341 replies to this topic

[DevsMan84]

I was thinking more '07 actually:

Tense series at times against Tampa before winning in 6.
Rough one against Ottawa.

07 to me was different. I felt like we barely beat Tampa as like you said it got really tense at times.

Honestly if I would have to choose which opponent I would want in the 2nd round I would hope for Philly and possibly the Rags. Either way that will still be a tough series and I would give us little chance of winning.

[MadDog2020]

Don't think it will be '06 because I don't think they'll be nearly as dominant against Florida as they were against the Rangers.

Yeah, I think your 2007 comparison is better after thinking about it- that Tampa series was in doubt at times, the Ranger series never was. This group isn't capable of beating anyone without giving us plenty of Maalox moments, so you know they'll face adversity at some point against Florida. It won't be an easy series against anyone.

[DevsMan84]

Don't think it will be '06 because I don't think they'll be nearly as dominant against Florida as they were against the Rangers.

Could also be like 2000 where we had no clue how we would do against Florida after having been out in the first round the previous 2 years. We then played the Leafs in a pretty tense series too but still won.

However again I do realize we do not exactly have the talent now as we did then so this scenario does seem unlikely, but I still have at least some hopes.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

07 to me was different. I felt like we barely beat Tampa as like you said it got really tense at times.

Honestly if I would have to choose which opponent I would want in the 2nd round I would hope for Philly and possibly the Rags. Either way that will still be a tough series and I would give us little chance of winning.

For me the deadly four are Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, and the Rangers. The Devils maybe get to a Game 6 with some breaks, but I'd pick any of those opponents to win in five.

The good thing is at least either Philly or Pittsburgh is likely gone after the first round (unless NY somehow swaps positions with Pitt). And it wouldn't surprise me if either Boston or the Rangers went out in the first round (as long as it's not the Devils trying to knock them off).

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976, 28 March 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

The thing that scares me about Florida is Clemmensen. He plays great against us, and I think they would start him over Theodore if they play us. I'm sure he'd be pretty motivated to beat us too, and given how this team has trouble scoring for stretches at a time, the Clemmer factor is just food for thought.

They wouldn't start him in the series...but they'd hook Theodore about as fast as he got the hook in Washington for Varlamov lol. And yeah that would worry me too. We only really 'got' to him once, a lousy two-goal first period.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 28 March 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[Triumph]

For me the deadly four are Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, and the Rangers. The Devils maybe get to a Game 6 with some breaks, but I'd pick any of those opponents to win in five.

The good thing is at least either Philly or Pittsburgh is likely gone after the first round (unless NY somehow swaps positions with Pitt). And it wouldn't surprise me if either Boston or the Rangers went out in the first round (as long as it's not the Devils trying to knock them off).

What? Come on, you have been a hockey fan long enough to know that picking one team to beat another in 5 games is generally silly. This isn't basketball.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

What? Come on, you have been a hockey fan long enough to know that picking one team to beat another in 5 games is generally silly. This isn't basketball.

I had the Flyers in five and the Rangers in five the last two times the Devils played them. I think I had the 'Canes in five as well...was wrong on that one.

[Triumph]

I had the Flyers in five and the Rangers in five the last two times the Devils played them. I think I had the 'Canes in five as well...was wrong on that one.

I figured something like this would be your response, but just because the Devils have gone out in 5 in 4 of their last 5 playoff losses doesn't mean that is what's expected.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I figured something like this would be your response, but just because the Devils have gone out in 5 in 4 of their last 5 playoff losses doesn't mean that is what's expected.

It has nothing to do with recent performances. I don't like those matchups. And I know they went 3-3 against the Flyers, Penguins, and Rangers (though 0-3-1 against Boston). I just have a bad feeling about all of those opponents.

[Triumph]

It has nothing to do with recent performances. I don't like those matchups. And I know they went 3-3 against the Flyers, Penguins, and Rangers (though 0-3-1 against Boston). I just have a bad feeling about all of those opponents.

Again, though. You don't beat a team in 5 games without getting either phenomenal goaltending or phenomenal shooting (or both), and I don't see that much reason to expect either thing to happen. Regular season head to head records don't mean anything.

[Triumph]

Distribution of Playoff Games in First Round Series From The Lockout Until Now:

4: 14.6%
5: 20.8%
6: 37.5%
7: 27.1%

Not a big enough sample, but it illustrates both your and my point pretty well. 64% of 1st round series have gone 6 or 7 games.

(I don't have later rounds handy, I happened to have these numbers so I threw them up here)

Edited by Triumph, 28 March 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

What? Come on, you have been a hockey fan long enough to know that picking one team to beat another in 5 games is generally silly. This isn't basketball.

Eh, a healthy Boston and Pittsburgh really are that much better than the Devils although you wouldn't normally pick division opponents in 5. Granted we haven't been healthy all year but neither was Pittsburgh early in the season.

I don't think the Rangers-Philly would be 5 this time, but I do think they'd beat us.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 28 March 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[ScoreMoreThan3]

The thing that scares me about Florida is Clemmensen. He plays great against us, and I think they would start him over Theodore if they play us. I'm sure he'd be pretty motivated to beat us too, and given how this team has trouble scoring for stretches at a time, the Clemmer factor is just food for thought.

This.

But others are SUPER confident that Theodore will start against us. lol.
Right.

[ScoreMoreThan3]

Here's how I see everything unfolding...this is more of my gut than anything else:

Devils surprise us all by playing Florida pretty well...averaging over 3 GPG...there will be a couple of frustrating moments, but we'll be surprised at how well they played in that series overall. Devils win the series in five or six games. Either Kovy or Parise will have a big series.

More than a few fans will be convinced that the Devils are on their way to something special.

