Jump to content

Colorado Rockies 1976

Member Since 28 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Today, 07:38 PM
***--

#1230306 2013-14 OOT Thread

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 04 December 2013 - 01:57 PM

That would put you in a perpetual state of trading assets for fear of losing them, and then turning around and trading the assets you received again. You have to go for the shot at the cup. We all know that anything can happen once you get into the playoffs.

 

Explain it to the nearest wall, you'd stand a much better chance of making anything resembling progress. 


  • 1


#1230170 2013-14 OOT Thread

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 04 December 2013 - 07:42 AM

Man, you're so goddamn intelligent and smart and clairvoyant with your hindsight. I wish Lou could use hindsight, then travel back in time and correct his mistakes. Just like you would, if you were a GM, because all your nonsense talk leads me to believe no-one could spout so much drivel and crap like you do without owning a time machine. 

 

This is an OOT scoreboard thread, so after this I'm done with this subject, but once someone says he'd possibly have rather gone out in the first round than having enjoyed watching a fun run that saw them come up just two wins short of a Cup...who clearly doesn't understand that every single last Devil on that 2011-12 team would much rather have had that then to be one-and-done, even if it didn't culminate in hoisting the Cup...then he has zero credibility as a Devils fan.  Ask Elias and Brodeur if they would've traded in that run for a first-round exit, for a "brighter" future that may never come, when both players are clearly on the homestretch of their careers and will only have so many chances to win a championship.  Think they're sniveling "Well gee whiz, maybe Lou should've traded Parise for whatever he could've gotten, because winning 14 playoff games and playing the Stanley Cup Finals wasn't worth it, since we lost."?  The "well we tried, but didn't quite get there, so maybe we shouldn't have even tried at all" hindsight second-guessing is comically pathetic and weak. 

 

RizzMB30...you are right in that the Matteau story is still being written, but for a while, the keeping of the 29th pick will be a curious decision...it's just one of those moves that just seems so "huh?!" on the surface.  Maybe Lou saw something he liked in Matteau that much, and will be proved right in the end?  Who knows?      


  • 2


#1229826 BuffaLOL @ The Rock

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 02 December 2013 - 03:55 PM

I guess I'm bias, but I'd take the college atmosphere over the quiet, dry, corporate Rangers/Maple Leafs atmosphere any day of the week.  And I mention those two teams because I feel like that's what you'd prefer the Devils' to be like, at some point..

 

Edit:  Which, to clarify, is fine I guess, to each their own.  I'm not looking to start a pissing contest or anything, but I guess I'm having a hard time grasping the other side of the debate here.  

 

I'll do my best to give you a 43-year-old's perspective (but someone who still considers himself relatively young at heart). 

 

As you get older, you DO find certain things becoming more irritating and annoying that maybe you wouldn't have in your youth.  There was a time where I loved the idea of going into a bar or club where getting bumped and elbowed every two seconds, paying $5+ per beer, and not being able to hear or carry on a conversation with the person standing less than a foot away from me appealed to me greatly.  Now?  Not so much.  Am I a big fan of barely-turned 21-somethings and 40-year-old adolescents who don't know their alcohol limits and clearly have no filters sitting near me at Devils games?  No.  But I ignore them the best that I can.  I don't go to hockey games to confront people on what many define to be inappropriate behavior.  I came to terms with the fact, a long time ago, that sporting events of all kinds will attract a segment of fans who think buying a ticket gives them the right to do whatever they want, at everyone else's expense.  It comes with the territory in 2013.

 

Like I've said, I'm all for a rocking building.  I think most people are, of all ages.  With all due respect to Mazz, he seems to think that not liking a certain type of noise or noises means that such people would prefer to see a near-silent building.  Not the case at all.  I think what we want to see is genuine noise, heartfelt enthusiasm coming from fans who are actually FEELING it, and Devils fans have shown the capability of doing that on their own (maybe not enough, but they have).  The diablos to me are the equivalent of pumped-in crowd noise and paid cheerleading.  They remind me of the offensive defenseman who has no idea of when to join the rush and when to pinch.  There's just not much of a sense of timing with that group, and they don't feel "real" to me.  But like I've said, as long as they're not breaking any rules, it's not on them to tone it down or whatever...it's on me to ignore the vuvuzelas and whatever else bugs me about the diablos.         


  • 2


#1228543 Islanders unveil Stadium Series jersey.

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 27 November 2013 - 06:46 AM

I think if the NY had been outlined in orange, it would've looked better.


