Jump to content

Photo

GDT: Devils @ Bruins 7PM: BRODEUR in Beantown


  • Please log in to reply
342 replies to this topic

#301 BigZ

BigZ

    Albany Devil

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:14 PM

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.


  • 0

I miss Parise. 


#302 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,088 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:17 PM

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, 27 October 2013 - 07:20 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#303 Onddeck

Onddeck

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:17 PM

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, 27 October 2013 - 07:18 PM.

  • 0

Somebody's gotta be the hero... Why not me?


#304 lucifer91

lucifer91

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:22 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#305 ThreeCups

ThreeCups

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:41 PM

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!


  • 0

"I'm not drinking anymore of Lou's Kool-Aid. I'm fed up with it." - Mike Jefferson/Danton


#306 hystyk28

hystyk28

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:42 PM

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.
  • 0

#307 hystyk28

hystyk28

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:45 PM

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, 27 October 2013 - 07:48 PM.

  • 0

#308 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,522 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:50 PM

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.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#309 ThreeCups

ThreeCups

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,386 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:56 PM

:e-drama: :e-drama:


  • 0

"I'm not drinking anymore of Lou's Kool-Aid. I'm fed up with it." - Mike Jefferson/Danton


#310 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,119 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:13 PM

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?


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#311 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,088 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:59 PM

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.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#312 hystyk28

hystyk28

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:21 PM

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, 27 October 2013 - 09:23 PM.

  • 0

#313 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,088 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:35 PM

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, 27 October 2013 - 09:40 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#314 Sneax

Sneax

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 945 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 10:03 PM

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.


  • 0

#315 hystyk28

hystyk28

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:20 PM

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.
  • 0

#316 Martyisth3b3st

Martyisth3b3st

    Darth Brodeur

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,223 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:33 PM

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.
  • 0

2008, 2010, 2011 Pat Burns winner for 'Most emotional poster'
2011 UDX Signature award winner

Posted Image


#317 hystyk28

hystyk28

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:35 PM

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.
  • 0

#318 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,903 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:52 PM

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, 27 October 2013 - 11:53 PM.

  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#319 NLinfante

NLinfante

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:01 AM

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.


  • 0

#320 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,088 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:23 AM

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.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users