Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MadDog2020

GDT: Devils @ Phailures 7:00 PM

235 posts in this topic

They'll be in close games during the playoffs. That's not the definition of mediocrity.

As for the 2012 rags, I don't want to be in a position to defend them, but they didn't suddenly go from awful to mediocre and then cup contender due to Carl Hagelin lol. They were never bad to begin with.

 

lol at them being a cup contender.  50% Fentied team, look out everyone.  They were a mediocre team.  They were never a Cup contender - they would've needed massive doses of luck to win a Stanley Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol at them being a cup contender.  50% Fentied team, look out everyone.  They were a mediocre team.  They were never a Cup contender - they would've needed massive doses of luck to win a Stanley Cup.

 

Didn't the 2012 Rangers need to win game 6 and 7 to survive the average Senators. Didn't they need to a 7th game to beat the mediocre Capitals.

 

The 2012 Rangers were not good at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol at them being a cup contender. 50% Fentied team, look out everyone. They were a mediocre team. They were never a Cup contender - they would've needed massive doses of luck to win a Stanley Cup.

I generally agree with the statistics, but sometimes you need to separate them from reality- in the words of bill parcells "you are what your record says you are."

You cannot say the leafs are a bad team getting excellent goaltending- because goaltending plays a very large part in the outcome of any game, and thus the leafs are a good team BECAUSE of their goaltending. You're essentially saying last year's Seahawks were a mediocre team propped up by a great defense, well yeah but defense plays a large part in football and won them the Super Bowl.

I'm not saying the leafs are cup contenders but don't forget that last year with basically the same team they really should have beaten the bruins so I don't think they're a bad team, maybe lucky a bit but not bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I thought the 2012 rangers were very good, in the sense they were very much like the teams we have had. Very structured defensivley with solid goal tending (big pads played a role but they werent giving up many goals). They played hard as fvck and with alot of heart. If I could choose between a devils team that looked like this years rags team vs a team that looked like the 2012 rags team, I'd take the 2012 rags team.

 

 

Their biggest mistake was trading away all the players they did for these pansies they have now. It's a skilled team but it doesn't seem like one that is going to make a deep playoff run. Don't seem built for playoff hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta stop with this "being in people's" head nonsense.  I for one would have definitely said that should have clearly been a no goal.  Reading the responses on the Flyers board on HF, many feel it was the correct call.  You seriously don't give Devils fans enough credit here that if the roles were reversed we would be bitching about the call.  I don't believe that for a second.  We're a rational group despite the fact we tend to be immature.

 

Anyways, from watching that game, I didn't notice any real good scoring chance the Flyers had.  As I said, that 3rd period was a defensive clinic, and Marty never had to make any really hard saves.  The only hard save he did have to make was that glove save through a screen of like 4 guys.  I personally believe the Flyers never had as many shots as they were credited with last night.  It definitely only felt like 25 at most.  Flyers also had 6 powerplays.  And some of those were gifts from the refs.

 

I'm not even going to acknowlege the bolded, as it's so off-base it's comical.   

 

Clearly a lot of Flyer fans in attendance were plenty ticked about the goal being waved off.  I think it's reasonable to say many Devils fans would've felt the same way under similar circumstances (initially anyway)...especially if they were given even more of a glimmer of hope when Toronto was consulted re:  whether or not the goal should count.            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I thought the 2012 rangers were very good, in the sense they were very much like the teams we have had. Very structured defensivley with solid goal tending (big pads played a role but they werent giving up many goals). They played hard as fvck and with alot of heart. If I could choose between a devils team that looked like this years rags team vs a team that looked like the 2012 rags team, I'd take the 2012 rags team.

 

Their biggest mistake was trading away all the players they did for these pansies they have now. It's a skilled team but it doesn't seem like one that is going to make a deep playoff run. Don't seem built for playoff hockey.

