Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ThreeCups

GDT: Devils @ Bruins 7PM: BRODEUR in Beantown

343 posts in this topic

Awesome win. Can't wait for big z to come in and explain how it was gifted to us by bruins penalties.

Pretty much this and the fact the Devils haven't caught any puck luck in over a year. They were sort of due. 

That last goal was awesome but clearly wasnt a planned pass to Greene.

Still happy they won.

If they lose the next game just expect them to play like this the rest of the year...if they cant get it together after shutting out the Rangers and then beating a team like Boston the way they did, theyre not going to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

You mean the PP that had already scored 2 goals in the game and had scored 4 in the last 3 games?

 

Goals for rates on 5 on 3 power plays seem to be around 23 goals per 60 minutes of 5 on 3 play, which means that the Devils would be about 50% to score.  We don't have 6 on 3 data to compare it to.  It's really hard to score when you're almost guaranteed to have a Devils player in front of you blocking your clearing attempt.  

 

You have me and 731 defending the 6 on 3, people who among are the least results oriented people on the board.  The point is that giving up a goal is A: unlikely and B: so what?  You were down a goal and only 50% to tie the game anyway, and that's when you pull the goalie - every second that goes off without a goal makes it less likely.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

poor execution?? All four of our goals that night were PP goals Edited by Onddeck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of a stretch here. But as the Devils don't practice 6v3, neither does Boston vice versa. Perhaps just the fact mentally it was 6v3, they tried to adjust to something they never practiced for, throwing them off their game, even though it was much difference from 5v3 for the Devils. It may have been a mental aspect for Bruins. May be a stretch but just knowing you were out numbered 2to1 would make it tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted the Devs to pull Marty, and expected it

 

I was a little surprised at how early we did it, but I am glad we did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the PP that had already scored 2 goals in the game and had scored 4 in the last 3 games?

I won't even address this as you are the KING of citing sample size. Now all of a sudden the Devils are PP masters. You are really entertaining me now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

poor execution?? All four of our goals that night were PP goals

Did you see the goals? The Henrique gosl was the only legit goal. It's not like we they were rotating making killer seam passes, etc.

And if you think the PP is great then I don't know what to tell you except that there is a whole lot of selective memory going on right now.

Edited by hystyk28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to know if hystyk28 thinks the Devils were more likely to score 5 on 3 than 6 on 3?

If the answer is that it's more likely 6 on 3 then you pull the goalie. If the answer is 5 on 3 then we disagree on the scoring potential of the 2 situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see the goals? The Henrique gosl was the only legit goal. It's not like we they were rotating making killer seam passes, etc.

And if you think the PP is great then I don't know what to tell you except that there is a whole lot of selective memory going on right now.

 

What exactly are you arguing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't even address this as you are the KING of citing sample size. Now all of a sudden the Devils are PP masters. You are really entertaining me now.

 

I am talking from DeBoer's perspective, not from mine   Unlike some people, I don't think that I think like how other people think. The PP has looked better the last two games - last night, at least according to extraskater, they had 10 shots at 5 on 4 PPs in around 7.x minutes at the point at which DeBoer made this move, which is of course real good, especially against a PK unit that last year was best in the league in shots allowed.

 

You haven't addressed 731's point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want to know if hystyk28 thinks the Devils were more likely to score 5 on 3 than 6 on 3?

I say they are probably close to the same with one without the risk. Again with this team's PP, I can see the rationale, but it just goes to show how ineffective they are up 2 men. I can barely watch when we have a 2 man advantage. Watch the Kings, Chitown, SJ...they would never need to pull the goalie with 90 second of 5 on 3.

I love aggressive coaching. I really feel that if the team isn't struggling Pete doesn't make that call. I do feel he went all in and caught his card on the river.

Let's hope he gets a little more creative when it comes to shootouts, as his personnel decisions there are poor.

Edited by hystyk28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say they are probably close to the same with one without the risk. Again with this team's PP, I can see the rationale, but it just goes to show how ineffective they are up 2 men. I can barely watch when we have a 2 man advantage. Watch the Kings, Chitown, SJ...they would never need to pull the goalie with 90 second of 5 on 3.

I love aggressive coaching. I really feel that if the team isn't struggling Pete doesn't make that call. I do feel he went all in and caught his card on the river.

Let's hope he gets a little more creative when it comes to shootouts, as his personnel decisions there are poor.

 

You're not making sense.  They didn't pull the goalie with 9 minutes left.  They pulled him when teams pull their goalie.

 

NJ's PP was middle of the pack in shots for during 5 on 3 play last year - unfortunately this year the site that tracks 5 on 3 doesn't have all the data from this year, but right now at least according to the site they're 3rd in shots for during 5 on 3 play.  Chicago's power play 5 on 4 was 4th worst in the league in shots for last year.  L.A's 5 on 3 results were much worse than New Jersey's last year, both in terms of shots and goals.

