Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
devilsrule33

3 Ways The Devils Have Disappointed (You) at the Break

165 posts in this topic

Not to disagree with you just because we disagree on everything, but I hate SNA. I hate it as a song and as a goal song. It's just not original. At least RR2 was steeped in tradition. I feel as though if they were going to make  change, which I think was unnecessary, then at least do an original song from a Jersey artist. Off topic, but there should be a state flag in the rafters. I can't recall if they fly one outside, but there's absolutely no reason to not have one in the building.

 

But I feel as if New Jerseyans are generally pretty disrespectful of our state flag.

 

RR2 isn't original either, but since the Rockies were the first team to use it, you can say we started the tradition.  The YS chant ruined the song though.

 

Regardless, I haven't met you.

 

Can you not comprehend how annoying is this, in light of your penchant for post-whoring?  A lot of people on this site have never met face-to-face and likely never will...that's pretty standard for sites like this.  In all of the time I've been posting here, I've only met a handful of members (DaneykoIsGod, iamtheprodigy, Colin226, DevsMan84, and a couple that don't post here anymore).  A lot of the reason for having a website like this is so fans of the same team can "hang out" and discuss/debate various aspects of the team on and off the ice without having to do it in each other's physical presence (I can't believe this has to be explained to you, but apparently it does).  Why even bother wasting bandwidth on stupid semantics sh!t like "I never met anybody [face-to-face] who didn't like the goal song"?  What's your point exactly, that until you physically "meet" someone who says they don't like SNA, you won't believe such people exist?  People saying they don't like it on this website (which is NOT prone to much in the way of trolling) somehow doesn't count?  You're now going to drive up your post count with debating how "meeting" someone can have different compartmentalized definitions and interpretations? 

 

The problem is that I've been a victim of having words been put into my mouth far too many times.  Devsman84 keeps accusing me of playing both sides which is false.  I still have yet to find anybody show me where I said we were gonna make the playoffs, which is why I got annoyed at people calling me blindly optimistic.  Devils Pride 26 thought I was comparing 2012 team to this years team.

 

When people insult me on things I never said, you're damn right I'm gonna defend myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I hate when new(ish) posters get ganged up on here - I love when the community continues to grow and new people join to post their thoughts.  I like to think we're a generally friendly community, and I hope any lurkers watching this whole situation with Mike unfold aren't frightened off.  So long as posters, old or new, are genuine I don't think anyone here will jump at you.

 

But Mike.. you're driving us all crazy man.  Especially when you hop from point point and then use semantics to defend yourself.

 

About the playoffs, since you brought it up - that entire thread, you were steadfast in your claims that it would be foolish to sell, citing the current standings or other 'statistics' to prove your point that the playoffs were very much so in reach and that the Devils would make it no matter how improbable.  But now you're apparently claiming you don't think they'll make it to the playoffs..so which is it?  Why be so adamantly against selling off certain players we've discussed if you don't think they'll make the playoffs anyway?  I (and others, apparently) don't get your logic - are you arguing just to argue?  Playing advocate just for the sake of doing so?

 

It's just a frustrating cycle - maybe we're misunderstanding you but it sure seems like you're talking in circles at times.

Edited by Devilsfan118
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I hate when new(ish) posters get ganged up on here - I love when the community continues to grow and new people join to post their thoughts.  I like to think we're a generally friendly community, and I hope any lurkers watching this whole situation with Mike unfold aren't frightened off.  So long as posters, old or new, are genuine I don't think anyone here will jump at you.

 

But Mike.. you're driving us all crazy man.  Especially when you hop from point point and then use semantics to defend yourself.

 

About the playoffs, since you brought it up - that entire thread, you were steadfast in your claims that it would be foolish to sell, citing the current standings or other 'statistics' to prove your point that the playoffs were very much so in reach and that the Devils would make it no matter how improbable.  But now you're apparently claiming you don't think they'll make it to the playoffs..so which is it?  Why be so adamantly against selling off certain players we've discussed if you don't think they'll make the playoffs anyway?  I (and others, apparently) don't get your logic - are you arguing just to argue?  Playing advocate just for the sake of doing so?

 

It's just a frustrating cycle - maybe we're misunderstanding you but it sure seems like you're talking in circles at times.

 

My entire point the entire time is that we're 3 points out.  You don't sell when you're 3 points out in February.  Period.  End of story.