 

I agree 100%. I'm admittedly not a stats guy so I don't know what areas they were good or what areas they were sh!tty in that year. Maybe it was the shot-blocking that was breaking all the odds, I'm sure it inflated how good they may have been perceived as, but they were tough, defensively sound, and annoying to play against, which that year (LA) and the year prior (Boston), was the recurring theme on how to win the Cup.

 

If they kept their core intact and built on it, I didn't see any reason they couldn't make a good run in the playoffs last year or this year for that matter. But they've pretty much stripped down that entire team in order to make a slightly more "big name" team that will look like sh!t if they even make the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to acknowlege the bolded, as it's so off-base it's comical.   

 

Clearly a lot of Flyer fans in attendance were plenty ticked about the goal being waved off.  I think it's reasonable to say many Devils fans would've felt the same way under similar circumstances (initially anyway)...especially if they were given even more of a glimmer of hope when Toronto was consulted re:  whether or not the goal should count.            

 

The fans in the arena are always gonna boo in those situations even if the right call is being made.  That goes for all fanbases.

 

You're trying to say we would all be upset if the same thing happened to us.  Well you don't know that.  Hence why I said you aren't in everybody's heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol at them being a cup contender.  50% Fentied team, look out everyone.  They were a mediocre team.  They were never a Cup contender - they would've needed massive doses of luck to win a Stanley Cup.

 

They were 2 wins away from the SCF! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fans in the arena are always gonna boo in those situations even if the right call is being made.  That goes for all fanbases.

 

You're trying to say we would all be upset if the same thing happened to us.  Well you don't know that.  Hence why I said you aren't in everybody's heads.

 

Yes, I do think a lot of Devils fans probably would've been ticked off, like I said, at least at first.  Probably would've been a lot of WTF posts after the game, then a softening and some calming down, and a "Well, once you take a step back..." resignation that the call on the ice was correct.  Having that observation doesn't mean I'm trying to get into everyone's heads.     

 

3101 posts and counting...you know there's no reward for highest average post count per day right?              

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TSN - KERRY FRASER on the disallowed goal

 

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=446011

 

With the Flyers net empty for an extra attacker, the puck was kicked out of a high scrum of players and thrown across ice by Kimmo Timonen to Jacub Voracek. Scott Hartnell broke for the net with Anton Volchenchov in close pursuit from behind. There was some minor contact exerted by Volchenkov on Hartnell as the Flyer extended to redirect Voracek's pass at Martin Brodeur from outside the crease. Brodeur made the initial save but offered up a rebound as Volchenkov lost his balance and fell to the ice with a slide toward the goal. There was no push, shove or check delivered by Volchenkov on Hartnell and their contact was incidental in nature.

Scott Hartnell remained on his skates in a path that took him into the goal crease. Hartnell repositioned his body and began to throw snow in a stopping motion. It appears at this point that Scott's skate contacted the puck and directed it back into Brodeur's stacked pads. Scott Hartnell's forward momentum then took him deep into the goal crease. Hartnell initiated a hip bump at the point of contact with Martin Brodeur that knocked both the goalie and the puck into the net.

Referee Tom Kowal, with very good position to see the contact, utilized Rule 69.6 to immediately wave off the potential goal. (69.6: In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed.) Kowal correctly ruled that the contact by Hartnell was "incidental" as opposed to deliberate thereby resulting in no goal and no penalty on the play.

This is not a reviewable play. The decision made by the Toronto Situation Room to initiate a review and the subsequent announcement the referee was forced to make did not bring clarity or support the decision made on the ice by referee Kowal. The delay in getting the game resumed quickly, in addition to the announcement, "Following video review it's confirmed it's not a 'good hockey goal'. It's no goal" further infuriated Flyers fans in the building for no useful purpose since video review could not overturn the referee's decision.

Bottom line is that in the judgment of the referee, Martin Brodeur and the puck were knocked into the net through incidental contact exerted by Scott Hartnell. The call made on the ice by the referee was both correct and courageous - end of story!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were 2 wins away from the SCF! lol

 

They needed miracle upon miracle to grind through some not so good Ottawa and Washington teams that year (remember the Richards goal in the waning seconds against Wash?) both were 7 game series. If the got past us, it would've been ANOTHER 7 game series. Then they would have to face a blistering hot, dominant Kings team and need four more wins for the cups.

