Watching Andrew Alberts last night I couldn't help but reminded of a defenseman the Bruins used to have named Kyle McLaren. Remember him? His name probably hasn't been typed on this board in a month. I bet if we could Goggle this board it would not even come up which is amazing. For those who knew I had Beanpot tickets and was going to watch Alberts I ended up watching the first two periods on TV before falling asleep. Due to the age of my youngest and the double OT in game one and the recent flu there is no way my kid could stay at a game that didn't start till around 9 even though I'm from Fleet to door in a half hour. Next week I should get to see Alberts at the early game but you could still make observations from watching TV- specifically his size and his physical play.
Alberts certainly has the look of McLaren in size- and he skates pretty well. Style wise Alberts showed enough offense inclination to atleast rival Kyle and style wise he reminded me of him. Kyle is sort of bent over a bit and has looooong limbs that can reach out and clothes line (by accident) a Zednik . Kyle also shows more movement on the ice and has an energetic appearance to his game. He rarely is just standing catching his breath and he can envelop and appear to reach an opponent at any spot on the ice. Its a shame he couldn't have found a way to stay especially since his contract with roll backs and all is imo marketplace for a #3. We have only Boyes and whoever the compensation pick was for Hackett. It could still work out well as Boyes could be a pretty decent NHL player. McLaren on the other hand with Boynton, Gonchar and Gill would give the Bruins a pretty solid NHL core- and adding some combination of Stuart, Alberts, Jurcina and Girard would have the Bruins imo in the top third (10 of 30) of defenses in the NHL. It certainly had the making of a rockem sockem defense. Yowzaaa with McLaren, Boynton and Stuart.
McLaren is a forgotten player these days and I watch with interest Boyes and Alberts for obvious reasons of the trade(Boyes) and replacement/style/position (Alberts). I also was for the deal when it happened and thought quite highly of Jillson at the time. I never was someone who thought Jillson was a bust either but those who know defense and had alot more information than I deemed this a necessary and worthy move.
Time will tell- yet I think back to McLaren on draft day all those years ago when the Bruins grabbed he and Sean Brown the same day and I thought they hit the mother lode. To put it in a time perspective it was four Patriot Super Bowl appearances for the Patriots ago and my 4th grader wasn't even born yet and neither was this site.
I remember being in college (U-Lowell) when McLaren and Brown were drafted and I would always shoot over to the Ristuccia to catch training camp before or after (or instead of) classes.
Anyway, I can remember thinking that Brown was having a better camp than McLaren, probably because of the gawky skating style of Kyle. When when he made the big club and Brown was sent back to juniors, I knew my future as a scout was over.
I remember being at the Fleet for his first NHL fight against Grier (probably the first fight for each as it was an early season game) who is my all time favorite college hockey player. And if I remember correctly, Grier lost his helmet in the pre-fight scrum so McLaren took his off and they went at it.
I agree with you though Dan, it does seem to be such a long time ago. Can it really be 10 years?
McLaren always had potential, but in my eyes, thats all he had.
I thought his offensive skills were close to zero. He couldn't skate
with the puck and from what I saw from him he handled it like a
hot potatoe. I thought it was a waste when he was on the PP.
The thing with McLaren is he is major injury prone, and it wasn't
just at Boston. It has followed him out west. After every injury,
it would take him a month or so to get back into the game.
I am glad he is gone, but wish they had gotten more for him.
Wow, besides the injury prone part, I totally don't agree with you...
I thought McLaren had some puck moving skills, was easily the biggest physical presence we had on the ice during several seasons. Didn't he have a fairly big playoffs this year too, I remember highlights of a St. L game where he delivered a crushing hit and completely took the Blues off their game because they all were coming after him (I think they ended up letting up several powerplay goals).
I am truly not happy that he is gone. I'd love to see him crush someone into boards a few more times. Having him and Boynton on the same team, you wouldn't want to go wide, and you wouldn't want to come through the middle.
That was a big draft. I remembered being a little startled the B's took two d-men with their two first rounders, especially when it seemed they'd been suffering from having a one-line offense for too many years.
