Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ThreeCups

GDT: Devils @ Bruins 7PM: BRODEUR in Beantown

343 posts in this topic

Fayne is solid that's why we like him. It's rare that he fvcks up because he's old and slow. Also he pinches a lot which none of the defensemen really do (Volch, Salv) because they are so fvcking slow, they cant afford to be aggressive at all.

ive seen fayne make quite a few mistakes so far this season.. not trying to take anything away from him but just generally saying hes nothing so special either.. sure hes younger and he is quicker then some of the vet dmen and we do need that quickness but other then that just dont really feel that hes really anything super special.. definently think gelinas has looked better in his couple of games that hes had so far( granted its only been a COUPLE of games)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive seen fayne make quite a few mistakes so far this season.. not trying to take anything away from him but just generally saying hes nothing so special either.. sure hes younger and he is quicker then some of the vet dmen and we do need that quickness but other then that just dont really feel that hes really anything super special.. definently think gelinas has looked better in his couple of games that hes had so far( granted its only been a COUPLE of games)

 

I agree gelinas has a game changing shot. If I had to choose between gelinas and fayne, I'd choose gelinas. However, that shouldn't be the choice, we should fvcking waive volch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulling the goalie to make it a 6 on 3 shows that Pete is feeling the heat. So, he has to know that keeping Gelinas up is key to his employment. So.....Send Gio down and put Harrold at wing or maybe even Zids, which I think could be a successful as Burns in San Jose. Zids has 0 defensive awareness anyway.

Edited by hystyk28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulling the goalie to make it a 6 on 3 shows that Pete is feeling the heat. So, he has to know that keeping Gelinas up is key to his employment. So.....Send Gio down and put Harrold at wing or maybe even Zids, which I think could be a successful as Burns in San Jose. Zids has 0 defensive awareness anyway.

 

DeBoer has no control over the roster.  Pulling the goalie to make it a 6 on 3 is a smart play - how does that show he is 'feeling the heat'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DeBoer has no control over the roster.  Pulling the goalie to make it a 6 on 3 is a smart play - how does that show he is 'feeling the heat'?

i agree pulling brodeur for the 6 on 3 was obviously the way to go to try to tie the game and it worked as well.. i dont think that was a sign of deperation from pete i think any team in that position would have done that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree pulling brodeur for the 6 on 3 was obviously the way to go to try to tie the game and it worked as well.. i dont think that was a sign of deperation from pete i think any team in that position would have done that

To be honest, I wasn't a fan of them pulling the goalie there because I felt there would be too many options and a fluky clear could have ended up in the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I wasn't a fan of them pulling the goalie there because I felt there would be too many options and a fluky clear could have ended up in the net.

You have to pull the goalie there. It's the same rationale as every other time a team pulls the goalie. The situation being 5 on 4 or 5 on 3 doesn't change the goal equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I wasn't a fan of them pulling the goalie there because I felt there would be too many options and a fluky clear could have ended up in the net.

either way they wouldve lost the game if they couldnt score another goal to have tied it up.. i think it was clearly the right way to fly and thankfully it worked out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DeBoer has no control over the roster.  Pulling the goalie to make it a 6 on 3 is a smart play - how does that show he is 'feeling the heat'?

 

Because there are many coaches, and I have been in USA Hockey seminars with very experienced coaches(N, A,etc) that have debated this exact topic.  Some feel that if you can't get it done with a 5 on 3 then the 6th guy probably isn't gonna make it happen, given the chance of having your 2 man advantage can be eliminated as fast as the next face off, etc.  If Boston wins a draw and the puck goes into the EN, this board would go bonkers even more so than it does now.  Pete the lawyer has not been the risk taker ever and this move just screams that to me. I liked the move and it easy to applaud such a move now knowing the end result.

