Yeah, they did better than I expected, but the Wild were all over them the entire series. They also got lucky with pulling the goalie - twice - to tie games late and send to overtime. I think the major turning point was when they put Kuemper in goal. If they hadn't it probably would have turned out differently because Bryzgalov was just not playing well the first two games.
You are a cunt hater because your mommy had a dick. She had to bring you out through her shit hole and no one wanted to touch you. You have been bitter since that day and a bit of a stinky poo.
But don't get too distracted by the game. 1 down, 15 more to go down on. Another busy night for you, Doc.
All "fan hate" aside, Montreal is not a bad team. Boston should not have had to play them, but the weird ass "we wants rivals" schedules deemed it so. Fan Boys were complaining that Boston, with the best record, should have played Tampa then the Rangers.
That being written, it means Boston would have played them or the Penguins for the finals--based on the erroneous assumption that Pit are ALSO not complete choke artists. Anyways, Boston was sloppy, and once Montreal had a lead they could dictate the game. There is also a dichotomy of older players and younger players on Boston. The older ones looked slow and the younger ones made some bad mistakes--like the first goal. Tukka also did not play to his potential. This will have all of the "Timmy TOMAAAAS" fans excoriating him whilst forgetting his shut-out and the fact he does not, usually, score goals. Only scoring one goal at home? FAIL.
And . . . yes . . . I deem it a "choke." They "choked" Game One and I felt that just may bite them in the ass. It did.
Nevertheless, I was/am not certain Boston could beat Chicago or LA in a seven game series, even with "home ice." At this level, of course, "anything can happen," but the team playing best tends to win. Far More Understanding will talk about "match-ups" and all of that and how Montreal "matches up" against Boston and all of that crap. Bottom line remains execution. Boston failed to execute in Game One, most of Game Two, All of Game Six, and certainly Game Seven. That is four games. Hard to win a seven game series when you do not bother to show up for four of them.
I expect Montreal to beat New York--but then I expected Pitts to beat New York so there you go. I expect whomever comes out of the West to beat either Montreal or the Rangers . . .
. . .
. . . unless they let Montreal/Rangers dictate the game.
As I explained to a Mad Fan for another team, the whole point of these things is no matter what Your Team--"We"--cannot win every year. Not since the Celtics in the 60s. So your team will lose. The further they get, the harder is the loss. But you always want them to "go further." It is the nature of sports: learning how to lose. This is something I explained to a Pats fan. "If . . . blah . . . blah . . . not injured . . . refs . . . Obama" the Pats had home field or otherwise beat Denver they were going to . . . beat Seattle? With Seattle's defense? Really? So, congratulations, you have lost another Super Bowl and probably decisively. Reporters were licking Peyton's dick as "the Bestest QB EVAH" for about a week until that game. Brady is probably relieved he lost the AFC Championship to avoid getting assraped in a Superbowl. He can at least try to blame his defenses--"I left the field with the lead!" Peyton? Now embarrassed in not one but two Superbowls and the only one he won was because Bill Belicheck forgot that Tom has to actually throw the ball to someone who can, like, catch it, and the NFC was required to show up, so the NFC picked the team with the drunkest and emotionally fragile QB since, well, Tony Eason.
But I digress. . . .
So, if the Bruins played like they played for nearly the entire series against Montreal? Sorry, Chicago/Anaheim/LA rapes them then makes their wives/girlfriends/Moms finish.
Why it is so interesting. Unlike the NBA where even it if GETS interesting you can count on the refs to make sure the "right" team wins.
But that is fandom: It is recognizing you really have no say in the matter and for the chance to win, you will lose far more. You may recall from the "It is Getting Interesting" MLB thread I reference a Pirates fan who wrote me utterly excited they were up 2 games to nothing in the Division series. I had to remind him that, no, "the other team" winning three straight is not at all uncommon. He was devastated. Though would he then have been less devastated when they lost in the NLCS? Part of the price of being a fan. You know you will lose. Which means if you are an asshole who thinks the laundry you worship makes you "better" than someone else, you cannot start crying when another asshole who worships the laundry who beat your laundry reminds you that your laundry failed.
It is not creating a thread to celebrate "counting OUR victories" then flee when your team fails.
At home.
Shut out.
Then burn down your city.
So much that your entire country starts apologizing for you.
And America has to recall that you are not a county in Washington.
I really thought the Wild outplayed the Hawks but somehow they won. Lucky puck bounces. Terrible officiating. Seemed in favor of Minnesota. But I could be biased.