  • 1


#1227462 GDT: Devils @ Kings 10:30PM

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 22 November 2013 - 01:33 PM

I hate that people call certain fanbases bandwagon or what not. The Kings have had no issues getting people to their arena for years. And it was at 100% capacity for a few seasons before they won the Cup. They have many educated and passionate fans. 

 

But teams like Chicago or Washington...people go "look at all them bandwagoners, there were no fans in the arena 8 years ago when they sucked." That's normal, especially when you have a lot of other options in your city. If your team is awful for 3 years, 5 years..maybe even longer, why would you want to spend a fortune on season tickets? And naturally when your team is awful, you lose a bit of interest, and it moves to the NBA team, NFL, MLB, College, etc. 

 

I think at CR1976 taking his daughter to two games and seeing them shutout in each one. How deflating is that? Could he keep going if he knew there was a good chance that would happen 50% of the time?  If you know your team is ripe for a last place finish, why pay a ton of money then? Why support an owner who has no interest in improving the team (which seemed like the case with the Hawks owner, and many other times when an Owner doesn't fire a sh!tty GM)?

 

The Devils had one miserable 40-game stretch, and there were free ticket promotions every second game. It won't be pretty here if the Devils have any sustained losing seasons.

 

A lot more maddening than deflating, but that first goal that she gets to see this year live will be pretty damned momentous now, lol.

 

I think part of the problem for a lot of people now is that the tickets and other goodies (like food, drink, maybe a souv-ie or two) cost so damned much, that many people want to feel like their "investment" has a good chance of paying off with a win, and the only way that really has a good shot of happening is if the team is good.  I'm one of those kooks who will still go with my daughter if the team is bad, because it's great to spend time with her, and share something I enjoy with her, and admittedly, I can swing tickets for the game without feeling the financial pinch.  But a lot of people can't do that and can't be as "frivilous", or simply have more kids which makes going to a game that much more expensive, and I can't blame them one bit if they don't want to spend hundreds of dollars watching a substandard product.  Even though I would still go, I'll readily admit I won't go as much.

 

 

yeah i gotta agree with this. This plus people who go the "Well why dont you go buy a "wtv" team jersey and get the fvck out of here" when someone simply gives credit to another team, player, GM, coach or wtv in the league, i've seen it happen really often and its quite childish and ridiculous. 

 

So is beating the same dead horses over and over again and constantly making snide remarks about how swell other GMs are for signing a guy before he goes UFA, seemingly every time another GM did that.  To your credit, you haven't been doing it lately (I suspect the Devils going 6-1-1 in their last eight has something to do with that), but it was getting to be repetitive and ridiculous, and I was hardly the only one annoyed by it.    


  • 1


#1225957 GDT: Kings @ Devils 7pm

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 16 November 2013 - 11:03 AM

I HAVE NEVER fvckING SUGGESTED THIS STOP STOP STOP STOP SAYING IT YOU'RE TOO SMART TO KEEP REPEATING THIS

 

I am in control of my emotions...lol

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=xSkI32GQMy4

 

Seriously though, when the Fenwick/Corsi crowd start throwing those numbers around, the main reason we often hear for not-so-good results not meshing with "good" Fenwick and Corsi numbers is "bad luck".  We rarely hear skill level of the shooters acknowledged.  

 

 

You know when you're arguing with your gf for days about something lets say that she never lock the doors at night but she's always saying. "Bahhhh its fine nobody is gonna try to get in here, relax."

 

So once you're both standing there in the living room looking at no tv, no nothing and listening to your dog whining cause he got raped and the place is trashed... you know that feeling of wanting to point out that you told her this would happen.

 

Well I was the one annoyed as fvck by all the denials that "we'd be perfectly fine" back then and people calling me out. So let me have my moments here please. I know i'm coming off negative at times about some stuff but its not as if i'm wrong either. 

 

You just like to snivel and complain a lot.  Most weren't saying the Devils would be "perfectly fine".  Many dared to say the Devils would be better off without Kovy long-term, based on the contract, and the mixed results in Years 1-3 of that deal, but in the immediate term, no one knew exactly what to expect, especially with the on-the-fly recovery on Lou's part, but yeah, several fans actually tried to think positive, as opposed to bitching in as many threads as possible about Lou's MO and the potential state of the Devils.