Round 2 will be brutal...Devils will be ousted by their second-round opponent in no less than six games, probably five. They'll get blown out in Game 1, which will effectively kill whatever euphoria we had leading up to that point.

I hope you're right.
I wish I could be as confident as you.
Sadly, I definitely am not. Maybe if they show me something against these next three teams.
That would boost my confidence, as well as theirs I am sure.

Edited by ScoreMoreThan3, 28 March 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[Triumph]

Eh, a healthy Boston and Pittsburgh really are that much better than the Devils although you wouldn't normally pick division opponents in 5. Granted we haven't been healthy all year but neither was Pittsburgh early in the season.

I don't think the Rangers-Philly would be 5 this time, but I do think they'd beat us.

Boston has been healthy all year save Nathan Horton, who's out. Horton and Tallinder isn't quite a wash, as Tallinder is better, but it's close enough.



A guest blogger on Driving Play contributed this, it's helpful to the discussion. If the Devils are 40% to win any given game, they're 30% to win the series. I don't have the chops to figure out what it would take for Boston in 5 to be the most likely series outcome, but it would mean Boston being an amazingly good team, which they're not. I know you don't mean Boston in 5 being the majority of outcomes - that would mean them being the greatest team in NHL history. I don't think that's true for any team facing any team in the playoffs besides truly elite teams against truly miserable teams, or you'd see more 120-130 point teams in the regular season.

Edited by Triumph, 28 March 2012 - 07:27 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

This.

But others are SUPER confident that Theodore will start against us. lol.
Right.

Well Theodore IS their starting goaltender, it'd be pretty unusual for a team to open a series with the backup - unless you're the Flyers and don't have a starter to begin with in certain years. I'm sure they'd go to Clem at some point but it won't be Game 1. Game 2 probably, if they lost Game 1.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Again, though. You don't beat a team in 5 games without getting either phenomenal goaltending or phenomenal shooting (or both), and I don't see that much reason to expect either thing to happen. Regular season head to head records don't mean anything.

That's way too simplistic, re: how 5-game series victories are recorded. It could also come down to poor shooting or execution on the other team, which means the winning team may not need to score a whole lot to win, or the opposing goaltender may not have to be at the top of his game if he's not facing a lot of prime scoring chances.

And if you had had access to them at the time, you would have spat these same numbers out before that Ranger series and Flyer series, as to why the Devils probably wouldn't have lost in five. This is the problem with being over-scientific and over-reliant on data...you never account for the exceptions to the rule.

And as far as the Rangers go, is it much of a stretch to think that Lundqvist could be pretty spectacular in a potential Devils-Rangers series? Or at the very least, is highly unlikely to beat himself?

[BlueSkirt]

Hey this is a forum for peoples thoughts so keep posting them, but I love how folks try to predict something. And even more so when trying to use history in their prediction.

The players aren't held to history, they create history.


In '95, the upstart Devils facing the Wings. Who predicted it would be a Sweep ? and for the Devils ?

Devils: 22-18-8 52 points. 136 GF, 121 GA +15 goals

Wings: 33-11-4 70 points 180 GF, 117 GA +63 goals


Final: 4-0 Devs 16 GF, 7 GA


They gotta play the games to see how it turns out. Everything before hand is just hot air.

[Triumph]

Hey this is a forum for peoples thoughts so keep posting them, but I love how folks try to predict something. And even more so when trying to use history in their prediction.

The players aren't held to history, they create history.


In '95, the upstart Devils facing the Wings. Who predicted it would be a Sweep ? and for the Devils ?

Devils: 22-18-8 52 points. 136 GF, 121 GA +15 goals

Wings: 33-11-4 70 points 180 GF, 117 GA +63 goals


Final: 4-0 Devs 16 GF, 7 GA


They gotta play the games to see how it turns out. Everything before hand is just hot air.

This is my point. No one would've expected a Devils sweep in that series, if this board had been around then, everyone would've been saying Wings in 5, Wings in 6, and so forth. Which is to say that a series can go any way and no one has much of an idea how it will turn out.

And if you had had access to them at the time, you would have spat these same numbers out before that Ranger series and Flyer series, as to why the Devils probably wouldn't have lost in five. This is the problem with being over-scientific and over-reliant on data...you never account for the exceptions to the rule.

What? I would've said the Devils probably wouldn't lose in 5. How is this anything other than what happened, despite the fact that they lost in 5? The Devils shot horribly against the Flyers and Brodeur was atrocious against the Rangers. My point is that you'd have no cause to predict either thing to happen - who saw Brian Boucher playing like Georges Vezina?

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Hey this is a forum for peoples thoughts so keep posting them, but I love how folks try to predict something. And even more so when trying to use history in their prediction.

The players aren't held to history, they create history.


In '95, the upstart Devils facing the Wings. Who predicted it would be a Sweep ? and for the Devils ?

Devils: 22-18-8 52 points. 136 GF, 121 GA +15 goals

Wings: 33-11-4 70 points 180 GF, 117 GA +63 goals


Final: 4-0 Devs 16 GF, 7 GA

They gotta play the games to see how it turns out. Everything before hand is just hot air.

Well, yeah, of course, no one can predict these things with 100% accuracy, no matter how knowledgable they are, or how much they watch the games. No one could've predicted that the '95 Devils would suddenly turn back into the '94 Devils come playoff time, after looking like the '96 Devils for almost all of the regular season.

Doesn't mean we all can't speculate what we THINK might happen, and share our reasons why.

EDIT: Speaking of '95, they had a classic series show on the NHL channel about the '95 series...they showed a pre-game interview with some of the Wings (like Yzerman) before Game 4, and you could see how stunned they all were...none of them could believe they were trailing 3-0 in that series.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976, 29 March 2012 - 09:11 AM.