Boston Bruins set up to repeat?

Image by slidingsideways via FlickrI would say that the Boston Bruins based on who they lost and who they retained during the offseason; would have to be “one” of the favorites to come out of the Eastern Conference and repeat as Stanley Cup champions. That’s not to say that the Bruins won’t be challenged by the other teams in the Eastern conference because they will, I would also put the Tampa Bay Lightning and the Pittsburg Penguins if Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin are healthy as teams that will also compete for the Eastern Conference crown as well.

NHL.COM --- Unlike the mass exodus from Chicago last season, and even the losses Pittsburgh incurred two years ago, the Bruins will return much of their Cup-winning club intact. They have three key players to replace: Mark Recchi, Michael Ryder and Tomas Kaberle.

Recchi defied time in the Cup Final, authoring a vintage performance and finishing the 2011 postseason with 5 goals and 14 points. He embraced the role of steady, veteran leader and spent much of the season on the second line. He slumped early in the postseason, but came on strong to help win the Cup for the third time in his career before announcing his retirement on the ice after Game 7.

Ryder was one of several Bruins who elevated his play during the Cup run. He had only 18 goals in each of the past two regular seasons, but racked up 8 goals and 17 points in the playoffs and earned a hefty contract from the Dallas Stars.

Kaberle struggled for much of his time with the Bruins after arriving in one of the marquee deals of the 2011 trade deadline. The power play was awful during the postseason, and that was expected to be the one area where he helped. He did finish the postseason with 11 assists, but was mostly a third-pairing defenseman in tight games. Had Boston not won the Cup, the trade would be considered a huge disappointment. Kaberle signed with Carolina as a free agent.

Boston also lost depth defenseman Shane Hnidy, and the future of center Marc Savard remains uncertain -- he only played 25 games for the Bruins last season while recovering from a concussion.

Related articles

• NHL Injury Report: Boston Bruins' Marc Savard Not Likely to Play in 2011-2012 (bleacherreport.com)
• Boston Bruins: Will David Krejci Get a New Contract by the Start of the Season? (bleacherreport.com)
• You: 5 Reasons Tyler Seguin and the Boston Bruins Will Be Better in 2012 Than 2011 (bleacherreport.com)
• Boston Bruins: Six Reasons They Are Better Without Tomas Kaberle (bleacherreport.com)
• Boston Bruins: Will Marc Savard Get His Name Engraved on the Stanley Cup? (bleacherreport.com)

Mind's a Messin': Redwing77's Psychology Musings

Watching the Playoffs this year, listening to friends talk about the aftermath of games, and reading content got me thinking: We talk about the intangibles of hockey but what about the psychology?

The Finals this year reminds me a LOT of the Blackhawks vs. Canucks tilt from last year's playoffs.

Let me take you back... Then Hawk Dustin Byfuglien (IMO one of the most underrated players in the NHL) quite literally and almost single-handedly obliterated the Canucks game plan on multiple nights by simply getting them so enraged that their game plan was to basically head hunt Byfuglien (without actually hitting him in the head). This took the Canucks so off kilter that the Hawks won the game.

Right now, right or wrong/good or bad, the Canucks are doing the same thing to the Bruins. True, statistically the series still has been pretty even. True, the gripes about the Canucks methods of doing so have been merited. However, the job of the Bruins isn't to point out the cheap play of certain players. It isn't their job to go after the players either. It's their job to look at their opponents tendencies and make a game plan that expects those tendencies that still affords the Bruins the opportunity to win.

Coming into the Finals, the Bruins should have already known the following things:

1. The Canucks are a fast, great skating team
2. The Canucks are solid fundamentally
3. The Luongo of old has only temporarily shown up, but never for long enough to kill his team's chances.
4. The Canucks have been diving and getting away with it all Playoffs long
5. The Canucks aren't afraid of taking pages out of the Penguins and Blackhawks books. Penguins book- cheap hits, borderline on ice tactics. Hawks book - Aggravation, instigation, and getting under the skin of their opposition
6. They are a momentum team. The only way to beat them is to get them to lose their momentum.
7. They are a balanced team with pressure on them but only at the top. The media is swooning over the Sedins but that takes the spotlight off of players like Bieksa and so on.

Look, I'm no fan of Burrows or Bieksa, but you have to acknowledge that they've had a pretty good playoff run. I'd argue they've been more effective than the Sedins.

The flaw that the Bruin's face is that they are relying too heavily on Tim Thomas and Zdeno Chara to bail them out when the likes of Burrows and Bieksa get under their skin. And that's not working. The Bruins aren't out of it yet, but if they lose one game in Boston, they will be.

Game 3 and 4 are must wins for the B's if they expect to win. With 3 wins under the Canucks' belt, winning 1 of the next 4 should be almost a sure thing.

I'm looking at Dennis Seidenberg, Patrice Bergeron, and either Michael Ryder or Rich Peverley to step up. Tyler Seguin is a rookie and, though immensely talented, relying upon him would be a recipe for disaster.

I still have the Bruins in 7 but Game 3 will tell a lot about the possibility of there even being a Game 7.

Ryder's game winning goal against the Habs'

For the whinny Habs fans and the Montreal media that said the Boston Bruins game winning goal was offsides at the blue line, I watched the video about 10 times and I say not a chance was that goal offsides, take off the red goggles and go back and watch the video again, that was a good call at the blue line and a good goal.