 

You may want to give it more than 19 games before declaring all-knowing victory.  The Devils are actually about where I expected them to be...around NHL-.500 at this point in the sched.  Are there reasons for concern?  Sure.  Ryder and Brunner really have to start scoring, Loki looks more like a 5th-round pick every day and not some brilliant steal, etc.  Are there reasons for optimism?  The goaltending and defense has been improving, and Gelinas is up with the big boys and not looking outclassed.  Hopefully Merrill soon will do the same.  Elias is back in the lineup. 

 

The Schedule from Hell only has four games left.  I really want to see what the Devils do once they get past it.


  • 1


#1225897 GDT: Kings @ Devils 7pm

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 15 November 2013 - 10:59 PM

In Cory Schneider's 9 starts, the Devils have only scored 10 goals and have been shutout 4 times, unreal. Devils came into the night only shooting 5.1% in front of Schneider...and that number just goes down further. Can't wait for regression (in a good way) to a normal SH%.

Kings avg 32.0 shots for/60, only had 21 tonight. Kings allow 24.7 shots against/60, Devils had 26 tonight. Shame the Devils didn't at least salvage a point tonight. Unfortunate result.

 

Ryder and Brunner continue to disappoint.

 

Really felt for Cory tonight.

 

I know the Devils did look good at times tonight...but goddammit, I swear this bunch can really set back hockey at times...they were unwatchable for roughly half the game...looked like a bunch of disorganized discombobulated clowns. 

 

That's now 120 minutes of live Devils hockey I've subjected my daughter to.  I dream of the day she gets to see the Devils score one fvcking goal.  Just one.


  • 1


#1225511 Al Trautwig Insulted on Twitter

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 14 November 2013 - 01:36 PM

So I guess Yehuda's mother was the recipient of a....

 

BRUTAL CALL!


  • 7


#1224675 Would you take a shot at Yakupov?

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 12 November 2013 - 09:30 AM

i wouldnt in the way that there's already rumours about him going back to Russia + he already seem to be going against what the coach is saying. He's young and could improve but throwing lots of assets on another guy who could leave for the KHL fvck that. We've already lost so fvcking much without getting anything in return we absolutely cant take anymore chances.

 

I'd rather put my efforts on a Canadian/US guy.

 

 

Figured you'd find a way to work that in.  Nice job.  :doh1:  :rolleyes:


  • 1


#1223242 Devils recall Cam Janssen

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 06 November 2013 - 01:41 PM

Please God no.  Oh wait, I don't believe in God.  Damn!


  • 2


#1222026 GDT: Charlestown Chiefs @ New Jersey Devils 7PM

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 02 November 2013 - 09:58 PM

Took my 5-year-old daughter to this one.  Just me and her.  Was hoping for so much better.  I'm going to have a hell of a time indoctrinating her if I keep subjecting her to steaming piles of dung like this game.

 

Low shots on goal total was a little misleading, but only a little.  The Devil still looked incredibly lifeless and out-of-sorts for most of the game, save for a select few.  Sucks to see a good Marty start go to waste, and sometimes I feel like many of Jagr's current teammates aren't worthy of Jagr's hockey smarts or work ethic. 

 

And god was the top row of 210 annoying as hell.  Bunch of dummies who apparently can't handle a few beers without losing their friggin' minds.


  • 1


#1221574 Av's Varlamov arrested

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 01 November 2013 - 10:39 AM

A small percentage of spousal physical abuse is by women towards men.  A much larger percentage is men towards women.  The reason for all this leeway granted to women re: physical abuse is quite simple - men are bigger and stronger than women.  Do some women abuse that status?  Sure.  It's a consequence of living in a more tolerant and just society.

 

CarterForPresident is of course wrong when he says that men are always hitting women - physical abuse of women has no doubt declined over the last 50 years, at least in the U.S.  You just think it's increased because since it is rarer, it's now bigger news.  Man hits woman would be 'Dog bites man' of the early 20th century in the U.S. (and indeed, is still the case in many parts of the world).

 

Re: this Varlamov stuff, who knows what exactly is true, but all the Russian hockey writers jumped on Twitter to defend him, which was rather odious.

 

I'm not going to say that women physically abusing men is a serious problem, but as far as percentage of actual REPORTED cases, if you could somehow tally every single incident of domestic abuse, the percentage of actual reported man-on-woman physical abuse in relation to actual incidents of such is higher than the other way around, and for obvious reasons...men being afraid of the stigmas that will go with calling in such an incident, etc.