But once Gill was added in `97, the top-4 of Bourque, Gill, McLaren and Sweeney proved to be pretty decent overall. Man, were we ever spoiled by the greatness of Bourque. All the little things he did, not to mention how well he covered the liabilities of a #6 d-man (Gill).
What's interesting about that group is they were the peak of the defense over the past 10 years. Since then, inexplicably, it's all been downhill. First Bourque gets traded for a bunch of players/assets that never made a difference in winning, then Gill is exposed as a major liability, then we see a stream of players named Traverse, Kultanen, Murphy, O'Donnell, Rivers, Norton, Brown, Popovic, Moran, Weinrich, Berard and McGillis come through town, many of whom were depended on waaay too much. Of those, Weinrich was the best IMHO, followed by a few serviceable d-men in McGillis, O'Donnell and Moran.
But really, isn't it pretty sad when you have a lot riding on your team (ie pending UFAs like Guerin, Dafoe, Hackett, etc and short time veterans like Knuble, Rolston, Murray, Stumpel, etc) -- yet you're relying on Sean O'Donnell and Peter Popovic to be among your top go-to guys on defense? To me, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you're dead in the playoffs. But when you're counting on guys like Murray, Stumpel, Rolston, Knuble and an all-too young Thornton to carry you through the wars, you're surely hosed.
That was the one thing that made me nervous about the Gonchar trade ... the Bruins had one-shot in the playoffs, then the team was going to be disbanded (ie the writing was on the wall that the B's wouldn't be signing players before the new CBA). What sense does it make to pay that kind of a price for a player like Gonch when your team has never been put to the test -- and you know your priority come summer is to spend in "tomorrow's" dollars even though half your team will become UFAs?
Makes you wonder about the big picture ...
These are the things that frustrate me about the Bruins ... there is no vision, no concept of what it takes to win, no viable plan to build a winner now or later. Instead we see reactive planning and half baked rosters that flop when it counts. It's not surprising considering the main theme of the Bruins is their struggle with leveraging the CBA and pegging player valuations while trying to build a competitive team at the same time. Having dual priorities where the business-driven one has such an impact on the competitive one is an extremely challenging way to run your team.
It can be done, but honestly, the B's have sucked at it. This is the reason whey they have fundamentally challenged teams for years on end. Either it's the offense, the goaltending, defense, character or whatever. And in every case, the signs are CLEARLY EVIDENT that there was a problem BEFORE it was exposed in the playoffs. Yet steps weren't taken to resolve them and the B's continue to learn their lessons the hard way (I'm dumbfounded when they say they don't know what happened). Through it all, there is no accountability for playoff results - which in my mind is indefensible.
It gets old, especially when you see a parade of coaches wading through town and high turnover in the core. The more you see how the Patriots have won, the more you get disgusted by how the Bruins have floundered for 10+ years. But I digress.
Back to the Bruins defense. In my mind, like the rest of the team, sans goaltending, it is a BIG work in progress. Boynton is solid and if the B's were smart (which I think they are in this case), he should be a lynchpin for the long term. Gonchar I am not so sure about. The very fact that he is a free agent leaves you wondering where he will be in another year. As we know, the B's rarely ever sign any of their UFAs, with Don Sweeney being the only one in recent memory (and don't forget that not only was he a B's lifer, but he agreed to a deal after he shopped around for a month). I don't have high expectations that Gonchar will be here long term, but by all means it's not impossible either.
After Boynton and Gonchar, you have Gill, Moran, Jurcina and Girard. That is a marked drop. As most know, Gill has severe limitations in terms of mobility, agility and puck control. He should be considered 3rd pair guy who see's limited action, though in the Bruins case he's used as a top-4 (not surprising considering their judgment about other things). Moran is a good leader and brings some energy, but he is signed for one-year. Who knows where he will be - or how good he will be, in two years time.
The rookies, Girard and Jurcina, are more of a crapshoot. It will be hard to see Girard as a top-4 player, but he should be much more than the niche guy Hawgood was. He has smarts, speed, smoothness, hands, drive and heart. I think that bodes well for his potential. Jurcina is in a similar position. This is a guy who advanced quickly to the pros. He has size, mobility and good instincts. I don't think it's a question of whether he will be playing in the league, but more about whether he will some day climb into the top-4. In any event, at this point, neither can be counted on to be anything more than #5-6 types. Whether they go further is the question.