Tell me, do you like the 2012 Rangers odds against LA after three consecutive seven game wars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were 2 wins away from the SCF! lol

 

They went 10-10 in 20 2012 playoff games, and like others have pointed out, opponents #1 and #2 weren't anything great.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They needed miracle upon miracle to grind through some not so good Ottawa and Washington teams that year (remember the Richards goal in the waning seconds against Wash?) both were 7 game series.

 

After a double-minor Joel Ward penalty lol

 

They were a Cinderella masquerading as a good team that year, the only reason they got through two rounds was their overachieving in the regular season and taking full advantage of home-ice in Game 7's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a lot of malarkey about the Leafs not being a bad team.  They are a bad team getting great goaltending and lots of shootout luck.  I heard the same old story about how Brodeur just wins games.  He had a solid game last night - though I'd like to point out that it seemed the Flyers missed an awful lot of shots - and if he can play like that nightly the team will be okay.  I don't think he can do that, but he's been okay in the last 4 games.

 

 

 

Okay, so put your money where your mouth is.  Brodeur from now forward will continue to get the same goal support that he has, Schneider will continue to get the goal support he has.  It's very simple, and it's across all sports - it doesn't make any sense to assign responsiblity for something to someone that appears to have no responsibility for a particular thing.  Sometimes the wildly improbable happens.  There does not have to be a cause for it.  Especially not in a game like hockey which is riddled with chance events - bounces of the puck determine so often whether a play will result in a goal or not.

 

To your first point, I have no conclusion one way or another as to whether or not Marty possesses an unknown numerical quality that is conducive to winning or adds to the dynamic of the team in any physical or emotional way that is presently leading to the Devils winning games. I don't have an opinion on it, I just see it as completely incorrect to either state that Marty cannot be having this effect or absolutely is having such effect. All I know is that he is winning right now, and no one is using the opportunity to make the claim the Marty is "good again," and yet, there is a vicious and constant horde of self-sustaining, unilateral Marty-hate that is ipso facto completely uncalled for and even worse, it's coming from some of the best posters on this site. I might have a flair for the dramatic, but that bothers me.

 

You have your second point confused. Again - not assigning responsibility to anything (that's the point) and I don't think anyone else is here really either.  My statement was in response to your assured assignment of responsibility to luck. I think what is being said is "he is winning, why bash him? Why get so upset that he is starting? Why come on here to insult Marty when he wins when we can celebrate the win?" and other comments that are more satirical in response to the broken records flooding this board for the last five months.

 

To your credit Triumph, I will say you personally, while consistent on coming down on Marty, have not been over-the-top and thank the heavens have also not  yet dropped a line like "This might be the last straw for Cory...." (ugh).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They needed miracle upon miracle to grind through some not so good Ottawa and Washington teams that year (remember the Richards goal in the waning seconds against Wash?) both were 7 game series. If the got past us, it would've been ANOTHER 7 game series. Then they would have to face a blistering hot, dominant Kings team and need four more wins for the cups.

Tell me, do you like the 2012 Rangers odds against LA after three consecutive seven game wars?

 

And the Devils were one shot away in games 6 and 7 from being eliminated by a mediocre Panthers team in round 1. Breaking down series and putting them under a microscope can be done with any team's playoff run. Who knows? Were the Devils an OT goal away from being Cup champions and changing that Kings series? The Devils were down 2-1 to the Rangers. They were a shot away from being down 3-2. They were an shot away from a game 7 at MSG. This was with the Devils carrying the territorial play in the last half of that series. The Devils were down 3-0 to LA and at worst the Rangers would have been in that hole, too. 