 

Whether or not we think we will be in the playoffs is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I hate when new(ish) posters get ganged up on here - I love when the community continues to grow and new people join to post their thoughts.  I like to think we're a generally friendly community, and I hope any lurkers watching this whole situation with Mike unfold aren't frightened off.  So long as posters, old or new, are genuine I don't think anyone here will jump at you.

 

But Mike.. you're driving us all crazy man.  Especially when you hop from point point and then use semantics to defend yourself.

 

About the playoffs, since you brought it up - that entire thread, you were steadfast in your claims that it would be foolish to sell, citing the current standings or other 'statistics' to prove your point that the playoffs were very much so in reach and that the Devils would make it no matter how improbable.  But now you're apparently claiming you don't think they'll make it to the playoffs..so which is it?  Why be so adamantly against selling off certain players we've discussed if you don't think they'll make the playoffs anyway?  I (and others, apparently) don't get your logic - are you arguing just to argue?  Playing advocate just for the sake of doing so?

 

It's just a frustrating cycle - maybe we're misunderstanding you but it sure seems like you're talking in circles at times.

 

+1000000.  He is in a constant devils advocate coma and it's really just driving me crazy.  I know some posters like to be fence sitters, but this is extreme.  It's like he pretty much does it just so that he can never be proven wrong about anything as he can claim he took that side. 

 

This paragraph was just what I was going to point out to him when he said my 2nd point is false and I have never proven it.

 

I like most new posters and have defended many in the past, but this is just too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 is completely false.  You keep saying this, but never have proven it.

 

i think it goes back to the goal song thread when you said you caught yourself chanting "you suck"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it goes back to the goal song thread when you said you caught yourself chanting "you suck"

 

lol good memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I hate when new(ish) posters get ganged up on here - I love when the community continues to grow and new people join to post their thoughts.  I like to think we're a generally friendly community, and I hope any lurkers watching this whole situation with Mike unfold aren't frightened off.  So long as posters, old or new, are genuine I don't think anyone here will jump at you.

 

I don't think new posters get jumped here all that often, and the few that do often seem to be bringing it on themselves.  There was one guy, Dino Costa, who started a thread about a conversation he had with Ken Daneyko as one of his first posts...fine, except that he referred to Marty as #31 not once in the post, but twice, and also didn't seem to know that Rob and Scott Niedermayer played together in winning the Cup as Ducks in 2007.  I thought the #31 thing in particular was extremely fishy and let him know it at the time.  I don't know exactly what his deal was...he opened two accts with that name (one in caps), and I know he does or did a radio show, but came across as being pretty arrogant, which was kind of funny for a guy who couldn't even get Brodeur's number right.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think new posters get jumped here all that often, and the few that do often seem to be bringing it on themselves.  There was one guy, Dino Costa, who started a thread about a conversation he had with Ken Daneyko as one of his first posts...fine, except that he referred to Marty as #31 not once in the post, but twice, and also didn't seem to know that Rob and Scott Niedermayer played together in winning the Cup as Ducks in 2007.  I thought the #31 thing in particular was extremely fishy and let him know it at the time.  I don't know exactly what his deal was...he opened two accts with that name (one in caps), and I know he does or did a radio show, but came across as being pretty arrogant, which was kind of funny for a guy who couldn't even get Brodeur's number right.   

 

Dino Costa is a radio host that used to have a show on Sirius/XM's Mad Dog Radio.  The guy thought he was god's gift to broadcasters on Jim Rome levels.  I used to listen to him driving home from work some nights.  He did talk about the Devils a bunch on his radio program, and was a big fan of hockey in general.  He was amusing at times and his show was much more interesting than the garbage they trot out there now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1000000.  He is in a constant devils advocate coma and it's really just driving me crazy.  I know some posters like to be fence sitters, but this is extreme.  It's like he pretty much does it just so that he can never be proven wrong about anything as he can claim he took that side. 

 

This paragraph was just what I was going to point out to him when he said my 2nd point is false and I have never proven it.

 

I like most new posters and have defended many in the past, but this is just too much.

 

You're wrong.  Completely and utterly wrong.  Either show me one example or STFU.  Just admit you're wrong just once.

 

i think it goes back to the goal song thread when you said you caught yourself chanting "you suck"

 

Fine.  But one instance like that doesn't make me some Devils advocate.  I guarantee everybody has done something that they said would never do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Either show me one example or STFU. Just admit you're wrong just once.

