Bruins Head Coach Jim Montgomery’s Decisions Led to Depressing Defeat

Reflecting upon the catastrophic collapse witnessed in Boston last Sunday night, there are serious question marks circling the decision-making of Bruins Head Coach Jim Montgomery. The Bruins destroyed competition throughout the regular season. Boston had broken the NHL record for most points in a season (135) and most wins (65) on their way to the franchise’s 4th President’s Trophy. This team seemed to have it all: star power up front, elite defensive play, and the best goalie tandem in the league.

What happened? 

There are factors that are out of a head coach’s control, like illness and injury. In hindsight, it is easy to blame Montgomery for allowing Patrice Bergeron to play Game 82 in Montreal and consequentially herniate a disk in his back, however, the captain is a 20-year NHL veteran who is not one to take a backseat. Bergeron wanted to play his potential last regular season game in front of his friends, family, and ill father in his home province of Quebec.

Montgomery later said:

“[Bergeron] wanted the last two games to ramp up, to get into a rhythm for the playoffs…Unfortunately, tweaked something in that last game, you know even in the hindsight we would still do it exactly the same way.”

Heading into Game 1, Boston’s locker room was hit with a stomach virus. Reports surfaced of several unknown members of the team who were questionable for the first game of the series.

When addressing the media, Montgomery said:

“…we have a couple of guys who have been under the weather, so I don’t have any definitive lineup right now for tonight.”

Though the lineup included everyone except Bergeron — who was listed out due to illness rather than injury — it is safe to presume some of the players were channeling their Michael Jordan flu game and may not have been back to 100% until their trip back to Florida for Game 3.

As previously mentioned, Coach Montgomery does not have control over some factors when it comes to the postseason. But the factors he did have control over must be questioned.

Here are the decisions that Montgomery deserves to be held accountable for:

Scratching Matt Grzelcyk for Connor Clifton

The Bruins’ late-season addition of Dmitry Orlov made it clear the Bruins had one-too-many NHL-caliber defensemen in their group. While depth is an excellent problem to have, there was a decision to be made on who would be sitting in the press box come puck drop.

The Bruins’ top defensemen Charlie McAvoy, Hampus Lindholm, Dmitry Orlov, and Brandon Carlo had their roles solidified. With Derek Forbort returning from injury, it was assumed he would take back his role on the bottom pair. That left the final spot up to Connor Clifton or Matt Grzelcyk.

Grzelcyk finished the regular season second in the league in +/- posting a +46. He only trailed behind teammate Hampus Lindholm who finished the season at a +49. Grzelcyk has been a staple in the Bruins’ D-core for the last six seasons and had played alongside Charlie McAvoy for the majority of the past few seasons.

Connor Clifton had emerged as a true NHL defenseman this past season. His career-high 23 points, along with his brutal physicality surprised many in Boston and ultimately led him to a lineup spot for the first two games of the series.

Following a devastating Game 2 loss that saw the Bruins give up six goals and Clifton post a -1, Montgomery knew there needed to be changes. Montgomery told the media in relation to Grzelcyk suiting up for Game 3:

“His great feet, angles, and ability to gap up on people force turnovers or maintain pucks in the offensive zone or three-quarter ice, which really allows us to get to our game. So I think he can benefit us in those areas.”

Montgomery decided to go ahead and insert Grzelcyk in the place of Clifton for the next two games in Florida. The Bruins trounced the Panthers in back-to-back games winning 4-2 and 6-2 while Grzelcyk posted a +2 and averaged around 12 minutes of ice time. While sacrificing Clifton’s physicality — Grzelcyk gave the Bruins the speed and passing ability to break the puck out of their zone.

Going back to Boston with a chance to close out the series in Game 5, Montgomery stuck to his guns and kept Grzelcyk in the lineup. After falling 4-3 in OT after a questionable turnover by goalie Linus Ullmark, Montgomery decided to insert Clifton back in for Game 6.

While Clifton is a steady bottom-pair defenseman, his physicality and offensive instinct are not enough to overlook his defensive struggles. He ranked last for defensemen throughout the series in expected goals against per game (xGA/60) with 3.75 while Grzelcyk ranked second with 2.22.

Despite that, Montgomery gave Clifton the nod. With the ability to close out the Panthers and avoid a Game 7, the Bruins embarrassingly fell 7-5 while Clifton managed to post a -3 in just over 13 minutes of ice time. The ultra-apparent defensive zone struggles and turnovers are what cost the Bruins the game and ultimately the series.

In the end, the defensive zone mistakes are on the shoulders of all seven defensemen. But, I argue that Grzelcyk’s skating ability and experience would’ve done nothing but help the Bruins secure Game 6 and avoid a Game 7 altogether.