Edited by TheRedStorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Devils were one shot away in games 6 and 7 from being eliminated by a mediocre Panthers team in round 1. Breaking down series and putting them under a microscope can be done with any team's playoff run. The Devils were an OT goal away from perhaps being Cup Champions. The Devils were down 2-1 to the Rangers. They were a shot away from being down 3-2. They were an shot away from a game 7 at MSG. This was with the Devils carrying the territorial play in the last half of that series.

 

yeah and the devils also manhandled Philadelphia. Who'd the rangers beat that was anywhere close to as good as them? Do you know what LA would've done to them? Look what they did to far better territorial teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tri has been mostly fair in his criticisms of Marty over the past four seasons, though he usually lumps the entire sample together as being equally bad, which isn't really accurate for 2010-11 and 2011-12 (bad first halves, very good second halves, both of them).  With a couple of exceptions, the "equally bad" observation applies much more heavily to the balance of this season and last.  He had that 10-game burst that lasted about a month this season, and some good games here and there, but trying to find ways to prop up his last two seasons is pretty difficult. 

 

If he's actually about to embark on an extended hot-streak, great for him and his team (I gotta see it to believe it), but I don't think too many coaches who have a guy like Schneider on their team would have even given Marty that chance.  It's still amazing to me that one disastrous game where the whole team played badly was enough to get Schneider tossed aside without a "redemption" game...I think most coaches would've gone right back to Cory, just because.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah and the devils also manhandled Philadelphia. Who'd the rangers beat that was anywhere close to as good as them? Do you know what LA would've done to them? Look what they did to far better territorial teams

 

The Devils were down 1-0 to start that series (and a bounce from being up 1-0). They were a bounce away in OT from being down 2-1. The Devils dominated Philadelphia, but let's not forget the fortunate Clarkson bounce that was the back breaker and Giroux self destructing. 

 

The Playoffs is all about draws. The NYR didn't match up against the Devils the same ways and it showed in the last half of the series when the better team took the play over. The Devils were a far superior territorial team against Philadelphia and New York, but yet they were a bounce here and there from a potentially different outcome. 

Edited by TheRedStorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one argues that the Devils didn't get their share of bounces during the playoffs.  What's clear is that

 

A:  The Devils were a better team than the Rangers.

 

B:  The Rangers were not a great team.

 

The Rangers would've had to have gotten all the bounces to win a Stanley Cup - they were a 50% team, and that includes playing a horrid Capitals team.  You need great goaltending and great shooting through 4 rounds to manage to overcome that.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tri has been mostly fair in his criticisms of Marty over the past four seasons, though he usually lumps the entire sample together as being equally bad, which isn't really accurate for 2010-11 and 2011-12 (bad first halves, very good second halves, both of them).  With a couple of exceptions, the "equally bad" observation applies much more heavily to the balance of this season and last.  He had that 10-game burst that lasted about a month this season, and some good games here and there, but trying to find ways to prop up his last two seasons is pretty difficult. 

 

If he's actually about to embark on an extended hot-streak, great for him and his team (I gotta see it to believe it), but I don't think too many coaches who have a guy like Schneider on their team would have even given Marty that chance.  It's still amazing to me that one disastrous game where the whole team played badly was enough to get Schneider tossed aside without a "redemption" game...I think most coaches would've gone right back to Cory, just because.     

 

I think we should be clear that at the level Marty is playing at right now, I am also uncomfortable with calling him 'hot." That label is reserved for someone who is stealing games, something he has not done in a long time. What he is doing right now is winning. Que sera sera. If Marty plays 8 or less games the rest of the season, I won't be too upset. THat would give him 40 GP. Of course, the way Debo does it, if Marty keeps winning, he will keep starting. If Cory is winning, he starts. The reason I don't believe in this type of strategy is because statistically you are always more likely to lose the subsequent game of a winning streak. It is preferable (imo) to try and strike a balance the keeps both goalies on their game and winning. This is a nuance with relative little validity, but its the way my mind works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think a lot of Devils fans probably would've been ticked off, like I said, at least at first.  Probably would've been a lot of WTF posts after the game, then a softening and some calming down, and a "Well, once you take a step back..." resignation that the call on the ice was correct.  Having that observation doesn't mean I'm trying to get into everyone's heads.     

