and Mike Leighton.
I finally tuned in to the game when it was still tied and was amazed to find out that Boston had originally gone up 3-0. This is a great "never say die" outfit that is playing in Philadelphia this year. It reminds me a bit of Lavi's 2006 Hurricanes squad that never gave up on a game, no matter how many goals they were down.
Here's hoping for a great series between #8 Montreal and #7 Philly. Whoah! Has a #7 team ever been the home ice team in the playoffs in *any* best of seven playoff series before? In any sport?
posted by NoMich at 08:40 AM on May 15, 2010
No one covers "colossal collapses" with more vigor and relish than Doctor Dan.
Best of luck to him. With the exception of the fanatics who schedule their lives around Bruin appearances at the mall and young kids, I can't imagine anyone heartbroken today. I'm sure people are, but I just can't see it. If you've invested your heart in the Bruins in the past . . . 10 years (it's really since Adam Oates left, but I cared past then plus I don't want to know just how long ago that was), you've got only yourself to blame. For me they were playing with house money when they got to the second round.
The manner in which they lost stung like hell, but it only lasted from Philly's 4th goal* until time ran out. By then I'd come to grips with Lucy pulling the football out from in front of me again. I used to live & die with the Bruins until I wised up around the time they traded Joe Thorton; they sucked me back in to a certain extent in the past two years in spite of Bill Simmons' correct exhortations to give them up until the Jacobs family sells, but this regular season was enough to put me off them again. I tuned back in at the end of the year for no good reason and once they made the playoffs of course I was going to watch. But meh. In no way does it take away from the Sox in 2004 and it isn't even going to ruin my weekend. It's like a team you root for in the NL if you're an AL fan. If they win, great. If they don't, see what else is on TV.
* And how about the symmetry in that? Down 3-0 in the series, down 3-0 in the game, came back to win 4-3. Even as a Bruins "fan" I was amazed.
posted by yerfatma at 09:37 AM on May 15, 2010
Has a #7 team ever been the home ice team in the playoffs in *any* best of seven playoff series before? In any sport?
In the NHL, #6 hosted #8 back in 2006 (Anaheim vs Edmonton).
I can't see any other case in the NHL since they went to 8 or 16 teams in the playoffs.
posted by grum@work at 10:44 AM on May 15, 2010
10 years (it's really since Adam Oates left, but I cared past then plus I don't want to know just how long ago that was)
Yes you do!
March 1, 1997: [Adam Oates t]raded to Washington by Boston with Bill Ranford and Rick Tocchet for Jim Carey, Anson Carter, Jason Allison and Washington's 3rd round choice (Lee Goren) in 1997 Entry Draft, March 1, 1997.
posted by grum@work at 10:46 AM on May 15, 2010
You know, on 3/1/97, that wasn't a bad trade. Just didn't work out. In any which way. But if the local kid (and CM grad, IIRC) had stayed a good goalie, if the draft pick had been better and Jason Allison hadn't been an even better ass-ache than he was a player, that would have worked out. It would have also helped if Oates hadn't turned out to be a guy that aged well.
posted by yerfatma at 10:57 AM on May 15, 2010
A week ago, I was ready to write off the season to my colleagues, chock full of Devil and Ranger fans. Now I can dream ... whoever wins, as long as they play Chicago -- now there's some long-suffering fans (last Cup in 1961).
posted by jjzucal at 01:20 PM on May 15, 2010
Now I can dream ... whoever wins, as long as they play Chicago -- now there's some long-suffering fans (last Cup in 1961).
This is why I can't cheer for Chicago. If Toronto becomes the longest suffering team in the NHL...
posted by grum@work at 03:10 PM on May 15, 2010
The best thing about the Bruins' loss is that there is no longer a conflict with Celtics games on TV.
It was disappointing to see the team lose the series (and the game) after leading 3-0, but I can understand it. The injuries to Krejci and Marco Sturm left them with very little scoring. Seidenberg being out hurt their defense and left it vulnerable to the heavy forecheck of Philadelphia. There were an awful lot of turnovers during the series by Boston that led to good scoring chances. The injuries were a factor, but were not an excuse. Boston had its chances to put Philadelphia away and did not capitalize. They have a chance this off-season to make some significant improvement to the team, but we'll see if the Jacobs family will do it.
posted by Howard_T at 04:35 PM on May 15, 2010
I wonder what the reaction would be if the Sox or Celtics lost a series after being up 3-0. I bet you wouldn't be so forgiving.
All and all, my point is. You're taking it too well. I don't think you care enough. Therefore you don't deserve to watch the greatest game ever made. I demand you destroy all Bruins paraphernalia, and put a hammer through your TV.
I would be fucking livid.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:10 AM on May 16, 2010
All and all, my point is. You're taking it too well.
Weedy, I am a native Bostonian. There are certain things that are implanted in the brain of the Boston sports fan that make him always certain that failure is the only possible outcome when a Boston team gets too close to success. Call it the "Icarus Effect", if you will; when you get too close to the sun, your wings will melt and you will fall. I have lived with this for nearly 70 years. I have watched teams come close time after time, only to see them make the crucial mistake that destroys their hopes. The catalog of Boston futility is far too lengthy.
This year's edition of the Bruins was supposed to be a true Stanley Cup contender, but by mid-season we were wondering if Boston's own draft choice might be higher than the one they got from Toronto. Just having the team make the playoffs was a surprise, and the opening round win over Buffalo gave all of us some false hope. Comes the sad refrain, "Wait until next year."
You mistake the depth of my disappointment for forgiveness. It is anything but that. There are those things that I can control, and those things that I cannot. I can still love the game of hockey without being too passionate about the home NHL team. There's too much really good hockey to be enjoyed in this region to get all wound up over the NHL. I will still root for the Bruins, but I will not commit my heart to them. This might be a good piece of advice to be followed for the mental health of Maple Leafs' fans as well.
posted by Howard_T at 02:23 PM on May 16, 2010
I disagree. I'm in all the way with the Leafs. It just so happens they suck.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:38 PM on May 16, 2010
I wonder what the reaction would be if the Sox or Celtics lost a series after being up 3-0.
If it were the Sox, I'd be in rough shape. The Celtics, I'd be pissed, but not stunned: they've spent a couple of years building 30 point leads at halftime and then blowing them. Plus they won a championship in the past couple of years and that was a pleasant surprise (inasmuch when their 2007 season ended no one would have predicted they'd be capable of it in 2008). Were the Pats to do the football equivalent, I'd be ripshit as well.
It's different with the Bruins because the organization doesn't care, doesn't "give 100%". I can't explain it exactly, but it's different from being a Toronto fan. However bad they may be, however incompetent the front office might be, it's not a lack of effort. Getting upset with the Bruins is like getting upset with the LA Clippers. You'd have to have some big blinders on.
posted by yerfatma at 03:45 PM on May 16, 2010
David Krejci out injured, Simon Gagne returns = Flyers win 4 straight. Naturally it's not that simple, but those changes in Game 4 were the beginning of the comeback.