Fine. But one instance like that doesn't make me some Devils advocate. I guarantee everybody has done something that they said would never do.

again that is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. You have been called out for speaking out of both sides of your mouth and you try to go the whole semantics route. So this, plus the thread where you said the devils should be buyers since they are a playoff team yet when you get called out on that you say you don't think they will make the playoffs. Now lazer brought up about the YS chant where you said you hated it yet took part in it. That's three examples right there!

Yet I know you will go back and split hairs on your words to talk your way out of it as usual.

But I'm the one who never admits he is wrong right?

Edit: now I see in the Olympics thread you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth again and got called out by other posters. That's example #4. Good grief.

Edited by DevsMan84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't understand why everyone gangs up on Mike either. If you think he posts too much, just ignore it. He's a legit fan who isn't trolling and I appreciate his optimism from time to time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again that is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. You have been called out for speaking out of both sides of your mouth and you try to go the whole semantics route. So this, plus the thread where you said the devils should be buyers since they are a playoff team yet when you get called out on that you say you don't think they will make the playoffs. Now lazer brought up about the YS chant where you said you hated it yet took part in it. That's three examples right there!

Yet I know you will go back and split hairs on your words to talk your way out of it as usual.

But I'm the one who never admits he is wrong right?

Edit: now I see in the Olympics thread you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth again and got called out by other posters. That's example #4. Good grief.

 

Those are 4 terrible examples.

 

1. I said we should be buyers because we're 3 points out.  I didn't say we were gonna make the playoffs, and then turn around and say we're a bad team.  I simply said that we shouldn't sell when we're only 3 points back.  Period.  End of story.

In other words, I'm not sure if we will make the playoffs but we should still be buyers because we're only 3 points out.

 

2. The YS thing I explained that I only did it because it was the Rangers.  If you actually followed my opinion on the YS chant since day one, I never said I didn't like the chant.  I've always stated since day one it's the timing of the chant I didn't like.  Meaning I don't like it being chanted along with the goal song.

In other words, I like chanting YS but I dislike it being chanted with the goal song.

 

3. If you read the original post in the Olympics thread, I actually established the difference between ON PAR and EQUAL in my original post.  

In other words, we can absolutely compete and beat Canada but we're still not equal with Canada's talent and depth.

 

4.This goes along the same thing when I said I haven't MET anybody who doesn't like SNA.  Chuck decided to mention a bunch of people on NJDevs who said they didn't like it.

In other words, I never met anybody who didn't like SNA but I also know that there are people who don't like SNA.

 

Since I just now proved you wrong, you're gonna admit it now, right?  Probably not though since you would rather continue arguing like you always do.

Edited by Mike Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't understand why everyone gangs up on Mike either. If you think he posts too much, just ignore it. He's a legit fan who isn't trolling and I appreciate his optimism from time to time

 

Listen, I'm not actually being optimistic.  I think the Devils can make the playoffs, but I just don't know if they will.  Ultimately, since we're only 3 points back, we should definitely try.  Lou needs to buy or if anything stand pat.  Selling should be the last thing he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of you need to go back reread the sequence of posts.

 

On Par and Equal do not mean the same thing.

 

 

Yes, they do. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+par

 

on par (with someone or something)

equal to someone or something. Your effort is simply not on par with what's expected from you. These two departments are right on par in productivity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. If you read the original post in the Olympics thread, I actually established the difference between ON PAR and EQUAL in my original post.  

In other words, we can absolutely compete and beat Canada but we're still not equal with Canada's talent and depth.

 

 

 

There is no difference. As you can see above, that's been established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they do. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+par

 

on par (with someone or something)

equal to someone or something. Your effort is simply not on par with what's expected from you. These two departments are right on par in productivity.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no difference. As you can see above, that's been established.

 

Well my bad.  I used the wrong terminology.  But regardless, this isn't the proper thread to discuss this.  There is an Olympics thread we can use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are 4 terrible examples.

1. I said we should be buyers because we're 3 points out. I didn't say we were gonna make the playoffs, and then turn around and say we're a bad team. I simply said that we shouldn't sell when we're only 3 points back. Period. End of story.

In other words, I'm not sure if we will make the playoffs but we should still be buyers because we're only 3 points out.

2. The YS thing I explained that I only did it because it was the Rangers. If you actually followed my opinion on the YS chant since day one, I never said I didn't like the chant. I've always stated since day one it's the timing of the chant I didn't like. Meaning I don't like it being chanted along with the goal song.

In other words, I like chanting YS but I dislike it being chanted with the goal song.

3. If you read the original post in the Olympics thread, I actually established the difference between ON PAR and EQUAL in my original post.