 

3101 posts and counting...you know there's no reward for highest average post count per day right?              

You post lots of good perspective.  I enjoy reading your posts albeit I usually scroll by long posts.  Not with you.  Why do you have to end a post with snark?  A lot people do it.  Seems okay that folks constantly jab Mike Brown.  If it irritates you and others that much then ignore him  Either use the feature or scroll on by.   :)

Edited by StarDew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should be clear that at the level Marty is playing at right now, I am also uncomfortable with calling him 'hot." That label is reserved for someone who is stealing games, something he has not done in a long time. What he is doing right now is winning. Que sera sera. If Marty plays 8 or less games the rest of the season, I won't be too upset. THat would give him 40 GP. Of course, the way Debo does it, if Marty keeps winning, he will keep starting. If Cory is winning, he starts. The reason I don't believe in this type of strategy is because statistically you are always more likely to lose the subsequent game of a winning streak. It is preferable (imo) to try and strike a balance the keeps both goalies on their game and winning. This is a nuance with relative little validity, but its the way my mind works.

 

Hot for Marty these days is what he's done in the last four...doing just enough to come away with a win.  I would never ask 2014 Marty to start stealing games with any regularity.

 

You post lots of good perspective.  I enjoy reading your posts albeit I usually scroll by long posts.  Not with you.  Why do you have to end a post with snark?  A lot people do it.  Seems okay that folks constantly jab Mike Brown.  If it irritates you and others that much then ignore him  Either use the feature or scroll on by.   :)

 

I understand what you're saying StarDew, and thanks for the compliment, but MB could also take a lot of people's advice and post a bit less, as he's been politely asked to do by more than one person on more than one occasion, through multiple channels.  I don't really like ignoring posters, except for obvious trolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You post lots of good perspective.  I enjoy reading your posts albeit I usually scroll by long posts.  Not with you.  Why do you have to end a post with snark?  A lot people do it.  Seems okay that folks constantly jab Mike Brown.  If it irritates you and others that much then ignore him  Either use the feature or scroll on by.   :)

i think its just the fact that there is constantly an answer for like every post over and over again clogging up threads with a lot of bs ... i think its understandable to be a little irritating to try to enjoy reading through some threads when that happens..then people get annoyed and arguments break out along with posts like these..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They needed miracle upon miracle to grind through some not so good Ottawa and Washington teams that year (remember the Richards goal in the waning seconds against Wash?) both were 7 game series. If the got past us, it would've been ANOTHER 7 game series. Then they would have to face a blistering hot, dominant Kings team and need four more wins for the cups.

Tell me, do you like the 2012 Rangers odds against LA after three consecutive seven game wars?

Trust me, I do not want to be in a position where I am defending how good they were. What I am saying is that they were far from a bad team. It takes luck and perseverance to pull off game seven series the way they did. And Ottawa wasn't as bad as people made them out to be.

Regardless, the dude had them pegged to fall from grace during the season, reiterated it time and time again, and they not only maintained their pace, but they won the division and finished with the best record in the east. It's fine, we all make predictions and get some wrong. But i had to bring up the rags example with him remaining adamant that Toronto is a 'bad' team this late into the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do think a lot of Devils fans probably would've been ticked off, like I said, at least at first.  Probably would've been a lot of WTF posts after the game, then a softening and some calming down, and a "Well, once you take a step back..." resignation that the call on the ice was correct.  Having that observation doesn't mean I'm trying to get into everyone's heads.     

 

3101 posts and counting...you know there's no reward for highest average post count per day right?              

 

Even if you did have this opinion, there was no need to share it.  Remember when somebody said that posting your opinion as fact is a no-no?  Well you just did.

 

The bold is just another unnecessary overreaction by you.  If you wanna talk about off-base, that is it.

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