Two interesting anecdotes re: NJ in Canadian papers

[maxpower]

Marty is friends with him and tries to excuse the behavior a bit, to be honest.   I really don't see that as sour grapes.

[Triumph]

The 'sour grapes' aspect is that NJ had to change their game significantly.  Like dr33 pointed out, who was losing ice time to Kovalchuk?  Andy Greene on the PP?  Henrik Tallinder?  The Devils really had no options on the power play.  I mean, maybe Cam Janssen was broken up that he was getting 7 shifts a game instead of 12, but again, same thing applies there.

 

76:  never said Brodeur isn't a HOF goaltender - he is, without question - just that he wasn't playing all that great in the years in question.  He didn't finish top 10 in SV% any of the years NJ won the Stanley Cup, so portraying it like NJ had this all-world goaltender isn't really seeing how things really were.

[maxpower]

The 'sour grapes' aspect is that NJ had to change their game significantly.  Like dr33 pointed out, who was losing ice time to Kovalchuk?  Andy Greene on the PP?  Henrik Tallinder?  The Devils really had no options on the power play.  I mean, maybe Cam Janssen was broken up that he was getting 7 shifts a game instead of 12, but again, same thing applies there.

 

76:  never said Brodeur isn't a HOF goaltender - he is, without question - just that he wasn't playing all that great in the years in question.  He didn't finish top 10 in SV% any of the years NJ won the Stanley Cup, so portraying it like NJ had this all-world goaltender isn't really seeing how things really were.

 

Yeah, I don't think it was that big of a deal.   If he was playing 25 minutes a game and 10 of them were on D... meh, it's not like any defensemen were going to do better.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

76:  never said Brodeur isn't a HOF goaltender - he is, without question - just that he wasn't playing all that great in the years in question.  He didn't finish top 10 in SV% any of the years NJ won the Stanley Cup, so portraying it like NJ had this all-world goaltender isn't really seeing how things really were.

 

I know you weren't debating whether or not Brodeur was Hall-Of-Fame worthy...no one will ever dispute that.  Some of his detractors will point out that he played for strong teams for most of his career (always friendly to a goaltender's numbers), while others will say he was the ultimate compiler whose was more freakishly durable than awesome, but even his harshest critics won't say he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

That's why I pointed out the differences in the regular season and playoff save%s.  I've mentioned the four-year stretch of .906, .910, .906 and .906 ('99-'02) more than once.  Yeah, in those regular seasons, in terms of pure puck-stopping, he wasn't that great.  But, like I said, with the exception of 2001, at least he was able to raise his game significantly during the Cup runs.  If he was stopping pucks at the same .906-or-so regular-season rate, 2000 and 2003 don't happen.  Ditto '95 if Marty's stopping 90.2% of the shots coming his way. 

Edited September 10, 2013 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[Pepperkorn]

Oy vey - so many threads get mired down with the past.  CMON -- not the same team!  I dont feel like there is any benefit to looking as far back as this board does these days.  Guilty here I know but I reeeeally want to get back into the moment and stuff with hockey.

 

with that whined...

 

 

I do not agree with this at all:  "We've lost that identity of what Devils hockey is all about ... [ilya Kovalchuk, now in KHL,] took a lot of minutes off of everybody and everything had to go through him -- like the two-minute power play. It was hard to adjust yourself sometimes because he needed his minutes"

 

Firstly, Kovy didn't need these minutes. The Devils staff wanted or needed him to play 24+. He didn't have to play all 2 minutes on the power play. But once he was hurt, it was shown that it was probably for the best that he played all 2 minutes. And Kovy getting 4th line minutes instead of Janssen or Peters or Boulton. What a loss for the team. Kovy being there didn't hurt anyone. And if the offense improves, it won't because Kovy is gone either.

 

So...I don't hear genuine sour grapes.  I hear a very measured criticism spoken for a very specific reason. Maybe not for Kovalchuk's ear?  So why?  Just for the fun of over-thinking:

 

DR33 -- you say it's ringing false.  I can see that of course -- my question - what then was the purpose of the comment?