Overall, that means Boynton and Gill are more or less considered the pillars of defense due to the probability that they will be here long term. Unfortunately, Gill should be viewed strictly as a low end #5-6er rather than an impact guy. From there, who knows. Girard and Jurcina could turn out well, or they could be average with certain liabilities. Gonchar and Moran could be here for a while, or just one more season. It's all up in the air.
As for Stuart, Alberts and Jonsson, it looks like there's a damn good chance at least one or two become players for the B's. Nothing is certain, but we can feel pretty good about Stuart eventually making his way onto the B's roster. With the lost time this season, we're inching all the more closer to that day. He may need to spend time in the AHL though, which could prolong his transition to the NHL. As for Alberts and Jonsson, it's almost a definite that they will need to spend time in the AHL. Figure at least a season each, barring any big surprises. And even with time down there, it's not a give that either makes it to the NHL.
Here's what I see over the next three years (using 2005-06 as a starting point):
2005-06
1. Gonchar
2. Boynton
3. Gill
4. Moran
5. Girard
6. Jurcina
** I expect one UFA to be signed
2006-07
1. (UFA)/(Gonchar)
2. Boynton
3. (UFA/(trade)
4. Gill
5. Girard/Jurcina
6. Stuart
** The UFA from last season could carry over
There are a lot of question marks, but if the B's can add a good solid veteran UFA in the next season or two (none of this retread crap pleeez), then with Boynton and Stuart, they could form the core of a strong defense. With Jurcina, Girard, Alberts, Jonsson and Gill, the B's should have a chance to fill out the #4-6 spots. They key is the core - the top 4, and their ability to deliver when it counts. The bottom line is the B's will need a solid veteran to join Boynton and help lead Stuart. The three would be the key to creating a strength. If that were to happen, then with the expected goaltending the B's should be getting from Raycroft/Toivonen, the Bruins will finally have the defensive side of the ice covered ...
I ended up watching the first two periods on TV before falling asleep.
I hear you on that point. I also fell asleep before the end of the game, but I think it had more to do with "my age" rather than the age of my kids. :lol
I have seen Alberts a few times now. I caught him last week during the BC/PC game on NESN. I really like his defensive play.
Actually, several things were covered in Dan's post ... such as that Alberts could some day possibly replace the punishment McLaren gave us; the B's received a questionable return for McLaren; and the what the potential future holds with a defense that's anchored by Stuart, Boynton and Alberts.
To me, it's hard to overlook the fact that the B's defense has been deteriorating over the last 6-7 years ... and that the decline was only hastened by botched McLaren trade and the overall lack of vision. Now the B's have a premiere defenseman one-year from free agency on a team that is in total rebuild mode, and the rest of the players outside Boynton are question marks.
Wow, besides the injury prone part, I totally don't agree with you...
I thought McLaren had some puck moving skills, was easily the biggest physical presence we had on the ice during several seasons. Didn't he have a fairly big playoffs this year too, I remember highlights of a St. L game where he delivered a crushing hit and completely took the Blues off their game because they all were coming after him (I think they ended up letting up several powerplay goals).
I am truly not happy that he is gone. I'd love to see him crush someone into boards a few more times. Having him and Boynton on the same team, you wouldn't want to go wide, and you wouldn't want to come through the middle.
I checked his stats.
For his 9 year nhl career he is averaging 4 goals and 13 assists a year.
I just don't see those as demonstrating offensive skills.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but he seemed to bang it off the boards more than
hitting the breaking winger. Not as much as Gill but more than he should.
He'd also make about one play a game that would make you say wtf was he thinking
I agree he was the best physical presence on the B's blueline for a long time,
and that he probably was the only D'men opposing forwards were concerned
about when they went into the corners. I just don't find that skill alone
makes him a player to be coveted.
I think Stuart will be everything that McLaren was and wasn't.
Kyle was one of my favorite Bruins when he was here. I wasn't thrilled with the way things played out, but what can I do. I thought Jillson had some skills and I liked his game. Obviously the B's didn't.