In other words, we can absolutely compete and beat Canada but we're still not equal with Canada's talent and depth.

4.This goes along the same thing when I said I haven't MET anybody who doesn't like SNA. Chuck decided to mention a bunch of people on NJDevs who said they didn't like it.

In other words, I never met anybody who didn't like SNA but I also know that there are people who don't like SNA.

Since I just now proved you wrong, you're gonna admit it now, right? Probably not though since you would rather continue arguing like you always do.

For 1 and 2 you are still speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

For 3 you were proven wrong, gave a half-assed admittance while trying to jump away from the topic after giving others grief with your screw up.

Edit: and I see you are still going on and on about this in the other thread.

And for 4 you are still playing with semantics.

My god you are annoying.

Edited by DevsMan84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows what is going on. Good thread? Back on topic? Please honestly this is why I wax Stevens. This crap is just as subjective, random and BORING as a girl chubby on one or all players is. How can you all not know that? I'm just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For 1 and 2 you are still speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

For 3 you were proven wrong, gave a half-assed admittance while trying to jump away from the topic after giving others grief with your screw up.

And for 4 you are still playing with semantics.

My god you are annoying.

 

1 and 2 is not playing both sides of the fence.  Not even close.

 

For number 3, I actually admitted I simply used the wrong terminology.  My overall opinion still stands.

 

For number 4, there really is a huge difference between meeting somebody and knowing of somebody.  If that's just a matter of semantics to you, it's a good thing you're not a lawyer.  You would think killing someone and murdering someone is the same thing.

 

You're easily the biggest nitpicker on this forum, and you actually try to make the biggest deal out of every little thing.  What's really funny is that you got on my case because I said "rare" instead of "uncommon".

 

YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.  WRONG ABOUT ME, AND WRONG IN GENERAL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same hair splitting in every page of nearly every thread. 

 

The Forum title "Hell" has never been so appropriate... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same hair splitting in every page of nearly every thread. 

 

The Forum title "Hell" has never been so appropriate... 

 

I split hairs because I don't like it when people interpret my posts in their own way.  I post what I mean and mean what I post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one knows what is going on. Good thread? Back on topic? Please honestly this is why I wax Stevens. This crap is just as subjective, random and BORING as a girl chubby on one or all players is. How can you all not know that? I'm just sayin.

Hey, there ain't nothing boring bout a chubby girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ can we just make a separate thread for mike brown talk... As smantaz said just put him on ignore if you don't want to see his posts, otherwise the people constantly complaining about it come off ironically like they're trying to boost their post count or acting like board police.

Anyway l think there are legitimate disappointments in this thread, specifically the defensive logjam and josefson's development- but I'm not exactly sure what the devils could have done differently about either. Like I said up thread I think Lou planned for gelinas and Merrill to stay in the ahl most of the year, but since they came up early and showed something it puts him in a tricky spot, hopefully he can move someone to clear the way for Larsson.

With josefson, it's just frustrating. The guy has some talent but just doesn't seem able to create enough offense. I really wish Pete would just give him an extended run of like 5 or 6 games but I can't blame him for just playing the guys he feels give him the best chance to win. I think if we're out of the race in a few weeks we'll see more of the kids play.

The goals song argument is silly at this point, it's not being changed anytime soon and it's one of those things where if the team is winning it's not on anyone's radar but because we're mediocre at best it's just another thing to pile on about. Like the pru center, once we start winning with the song people will come around to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My three disappointments:

 

1. Expected more consistent play out of Ryder

2. I thought Carter and Bernier would evolve more as scorers

3. Love our defense, but would like to see Gelinas and Larsson paired with the big club the rest of the season.

 

Biggest surprise:  Jagr has been playing way beyond my expectations.  Go Lou

 

Most underappreciated:  Zidlicky would be a top defensemen if we had better scoring forwards.    I hope we extend his contract, because no one can provide the offensive like he does on our team.   It's too bad he has to take some many risks because our forwards can't score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gelly does and will turn out to be a better defenseman as time goes on.

My three disappointments:

1. Expected more consistent play out of Ryder

2. I thought Carter and Bernier would evolve more as scorers

3. Love our defense, but would like to see Gelinas and Larsson paired with the big club the rest of the season.

Biggest surprise: Jagr has been playing way beyond my expectations. Go Lou

Most underappreciated: Zidlicky would be a top defensemen if we had better scoring forwards. I hope we extend his contract, because no one can provide the offensive like he does on our team. It's too bad he has to take some many risks because our forwards can't score.

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