Do you think it was just taken out of context? Was it for fans, psyche us up to think Kovalchuk was a minor locker room problem (a polyp as opposed to cancer ) ?  What if it was for players?  Any thoughts on how/why?

 

I don't know - surely there was weirdness there.  Even though everyone's comments are 20/20 hind-sight, I believe people were distrustful of the whole thing but put on a happy positive face.  Or do you think everyone was thrilled and now need to back peddle to get motivated for the season?

 

It's not sour grapes -- just not.  it's SAYING something. There is a deeper meaning that I'm not sure I'm getting here. Is it for fans? controlling

 

[ye gads I lost my thought... I'm obsessing about sheep.  hmm... I have to find a sheep smilie now]

Edited September 10, 2013 by Pepperkorn

[Daniel]

 

 

 

I've pointed out how many of his best puck-stopping seasons came AFTER the '04-'05 lockout, but he at least showed the ability to raise his game to HOF performance during the Cup runs:

 

'95 reg season:  .902 save%

'95 playoffs:  .927

 

'00 reg season:  .910

'00 playoffs:  .927

 

'03 reg season:  .914

'03 playoffs:  .934 

 

Of course, we all know 2001 is a major exception here (.906 reg season, .897 playoffs), and Marty wasn't so much bad in the '01 playoffs as it was that he started off well, then struggled, then got it going again, then struggled...he was basically great for the first few games, bad for 6 or so, strong again for 7, then bad again for 7 (roughly).  The Devils were able to overcome him during the first bad stretch, but not the second.

 

You tend to be a harder grader of Brodeur than most, but the fact that he had three excellent SC runs is extremely noteworthy, especially considering many goalies fizzle come playoff time.  Goalies, like NFL QBs, often get both too much of the credit AND the blame for their teams' successes and failures, but .927, .927, and .934 over 20, 23, and 25 game playoff runs represents some damned fine puck-stopping.  That is absolutely Hall-of-Fame worthy.

 

 

EDIT:  Actually, I'm not going down this road.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Daniel

[NewarkDevil5]

Oy vey - so many threads get mired down with the past.  CMON -- not the same team!  I dont feel like there is any benefit to looking as far back as this board does these days.  Guilty here I know but I reeeeally want to get back into the moment and stuff with hockey.

 

with that whined...

 

 

 

So...I don't hear genuine sour grapes.  I hear a very measured criticism spoken for a very specific reason. Maybe not for Kovalchuk's ear?  So why?  Just for the fun of over-thinking:

 

DR33 -- you say it's ringing false.  I can see that of course -- my question - what then was the purpose of the comment?

Do you think it was just taken out of context? Was it for fans, psyche us up to think Kovalchuk was a minor locker room problem (a polyp as opposed to cancer ) ?  What if it was for players?  Any thoughts on how/why?

 

I don't know - surely there was weirdness there.  Even though everyone's comments are 20/20 hind-sight, I believe people were distrustful of the whole thing but put on a happy positive face.  Or do you think everyone was thrilled and now need to back peddle to get motivated for the season?

 

It's not sour grapes -- just not.  it's SAYING something. There is a deeper meaning that I'm not sure I'm getting here. Is it for fans? controlling

 

[ye gads I lost my thought... I'm obsessing about sheep.  hmm... I have to find a sheep smilie now]

 

We never used to look that far back in the old days because there wasn't very much to look back on, PK. When we were posting in 2001 and looked back at 1995 that wasn't much of a stretch because there were still half a dozen players on the team from 1995. Nowadays it feels weird because we're talking about past history that almost none of the current team was involved in. Are we really going to talk about the good old days of 2006? Even if we did, there aren't very many players left from that year. We've had a ton of turnover in the last few years so "looking back" means comparing very different teams and we understand that.