McLaren always had potential, but in my eyes, thats all he had.
I thought his offensive skills were close to zero. He couldn't skate
with the puck and from what I saw from him he handled it like a
hot potatoe. I thought it was a waste when he was on the PP.
The thing with McLaren is he is major injury prone, and it wasn't
just at Boston. It has followed him out west. After every injury,
it would take him a month or so to get back into the game.
I am glad he is gone, but wish they had gotten more for him.
If your assessment of McLaren's play is right...it's lucky the B's got anything at all for him!
If your assessment of McLaren's play is right...it's lucky the B's got anything at all for him!
--BCN
Had they dealt him earlier in the year they could have gotten more for him. The B's decided to wait until they HAD to deal and HAD to get a goaltender in return. That really isn't the smartest way to manage your assests. Then again heading into the season with Shields and Grahame wasn't excatly a vision of greatness.
The Bruins remind me of myself. When I was in school I did just enough to get by. I was happy with C's, and I didn't have to work to hard to get em. They were still a respectable grade, and I knew I could do much better if I wanted to. The B's are content with making the playoffs. Never really pushing to win it all or care to...at least so it seems. Making the playoffs means you had a pretty good season. Not a great one, but not a bad one.
I think Stuart will be everything that McLaren was and wasn't.
Kyle was one of my favorite Bruins when he was here. I wasn't thrilled with the way things played out, but what can I do. I thought Jillson had some skills and I liked his game. Obviously the B's didn't.
another thing about kyle? he was a very tough dude that could really throw em. people talk about his rough-and-tumble style, and his hard hits, but an underrated asset of his was that left hand.
as for jillson, i think he has problems breaking the game down to simplicity. he made a lot of questionable decisions with the puck, and generally looked lost a lot. the talent is most certainly there, but i really don't see him putting it all together. some nights (once in a long while) he'll look like rob blake...other nights (more often) he'll look like jarno kultanen on his worst day
another thing about kyle? he was a very tough dude that could really throw em. people talk about his rough-and-tumble style, and his hard hits, but an underrated asset of his was that left hand.
as for jillson, i think he has problems breaking the game down to simplicity. he made a lot of questionable decisions with the puck, and generally looked lost a lot. the talent is most certainly there, but i really don't see him putting it all together. some nights (once in a long while) he'll look like rob blake...other nights (more often) he'll look like jarno kultanen on his worst day
I myself always thought Kyle was a great fighter. There were so many games where guys wouldn't even go near him or skated away as soon as he came over to them. Fans may not have given him credit for his fists, but players seemed to.
Funny you mention Blake. I wanted Jillson in the HFL draft to play with Blake.
Funny you mention Blake. I wanted Jillson in the HFL draft to play with Blake.
if jillson ever figures it out, he can be blake-good. that's how talented this kid is. i'd say his chances of that are between slim and none, but crazier things have happened. look at a guy like ric jackman- sure, his problems are way way worse than anything jillson has gone through, but it appears that he was finally "getting it" in the 2nd half of last year. while i loved the acquisition of boyes, the one thing i wasn't happy about was dealing jillson within our division. i guess time will tell, but he certainly has the potential.
I remember watching the '95 draft when I was only 11. I wasn't very educated about prospects back then and I remember wanting the Bruins to draft either Terry Ryan or Jay McKee. Man, am I glad the Habs grabbed Ryan before we were up just in case the Bruins took him. Mckee would have been a nice pick though.
I myself always thought Kyle was a great fighter. There were so many games where guys wouldn't even go near him or skated away as soon as he came over to them. Fans may not have given him credit for his fists, but players seemed to.
Funny you mention Blake. I wanted Jillson in the HFL draft to play with Blake.
I remember an exhibitoin game when Todd Ewen with the Sharks ran Jeff Odgers I think infront of the net and McLaren pounded Ewen. It was pretty shocking but Ewen was almost done. The other fight I remember was McLaren beating the crap out of Grier by the Bruins bench at the Fleet. However, Kyle got pounded by someone who I can't remember and its as if after that he never fought or wanted to. I can't remember any fights he got in the last several years. He is a very easy going guy and reminded me as someone you'd see hanging out in the parking lot at Foxboro tailgating and tossing a football around having a few beers or sitting in the stands at Fenway with a bunch of friends. He just happened to be a very talented athlete but just a normal. Funny, but a lot of hockey players seem like that? wonder why?