 

Also, a 6-3 is very unorthodox for the players and I would love to see a comparison of times where teams chose to go 5-3 vs. 6-3 and what the outcomes were.(I don't profess to know and yes I am aware it doesn't happen all that often)

Edited by hystyk28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there are many coaches, and I have been in USA Hockey seminars with very experienced coaches(N, A,etc) that have debated this exact topic.  Some feel that if you can't get it done with a 5 on 3 then the 6th guy probably isn't gonna make it happen, given the chance of having your 2 man advantage can be eliminated as fast as the next face off, etc.  If Boston wins a draw and the puck goes into the EN, this board would go bonkers even more so than it does now.  Pete the lawyer has not been the risk taker ever and this move just screams that to me.

 

They didn't pull Brodeur until they had possession. If there'd been a draw, Marty would've been back in goal. It was a no-brainer move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DeBoer has no control over the roster.  

He may not control the roster, but he controls his lineup. I am sure there is plenty of dialogue between the 2. If Lou can't make a move, and I was Pete, I would do whatever it takes to keep Gelinas up and if that means getting creative with the 4th line, so be it.

 

I am telling you Zids should consider a position change, he loves to play in the O zone and he has a lot of skill in that area, good hands, quick release and is creative.  Look at Burns in San Jose and Dallas is talking about doing it with Goligoski. It's gonna be more commonplace in years to come. 

 

Lawyers should be good problem solvers, given what the Devils CURRENTLY have, Pete better embrace the idea, especially if Schneids is banged up at all.

Edited by hystyk28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there are many coaches, and I have been in USA Hockey seminars with very experienced coaches(N, A,etc) that have debated this exact topic.  Some feel that if you can't get it done with a 5 on 3 then the 6th guy probably isn't gonna make it happen, given the chance of having your 2 man advantage can be eliminated as fast as the next face off, etc.  If Boston wins a draw and the puck goes into the EN, this board would go bonkers even more so than it does now.  Pete the lawyer has not been the risk taker ever and this move just screams that to me. I liked the move and it easy to applaud such a move now knowing the end result.

 

Also, a 6-3 is very unorthodox for the players and I would love to see a comparison of times where teams chose to go 5-3 vs. 6-3 and what the outcomes were.(I don't profess to know and yes I am aware it doesn't happen all that often)

 

See, this is where people like you look ridiculous.  The board would go bonkers because they are morons who don't understand risk.   Coaches, as a general group, are incredbly conservative and overvalue not looking foolish versus making the right play.  I agree a 6 on 3 isn't something you ever practice, so that's a potential monkey wrench, but it's absolutely the right play to have an extra guy out there.

 

'Pete the lawyer has not been the risk taker ever' - you mean when he got killed on here for pulling the goalie down 2 with about 4 minutes left to go when the game became 4 on 4?  DeBoer has usually been an aggressive goalie puller - obviously the rest of the NHL (and DeBoer) should be more aggressive, but this isn't one of DeBoer's flaws (unlike Saint Lemaire, who often pulled his goalie later than most and sometimes not even at all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't it Eakins who spoke about research showing that teams pull their goalies way too late? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete did an excellent job last night coaching that game.  The timeout he called, to the way he changed lines throughout the game, to pulling the goalie and sending Bernier out there as the extra attacker with the sole job of screening Rask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is where people like you look ridiculous.  The board would go bonkers because they are morons who don't understand risk.   Coaches, as a general group, are incredbly conservative and overvalue not looking foolish versus making the right play.  I agree a 6 on 3 isn't something you ever practice, so that's a potential monkey wrench, but it's absolutely the right play to have an extra guy out there.

 

'Pete the lawyer has not been the risk taker ever' - you mean when he got killed on here for pulling the goalie down 2 with about 4 minutes left to go when the game became 4 on 4?  DeBoer has usually been an aggressive goalie puller - obviously the rest of the NHL (and DeBoer) should be more aggressive, but this isn't one of DeBoer's flaws (unlike Saint Lemaire, who often pulled his goalie later than most and sometimes not even at all)

 

I don't look ridiculous.  And it's too bad your attitude gets in the way of your opinion because you often make some good points, but your holier than know attitude is comical, I mean really, really comical.  What is absolutely ridiculous is that I can tell that you have never even had a pair of skates on your feet.  A skilled team wouldn't need the 6th guy, especially at the cost of giving up a goal. (you know risk/reward) They had 90 seconds remaining of the 5 on 3.   Looking at Zids goal, explain to me really where having the 6th man comes into play. You even contradict yourself saying it is absolutely the right play to have a 6 on 3 yet you can see how it's a monkey wrench.   That goal could have been scored without the 6th guy and I don't even like the shot selection, but it did go and that is all that matters.