[Pepperkorn]

good point.  But it's also still the same organization.  it's not like Man I wish Al Arbor were still leading, you know?

 

Personally I need to focus on the new blood and look forward.  I'm gettign sick of the board because it's not new.  I'm reading rehashings with for me uninformative uncreative unsuccessful relationship to our current situation.  There's not a lot of informative, relevant insights for today in our backward reminiscing and debating of late. 

 

Whatever -- that's for me  that's what I'm interested in reading right now -- in fact that's what to NEED to read right now to keep focused on THIS team THIS season and most importantly this board.

[NewarkDevil5]

good point.  But it's also still the same organization.  it's not like Man I wish Al Arbor were still leading, you know?

 

Personally I need to focus on the new blood and look forward.  I'm gettign sick of the board because it's not new.  I'm reading rehashings with for me uninformative uncreative unsuccessful relationship to our current situation.  There's not a lot of informative, relevant insights for today in our backward reminiscing and debating of late. 

 

Whatever -- that's for me  that's what I'm interested in reading right now -- in fact that's what to NEED to read right now to keep focused on THIS team THIS season and most importantly this board.

 

I feel like this season will hopefully go a long way to establishing new identity to a team that has sort of been lacking in a strong identity pretty much since Scott Stevens retired. Kovalchuk was supposed to become the identity, but for a multitude of reasons (not the least of which being his recent retirement) that didn't work out. Patrik Elias at one point was going to become the face of this team, but the captaincy debacle and Hepatitis kinda sapped that away.

 

In the meantime we're left with a team that has been essentially rebuilt entirely in the last three or four seasons. Cory Schneider taking the reigns from Marty will be a huge changing of the guard, but right now the bigger question to me is one that has haunted this team for the last 6 years. On a team known for its defense, who is the face of the defense? Bryce Salvador? Andy Greene? Adam Larsson? Maybe Larsson will eventually be someone who takes on that clout of "Oh we're going to Newark to play the Devils; better stay out of Larsson's corner." Who do opposing forwards have to change their games around to face?

 

This team has open slots not just on lines, but in terms of personality. That is one of the issues this team has. It is lacking in some of the personality we used to have before. Guys like Kenny Daneyko and Scott Stevens wore their hearts on their sleeves. Anton Volchenkov might wear his heart on his sleeve, but he's so bad at what he does that most of the fanbase wants him gone and most of the other teams are glad to see him.

 

I'm hoping this season we see some people step up and claim the next generation of this team.

[ATLL765]

I feel like this season will hopefully go a long way to establishing new identity to a team that has sort of been lacking in a strong identity pretty much since Scott Stevens retired. Kovalchuk was supposed to become the identity, but for a multitude of reasons (not the least of which being his recent retirement) that didn't work out. Patrik Elias at one point was going to become the face of this team, but the captaincy debacle and Hepatitis kinda sapped that away.

 

In the meantime we're left with a team that has been essentially rebuilt entirely in the last three or four seasons. Cory Schneider taking the reigns from Marty will be a huge changing of the guard, but right now the bigger question to me is one that has haunted this team for the last 6 years. On a team known for its defense, who is the face of the defense? Bryce Salvador? Andy Greene? Adam Larsson? Maybe Larsson will eventually be someone who takes on that clout of "Oh we're going to Newark to play the Devils; better stay out of Larsson's corner." Who do opposing forwards have to change their games around to face?

 

This team has open slots not just on lines, but in terms of personality. That is one of the issues this team has. It is lacking in some of the personality we used to have before. Guys like Kenny Daneyko and Scott Stevens wore their hearts on their sleeves. Anton Volchenkov might wear his heart on his sleeve, but he's so bad at what he does that most of the fanbase wants him gone and most of the other teams are glad to see him.

 

I'm hoping this season we see some people step up and claim the next generation of this team.

Volch isn't so bad, it's just for the minutes we get from him and the play we see, he's not worth his contract. If his cap hit got cut in half tomorrow, I don't think there would be 1/3rd of the complaints we see now about him.