That was a big draft. I remembered being a little startled the B's took two d-men with their two first rounders, especially when it seemed they'd been suffering from having a one-line offense for too many years.
But once Gill was added in `97, the top-4 of Bourque, Gill, McLaren and Sweeney proved to be pretty decent overall. Man, were we ever spoiled by the greatness of Bourque. All the little things he did, not to mention how well he covered the liabilities of a #6 d-man (Gill).
What's interesting about that group is they were the peak of the defense over the past 10 years. Since then, inexplicably, it's all been downhill. First Bourque gets traded for a bunch of players/assets that never made a difference in winning, then Gill is exposed as a major liability, then we see a stream of players named Traverse, Kultanen, Murphy, O'Donnell, Rivers, Norton, Brown, Popovic, Moran, Weinrich, Berard and McGillis come through town, many of whom were depended on waaay too much. Of those, Weinrich was the best IMHO, followed by a few serviceable d-men in McGillis, O'Donnell and Moran.
But really, isn't it pretty sad when you have a lot riding on your team (ie pending UFAs like Guerin, Dafoe, Hackett, etc and short time veterans like Knuble, Rolston, Murray, Stumpel, etc) -- yet you're relying on Sean O'Donnell and Peter Popovic to be among your top go-to guys on defense? To me, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you're dead in the playoffs. But when you're counting on guys like Murray, Stumpel, Rolston, Knuble and an all-too young Thornton to carry you through the wars, you're surely hosed.
That was the one thing that made me nervous about the Gonchar trade ... the Bruins had one-shot in the playoffs, then the team was going to be disbanded (ie the writing was on the wall that the B's wouldn't be signing players before the new CBA). What sense does it make to pay that kind of a price for a player like Gonch when your team has never been put to the test -- and you know your priority come summer is to spend in "tomorrow's" dollars even though half your team will become UFAs?
Makes you wonder about the big picture ...
These are the things that frustrate me about the Bruins ... there is no vision, no concept of what it takes to win, no viable plan to build a winner now or later. Instead we see reactive planning and half baked rosters that flop when it counts. It's not surprising considering the main theme of the Bruins is their struggle with leveraging the CBA and pegging player valuations while trying to build a competitive team at the same time. Having dual priorities where the business-driven one has such an impact on the competitive one is an extremely challenging way to run your team.
It can be done, but honestly, the B's have sucked at it. This is the reason whey they have fundamentally challenged teams for years on end. Either it's the offense, the goaltending, defense, character or whatever. And in every case, the signs are CLEARLY EVIDENT that there was a problem BEFORE it was exposed in the playoffs. Yet steps weren't taken to resolve them and the B's continue to learn their lessons the hard way (I'm dumbfounded when they say they don't know what happened). Through it all, there is no accountability for playoff results - which in my mind is indefensible.
It gets old, especially when you see a parade of coaches wading through town and high turnover in the core. The more you see how the Patriots have won, the more you get disgusted by how the Bruins have floundered for 10+ years. But I digress.
Back to the Bruins defense. In my mind, like the rest of the team, sans goaltending, it is a BIG work in progress. Boynton is solid and if the B's were smart (which I think they are in this case), he should be a lynchpin for the long term. Gonchar I am not so sure about. The very fact that he is a free agent leaves you wondering where he will be in another year. As we know, the B's rarely ever sign any of their UFAs, with Don Sweeney being the only one in recent memory (and don't forget that not only was he a B's lifer, but he agreed to a deal after he shopped around for a month). I don't have high expectations that Gonchar will be here long term, but by all means it's not impossible either.
After Boynton and Gonchar, you have Gill, Moran, Jurcina and Girard. That is a marked drop. As most know, Gill has severe limitations in terms of mobility, agility and puck control. He should be considered 3rd pair guy who see's limited action, though in the Bruins case he's used as a top-4 (not surprising considering their judgment about other things). Moran is a good leader and brings some energy, but he is signed for one-year. Who knows where he will be - or how good he will be, in two years time.