 

The same morons today are posting a thousand miles a minute when they were declaring the season over last night and how they aren't gonna watch anymore because the team sucks.  It's really mind-blowing how stupid some of the people act in here, but I guess it's the time we live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't it Eakins who spoke about research showing that teams pull their goalies way too late? 

 

Are we talking a conventional 6 on 5? If, so, there is a growing movement among coaches that the goalie should be pulled earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Zids goal the 6th man was all alone in front screening the goalie, making the goal happen, because there were so many extra men to cover.

I would be incensed if a team I rooted for didn't pull the goalie to make it a 6 on 3. It'd be crazy to think the goalie is helping your team more than an extra skater would in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Zids goal the 6th man was all alone in front screening the goalie, making the goal happen, because there were so many extra men to cover.

I would be incensed if a team I rooted for didn't pull the goalie to make it a 6 on 3. It'd be crazy to think the goalie is helping your team more than an extra skater would in that situation.

It is easy to say that when you know the outcome.  If Boston would have fired the puck into an open net with almost 90 seconds of a 5 on 3 the tone in here would be way different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is easy to say that when you know the outcome. If Boston would have fired the puck into an open net with almost 90 seconds of a 5 on 3 the tone in here would be way different.

It wouldn't change my opinion on it, the correct play is to pull the goalie. Not pulling the goalie is playing cautious when you need a goal or you get nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is easy to say that when you know the outcome.  If Boston would have fired the puck into an open net with almost 90 seconds of a 5 on 3 the tone in here would be way different.

 

My point with mentioning your ridiculousness isn't that you were saying anything wrong except for deferring to the judgment of the board en masse, when sports fans are even worse than coaches at ascertaining risk.  I doubt there is enough data on 6 on 3 situations - I imagine they come up less than 10 times a season, and that most of them are very brief.

 

Like 731 said, Bernier was just posted in front of the net, so it's like running a 5 on 3 except where the goalie shouldn't be able to see any of the shots clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point with mentioning your ridiculousness isn't that you were saying anything wrong except for deferring to the judgment of the board en masse, when sports fans are even worse than coaches at ascertaining risk.  I doubt there is enough data on 6 on 3 situations - I imagine they come up less than 10 times a season, and that most of them are very brief.

 

Like 731 said, Bernier was just posted in front of the net, so it's like running a 5 on 3 except where the goalie shouldn't be able to see any of the shots clearly.

Exactly...if you are relying on a screen for a 6 on 3 you are doing something very, very wrong. Fortunately, it worked out last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly...if you are relying on a screen for a 6 on 3 you are doing something very, very wrong. Fortunately, it worked out last night.

 

What else is the 6th guy going to do?  Put him at center ice to keep pucks from going the length?  I mean I can't remember the last time NJ had a 6 on 3 so it's basically a moot point, but I don't see any other sensible way to deploy him than how it was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly...if you are relying on a screen for a 6 on 3 you are doing something very, very wrong. Fortunately, it worked out last night.

So there is no advantage to having a player screen the goalie? The Devils were more likely to score playing a 5 on 3 with no screen than a 5 on 3 plus an extra guy who is screening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bruins moved chara off the point in order to use him as a screen. I think that tells you the importance of it. bernier did a hell of a job there

 

btw Jagrs hockey sense is off the fricken charts

 

solid win for they guys sticking up for their coach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else is the 6th guy going to do? Put him at center ice to keep pucks from going the length? I mean I can't remember the last time NJ had a 6 on 3 so it's basically a moot point, but I don't see any other sensible way to deploy him than how it was done.

This is my point. There is really no way to utilize him in relation to the risk of giving up the empty netter. I am telling you right now, this is a case that knowing the end result rallies the support.

Simply put:

90 seconds of 5 on 3 with goalie>6 on 3 without.

Maybe the poor execution of the PP is the driving force for Pete's decision to go with 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0