 

Most people think that their team should score on every 5 on 3 opportunity.  It is not a guaranteed goal.  Indeed, the Devils in 5 on 3 situations last year were not worse than average.  It is just that they were way overperforming early and underperformed late.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't argue with this idiot anymore. He was raging at people for being down and upset with the team earlier for being awful. We win, and he's trying to dog on the coaching staff for the victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't argue with this idiot anymore. He was raging at people for being down and upset with the team earlier for being awful. We win, and he's trying to dog on the coaching staff for the victory.

Hey dipsh!t. Triumph and myself are having a conversation. Neither of us are declaring the season is over and that the team sucks like you did last night before the miraculous PP. I know, I know, you are a fan again, well until at least Tuesday. Go to the goal song thread where people like you thrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Poor execution of a 4-goal powerplay.

You're a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people think that their team should score on every 5 on 3 opportunity.

I don't believe that at all. The quality of PP is what important. So what we scored 4 PPGs last night, the first one looked good and the last 2 was just bedlem so it's tough to judge. But I think it is crazy to think the PP is fine, especially if Gelinas stays down. On 5v3 when you are shooting from the top and have little east west passes through seams, it's not good. As I have pointed out in the past, as this team is constructed today, it needs to perform way better in 2 areas. (shootouts and pps.) The devils do a damn good job 5 on 5 and with the hopes of schneids providing a better save % this season tha last, they have a solid foundation.

Poor execution of a 4-goal powerplay.

You're a moron.

Iron balls behind a keyboard.

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.

 

Dude, seriously...if you can't score on an extended 6-on-3 you deserve to lose anyway.  Giving up a goal on a 6-on-3 is pretty freaking unlikely and about the last thing I'm worried about down a goal in the final minute.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I liked the move. Considering the team's start, what did Pete have to lose?

 

 

 

A bit of a stretch here. But as the Devils don't practice 6v3, neither does Boston vice versa. Perhaps just the fact mentally it was 6v3, they tried to adjust to something they never practiced for, throwing them off their game, even though it was much difference from 5v3 for the Devils. It may have been a mental aspect for Bruins. May be a stretch but just knowing you were out numbered 2to1 would make it tough.

 

From a coaching standpoint though, I would argue that executing a 6-3 offensively is probably a little more awkward than trying to defend it, if we can all agree that neither team practices either situation theoretically. Once a team is down 2 (or in this case, more) players, they are basically playing zone defense instead of man with an emphasis on keeping yourself between the goal and the puck. You could put out 8 guys vs. 3 and the defense would largely treat the situation the same. With that being said, I doubt it was very much fun for the bruins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that at all. The quality of PP is what important. So what we scored 4 PPGs last night, the first one looked good and the last 2 was just bedlem so it's tough to judge. But I think it is crazy to think the PP is fine, especially if Gelinas stays down. On 5v3 when you are shooting from the top and have little east west passes through seams, it's not good. As I have pointed out in the past, as this team is constructed today, it needs to perform way better in 2 areas. (shootouts and pps.) The devils do a damn good job 5 on 5 and with the hopes of schneids providing a better save % this season tha last, they have a solid foundation.

Iron balls behind a keyboard.

 

The shot rate has gone up significantly in the last few games.  They were at 26 shots per 60 minutes at 5 on 4 3 games ago, now they are at 36.  And it's not like they were up against weak PKs either - all 3 PKs they've faced finished in the top 10 of shots allowed last year.  I'm not saying the PP is fixed, but they are getting much better zone entries and it's leading to much better results.  Whether they can sustain that, I don't know, but I'm no longer concerned about NJ's PP being historically awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who argues against pulling the goalie 6 on 3 needs to also argue against pulling the goalie to make it 6 on 5.

If your argument is that the opponent can score on the empty net, well yeah that's always the case when you pull the goalie whether it's a one man or three man advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just realised...I hope this game is covered/featured in the next episode of Behind the B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who argues against pulling the goalie 6 on 3 needs to also argue against pulling the goalie to make it 6 on 5.

If your argument is that the opponent can score on the empty net, well yeah that's always the case when you pull the goalie whether it's a one man or three man advantage.

 

Really, They aren't even remotely comparable and if you need an explanation why, then the conversation is already lost.  Are you sure that I am not saying the risk of giving up an empty netter and killing the 90 second 5 on 3 is not worth the additional skater to make it 6 on 3. Because that is what I am saying.  Don't expect a lot to agree or even understand the difference because people just think more is better. 

 

Again, if the team is .500 or better, I bet Pete doesn't make that move, which is what started the whole conversation for those interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every team, at any record, pulls their goalie because it's easily the correct move.

It's hard enough to clear the puck when down 2 guys, being down 3 makes it nigh impossible. It's no slam dunk scoring when up 2 guys but you certainly increase your odds if you add a 3rd extra player.

So I face extremely minimal risk of allowing a goal and increase my odds of scoring, really a no brainer. I didn't see anyone attached to the game act surprised the goalie was pulled, if the move had any controversy to it then it would have been made an issue, regardless of success.

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