The rookies, Girard and Jurcina, are more of a crapshoot. It will be hard to see Girard as a top-4 player, but he should be much more than the niche guy Hawgood was. He has smarts, speed, smoothness, hands, drive and heart. I think that bodes well for his potential. Jurcina is in a similar position. This is a guy who advanced quickly to the pros. He has size, mobility and good instincts. I don't think it's a question of whether he will be playing in the league, but more about whether he will some day climb into the top-4. In any event, at this point, neither can be counted on to be anything more than #5-6 types. Whether they go further is the question.
Overall, that means Boynton and Gill are more or less considered the pillars of defense due to the probability that they will be here long term. Unfortunately, Gill should be viewed strictly as a low end #5-6er rather than an impact guy. From there, who knows. Girard and Jurcina could turn out well, or they could be average with certain liabilities. Gonchar and Moran could be here for a while, or just one more season. It's all up in the air.
As for Stuart, Alberts and Jonsson, it looks like there's a damn good chance at least one or two become players for the B's. Nothing is certain, but we can feel pretty good about Stuart eventually making his way onto the B's roster. With the lost time this season, we're inching all the more closer to that day. He may need to spend time in the AHL though, which could prolong his transition to the NHL. As for Alberts and Jonsson, it's almost a definite that they will need to spend time in the AHL. Figure at least a season each, barring any big surprises. And even with time down there, it's not a give that either makes it to the NHL.
Here's what I see over the next three years (using 2005-06 as a starting point):
2005-06
1. Gonchar
2. Boynton
3. Gill
4. Moran
5. Girard
6. Jurcina
** I expect one UFA to be signed
2006-07
1. (UFA)/(Gonchar)
2. Boynton
3. (UFA/(trade)
4. Gill
5. Girard/Jurcina
6. Stuart
** The UFA from last season could carry over
There are a lot of question marks, but if the B's can add a good solid veteran UFA in the next season or two (none of this retread crap pleeez), then with Boynton and Stuart, they could form the core of a strong defense. With Jurcina, Girard, Alberts, Jonsson and Gill, the B's should have a chance to fill out the #4-6 spots. They key is the core - the top 4, and their ability to deliver when it counts. The bottom line is the B's will need a solid veteran to join Boynton and help lead Stuart. The three would be the key to creating a strength. If that were to happen, then with the expected goaltending the B's should be getting from Raycroft/Toivonen, the Bruins will finally have the defensive side of the ice covered ...
what I'll always remember is going out to eat (the Thornton draft) and making my wife wait because the Bruins were coming up on the clock and I wanted to see who they took. I made the family wait for the Clymer pick. I was near despondent when the Bruins didn't get Jeff Zehr. I also grabbed my Draft issue on the way out the door. Looking back I can imagine my wife and child coloring and doing whatever mothers and kids do at restraunts while I am sucking down a 23 oz beer with my head studying the draft and analyzing Ben Clymer :lol ....I am sure my wife was telling me about her week at work and I am not listening and am lamenting the loss of Zehr.....she's right, I am really f'd up
I remember an exhibitoin game when Todd Ewen with the Sharks ran Jeff Odgers I think infront of the net and McLaren pounded Ewen. It was pretty shocking but Ewen was almost done. The other fight I remember was McLaren beating the crap out of Grier by the Bruins bench at the Fleet. However, Kyle got pounded by someone who I can't remember and its as if after that he never fought or wanted to. I can't remember any fights he got in the last several years. He is a very easy going guy and reminded me as someone you'd see hanging out in the parking lot at Foxboro tailgating and tossing a football around having a few beers or sitting in the stands at Fenway with a bunch of friends. He just happened to be a very talented athlete but just a normal. Funny, but a lot of hockey players seem like that? wonder why?
Funny, my wife, who's is a big sports fan but really doesn't like hockey much, said the same thing. The players are generally well spoken and humble, very humanistic....especially in comparison to the other major team sports.
