You're missing my point. I'm not going against the fact that the losses of 23 & 28 were not immense, they certainly were. If anything I am agreeing with you. My point is the TEAM REMAINED COMPETITIVE despite the lose. 6th in the league!!! Saying it was due to the schedule, and the weak teams, and the shootout, the overtime, the luck, the aforementioned, the moon, the stars, etc, is silly. (AND unfair to the players.) Let's cut the crap, and give credit where credit's due here. Every team profits from these things, we didn't benefit more than any other team. "The Devils had more luck because of overtime than the avarage team?" Are we being real here? Are we now keeping count of lucky occurrences durring the season as the basis of how lucky we were -vs- how much skill we had\have? The Devils had 4 losses from the shootout all year. (ranked 22nd in the NHL) If someone here knows any special unfair advantage that we had over any other NHL club, please enlighten me.
yes, we're being real. the devils were 15-7 in overtime this season, the second-best percentage in the league behind Edmonton. i don't think that's a repeatable skill. just as an example, the lightning were the best shootout team in the league last year, this season they were one of the worst. Now with Brodeur in nets the Devils do have an edge, but they're not going to be 66% in OT going forward. Sorry, just not happening. Plus the fact that 22 of their 82 games got to overtime is more than most teams.
Where did they play on a nightly basis? Brookbank played 44 games, and Greene logged 59. Mottau was the only one who played almost the entire season, and he did great. He finished 3rd in points of the d'men.
Since when is finishing 3rd automatically great? Mottau was passable. He was -14 away from the Rock and was exposed post All-Star break, posting a terrible +/- mark there too. The whole 3rd pairing wasn't great, but neither is anyone's third pairing. The real weakness was Mottau, who was just brutally exposed when Sutter couldn't put him in favorable situations.
Oduya & Martin were expected to have a good year this season. To say we soley made the playoffs based on them? And playing Marty as much as he played aint no big advantage anymore. (not at his age anyway) He ended the year with the 2nd most losses in his career this season. We actually could've benifited if Weekes played a bit more.
Huh? This doesn't make any sense. So just because Brodeur had more losses than other seasons, it means he played bad? No, Brodeur was just fine all season long - what separated this team from a bottom-feeder. Brodeur had his best season of his career. He had more losses because he played more games and the team surrounding him was worse than any one previous.
Oduya was a healthy scratch in several playoff games last season and couldn't seem to handle the speed of the NHL - who was expecting after his first half performance that he would be a +20 in the second half, and contribute a lot of points as well?
This wasn't a year to win it all. This was a year to hopefully make the playoffs and get some of the younger players some experience. Winning a round would be considered a major success. New Jersey got an unfavorable matchup and couldn't do anything about it. But guys like Oduya really progressed - next season is the time.
Edited by Triumph, 05 May 2008 - 11:02 PM.