[NewarkDevil5]

Volch isn't so bad, it's just for the minutes we get from him and the play we see, he's not worth his contract. If his cap hit got cut in half tomorrow, I don't think there would be 1/3rd of the complaints we see now about him.

 

I don't think Volch would be as bad if he wasn't really the only one in his role on the team. Bryce Salvador should in reality be another hard-hitting defenseman, but isn't. As a 3rd pairing defensive defenseman playing against crash and bang third and fourth liners, no big deal. As a guy who by contract, seniority, and raw skill-set is one of the only guys equipped to send a physical message to the other team's first and second lines? Not so good. At the same time, it seems that fewer and fewer of those kinds of defensemen are coming into the league in general. The 90s had guys like Stevens, Jovanovski, Pronger, Blake, Hatcher, etc. Nowadays you've got Chara, Weber and Doughty. Other than them, I can't really think of too many guys you have to adjust your games to play against on the defensive end. 

[Devil Dan 56]

I don't think Volch would be as bad if he wasn't really the only one in his role on the team. Bryce Salvador should in reality be another hard-hitting defenseman, but isn't. As a 3rd pairing defensive defenseman playing against crash and bang third and fourth liners, no big deal. As a guy who by contract, seniority, and raw skill-set is one of the only guys equipped to send a physical message to the other team's first and second lines? Not so good. At the same time, it seems that fewer and fewer of those kinds of defensemen are coming into the league in general. The 90s had guys like Stevens, Jovanovski, Pronger, Blake, Hatcher, etc. Nowadays you've got Chara, Weber and Doughty. Other than them, I can't really think of too many guys you have to adjust your games to play against on the defensive end. 

 

To be fair on Bryce being less physical, he had a major concussion and I'm sure he was told to be wary of stuff like that. I'm very interested to see what happens with some of the younger D this next 1 - 2 years, and with Santini in 3 - 5 years.

[NewarkDevil5]

To be fair on Bryce being less physical, he had a major concussion and I'm sure he was told to be wary of stuff like that. I'm very interested to see what happens with some of the younger D this next 1 - 2 years, and with Santini in 3 - 5 years.

 

I'll be honest, I have really high hopes for Santini. Hopes he probably can't live up to. Poor kid. He's doomed in my book from the start.

[2ELIAS6]

To be fair on Bryce being less physical, he had a major concussion and I'm sure he was told to be wary of stuff like that. I'm very interested to see what happens with some of the younger D this next 1 - 2 years, and with Santini in 3 - 5 years.

i dont mind bryce as much as alot of people do on here .. sometimes his play is bad but id rather him over volch.. salvador has this season and next left on his contract and i really hope he is done here after that.. volch on the other hand were stuck with for another three seasons and that just sucks. .. i wonder if he would be moveable at all?

[ATLL765]

i dont mind bryce as much as alot of people do on here .. sometimes his play is bad but id rather him over volch.. salvador has this season and next left on his contract and i really hope he is done here after that.. volch on the other hand were stuck with for another three seasons and that just sucks. .. i wonder if he would be moveable at all?

In the last year of his contract it's possible someone would take him for a late rd pick, but other than that, I doubt anyone takes him unless we keep a lot of that salary. However, we do still have a compliance buyout we've yet to use and with ownership all settled, that's always a possibility.

[Pepperkorn]

Of course my new pet is John Merrill.  He's GOT to bulk up though.  His frame is slightly troublesome to me.  A quick amateur kinesiologist take is he's got a slightly non-flexible build with bones are on a medium/smallish size - which has me concerned.  So build the sh!t out of that body to support what has all the signs of being a ever so slightly delicate frame.

 

(I'm not telling physical indicators because I like to keep that stuff secret with Ranger fans reading this board   Assume I'm talking about of my ass please )

Edited September 11, 2013 by Pepperkorn

[moustic]

(ahaha)