One of her favorites was Lyndon Byers, whom she found to be very funny, with a wonderful self-depracating sense of humour....she couldn't understand why such a nice boy could accept and be so effective with his on ice role. She also bemoans Cam Neely, ("You want my kids to play hockey? Look at Cam Neely's nose! He was such a good looking boy when he came into the league!")
There is definitely a noticeable difference in attitude and style between Canadian farm boys and OG-wannabe's from the Cabrini Green or East L.A.
Then again, anyone has ever noticed the interview style of a Brett Hull or a Jeremy Roenick...very American brash.
Funny, my wife, who's is a big sports fan but really doesn't like hockey much, said the same thing. The players are generally well spoken and humble, very humanistic....especially in comparison to the other major team sports.
One of her favorites was Lyndon Byers, whom she found to be very funny, with a wonderful self-depracating sense of humour....she couldn't understand why such a nice boy could accept and be so effective with his on ice role. She also bemoans Cam Neely, ("You want my kids to play hockey? Look at Cam Neely's nose! He was such a good looking boy when he came into the league!")
There is definitely a noticeable difference in attitude and style between Canadian farm boys and OG-wannabe's from the Cabrini Green or East L.A.
Then again, anyone has ever noticed the interview style of a Brett Hull or a Jeremy Roenick...very American brash.
Three of my college roomies were from the South Shore and hockey players and all knew the Amonte's extremely well and JR in various degrees- and this is going waaaaaaaaaay back and not a bad word about either. JR was well liked those days and even now probably is a good person who can say dumb stuff (I can relate)
However, Kyle got pounded by someone who I can't remember and its as if after that he never fought or wanted to. I can't remember any fights he got in the last several years.
I recall Andre Nazarov pulling his hair one time and also the time Owen Nolan broke his nose after the linesmen stepped in and Kyle had stopped fighting. Neither of those were a beating though. I can't remember for sure, but I want to say the beating was at the hands of Sandy McCarthy while he played for either Tampa or Calgary. Could be wrong though...
These are the things that frustrate me about the Bruins ... there is no vision, no concept of what it takes to win, no viable plan to build a winner now or later. Instead we see reactive planning and half baked rosters that flop when it counts. It's not surprising considering the main theme of the Bruins is their struggle with leveraging the CBA and pegging player valuations while trying to build a competitive team at the same time. Having dual priorities where the business-driven one has such an impact on the competitive one is an extremely challenging way to run your team. .......It gets old, especially when you see a parade of coaches wading through town and high turnover in the core. The more you see how the Patriots have won, the more you get disgusted by how the Bruins have floundered for 10+ years. But I digress.
...
Couldn't agree more Meister. I've been typing it on this board for two years plus now...the Bruins just refuse to decide on a direction. They seem afraid they can't sell it to fans or reluctant to miss the playoffs in the name of the future. Instead they make puzzling trades to acquire veterans whose upside could only bring them into the second round, and who will hamstring their ability to invest the following season. Whenever they do put together a good core group, they refuse to proactively keep them around. If an objective fan looked back they'd simply say their only interest was making the playoffs.
They way they run this team, the only chance we have for a Cup is if there is a low league-wide salary cap, or we happen to catch lightning in a bottle with the next crop of younsters (Stuart, Jurcina, Toivinen, Bergeron, Boyes,etc.). It is just so frustrating.
in game one and the recent flu there is no way my kid could stay at a game that didn't start till around 9 even though I'm from Fleet to door in a half hour. Next week I should get to see Alberts at the early game but you could still make observations from watching TV- specifically his size and his physical play.
. Kyle also shows more movement on the ice and has an energetic appearance to his game. He rarely is just standing catching his breath and he can envelop and appear to reach an opponent at any spot on the ice. Its a shame he couldn't have found a way to stay especially since his contract with roll backs and all is imo marketplace for a #3. We have only Boyes and whoever the compensation pick was for Hackett. It could still work out well as Boyes could be a pretty decent NHL player. McLaren on the other hand with Boynton, Gonchar and Gill would give the Bruins a pretty solid NHL core- and adding some combination of Stuart, Alberts, Jurcina and Girard would have the Bruins imo in the top third (10 of 30) of defenses in the NHL. It certainly had the making of a rockem sockem defense. Yowzaaa with McLaren, Boynton and Stuart.