I believe there is an argument to be made as to if a Game 7 would have been necessary if Grzelcyk was in the lineup for Game 6. Something we may never know, but a decision that Montgomery will have to live with for years to come.

Juggling the Line Combinations and Separating Bergeron and Marchand

This season Montgomery was not afraid of shaking things up a bit. We saw a number of different line combinations throughout the season that all seemed to be working out. The best combinations — and the ones that got the team where they were — included the lines of Marchand-Bergeron-Debrusk and Zacha-Krejci-Pastrnak.

Going into the playoffs it was assumed, if everyone was healthy, that the Bruins would have an elite top-nine forward group. The lines were thought to stay the same, with some changes here or there. Yet, even after Bergeron’s return, the lines never stayed consistent.

Game 5 is when the Bruins found their way back to full strength, yet the lineup card was submitted with Bergeron and Marchand on separate lines. The two have played on the same line since the middle of the 2010-2011 season and have some of the best chemistry in the NHL.

Shortly into Game 5, the line of Bertuzzi-Bergeron-Pastrnak was unable to get the puck out of their zone. Bertuzzi skated down the half-wall and blindly shoveled a pass into the slot. The costly Bertuzzi turnover led to the game’s first goal and a 0-1 Bruins deficit. Had Brad Marchand been on the ice, it is doubtful the turnover would’ve been made.

As a result of the goal, Montgomery put Marchand back where he belongs — on Bergeron’s wing.

At the conclusion of the series Montgomery added:

“I think the only thing I can look at right now and say I would have done different is starting Game 5, I would have had Bergeron and Marchand together.”

The line juggling did not stop with Bergeron and Marchand. After taking a 3-1 series lead, Montgomery and the Bruins put out three different line combinations in the final three games of the postseason — all of which were losses.

Montgomery failed to stick to the guns that got him to the #1 seed in the Eastern Conference. Moving Coyle, Debrusk, Zacha, and Pastrnak up and down the lineup ruined the chemistry that won them 65 games. Players like Frederic, Foligno, Grzelcyk, and Lauko were in and out of the lineup and never able to find their footing.

Overall, the playoffs are a different breed. Losses and poor efforts are bound to happen in a seven-game series. It seemed Montgomery, who had little playoff experience, was too quick to change the lines and put his own imprint on the series.

Only taking into account the final three games of the series, Montgomery’s decisions to flip-flop the forward lines and not hold true to the combinations that had been successful all year seemed to be a deciding factor in the lack of offensive zone success.

Not Starting Jeremy Swayman in Game 5

I get it. Linus Ullmark was the best goaltender in the NHL this year and the clear-cut favorite to win the league’s Vezina Trophy. Ultimately, not many coaches would’ve gone ahead and started their backup for a series-clinching game, but the tandem had swapped games all season. Ullmark had started in 48 regular season games and his backup — Jeremy Swayman — started in 33.

There were many who speculated that Jeremy Swayman would appear in a number of playoff games. Though Ullmark’s 1.89 GAA and .938 SV% led the league, Swayman’s 2.27 GAA and .920 SV% ranked him in the top five.

It was undeniable that Ullmark looked a bit shaky at times during the Bruins’ first four playoff games. He managed to hold a 3-1 record, but rumor had it he was dealing with some sort of lower-body injury.

In addition, the goalie rotation had worked all year. Ullmark had received an adequate amount of rest in between the majority of his starts and was never forced to consecutively start a large number of games.

Earlier in the year, when speaking about the connection between the two goalies, Swayman said:

“To see it translate on the ice so well for both of us is something really special, and we’re finding the formula of how to do that every night.”

The chemistry between the two was evident. Both goalies not only enjoyed the rotation but thrived in it.

Going into Game 5, there was never a better opportunity to provide Ullmark with some rest and give his counterpart a chance to make an impact. Looking back, I ask the question why not start Swayman?

If Swayman came in and won Game 5 it would not have caused a goalie controversy, instead, it would’ve provided the confidence to give the net to either goalie and reestablished the tandem that was so successful all year.

Subsequently, if he had lost, it would give Montgomery the easiest of choices to return to a rested Ullmark for Game 6.

Let’s not forget Ullmark’s costly turnover in OT to end Game 5. After that, Montgomery decided to play him again in Game 6, ultimately letting in six goals with a .813 SV%.

It begs the question, would they have won Game 5 with Swayman starting? Even if they didn’t, would a rested Ullmark allow six goals in Game 6?

We can only sit here now and think what if. Had Montgomery decided to start Swayman in Game 5, I argue we’d still be enjoying Boston Bruin Hockey.