 

Say a woman smacks a man in the face twice.  Technically, that IS assault.  Will the man call the police?  Probably not.  It's also unlikely that the people around him will pressure him to report it, even if he has visible marks on his face. 

 

Man does the same to a woman...she is more likely to call it in.  If she doesn't want to, people around her will likely threaten to report it themselves, even more so if she has visible marks on his face.

 

Not even really disputing your original percentage statement (man-on-woman violence definitely happens more), but just stating that woman-on-man violence happens far more often than is ever documented.       


  • 1


#1221558 Av's Varlamov arrested

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 01 November 2013 - 09:55 AM

I tend to agree, the fact of no mention of innocent until proven guilty has come up yet is bothersome.

Who the hell knows what happened? Nobody here is defending hitting women, it's trying to evaluate if it even happened.

What CR is hitting at is, because this is man on woman, we take it and assume it happened just as she told the story. Looking at it if a woman domestically abused a man, it would be a joke to us. Nobody here is saying "well she had it coming." Far from that.

 

Actually, the thread-of-consciousness I'm posting on isn't even about the Varlamov situation specifically (said this in my first post).  It was more addressing something Carter-for-president said in a post, a blanket statement about how too many men are hitting women.  In a perfect world, no one would resort to violence ever.  But what I was pointing out was that every case isn't always about some guy just beating a woman senseless...and I think that's how most people view domestic abuse...very black-and-white. 


  • 1


#1221534 Av's Varlamov arrested

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 01 November 2013 - 08:37 AM

No, because divorce or simply moving out is considered the legal avenue to take.

 

I understand the above, but say you're a married man who's bringing home most of the money...much of which has gone into a beautiful home, and other perks (pool, cars, tec).  Your wife can be pretty horrible in many ways...maybe withholding sex, constantly bitching and complaining, always making you feel like nothing you ever do is good enough.  She is constantly nagging you, and thinks nothing of embarrassing you in front of others.  Eventually you start fighting back, and the arguments get worse and worse.  Then one day, things get out of control, and your wife hits you, maybe once, maybe multiple times.  You snap and maybe not even technically "hit" her, but you push or shove her.  She falls, maybe gets a bump on her head, bruise on her back.  She calls the police.  How do you think this is going to turn out for you?

 

Sure, you take the "legal" avenue.  The house that you worked so hard to buy?  She's going to get it.  And chances are not only are you going to lose the house, but you're now going have to pay her alimony too.  It's not nearly as easy to just leave as outsiders might think.   

 

And how is any of the above fair to you exactly?  Men often get screwed royally by going the "legal" route. 


  • 1


#1221082 Devils getting rid of R&R part 2 as their goal song?

Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 30 October 2013 - 06:44 AM

It represents way more than 1% of people who submitted votes though.  The fans that post on these forums are probably more dedicated than most, and so are the ones that send in goal song submissions.  If you think these were actually the top three in votes, even disregarding Rock and Roll Part 2, then you are way too gullible.  It seemed clear to me from the get-go that even though they said they were going to test out the three most voted songs, it was obviously going to be three songs that they found suitable.  Just like when you needed to register for a ticket for the equipment sale at the draft a few years ago, but after registering it just took you to a webpage to print out your ticket, all of which had the exact same barcode and number.  It was just a ploy to get more email addresses into their database.  Did you really think someone was sitting there tallying every vote for every single song?  Come on, now.

 

In bold:  yeah, pretty much.  The only thing that's really aggravating about it all is the way it continues to get handled.  All they had to do was announce that they were dumping R&R Part 2 in the preseason, then follow that up with "and here's the three songs that are candidates to replace it.  We'll play song#1 at the first home game, song#2 at the next one, then song#3 at the following one.  We will use the one that gets the most positive reaction." 

 

But, as we know, we got:

 

1) R&R Part 2 playing during preseason, which led many to think no changes were coming. 

2) Blindsided at Opening Night with a song that seemed to be implemented only because the artist had New Jersey ties, which was an insult to several Jersey folk.  Nothing like new owners who appear to regard their fans as nothing more than a homogenous stereotype who worships anything branded New Jersey. 

3) In reaction to the disaster above (which had ownership had anyone do even miminal research, they would have seen that coming), the Devils allowed fans to enter their own choices.  Though several fans were still pissed at the blindside maneuver, several others applauded this "recovery" move, and were willing to submit good ideas (though some clearly weren't going to let go of R&R Part 2...that's on the fans).

4) Then it becomes obvious that the "YOU pick your song!" thing was a sham, and that the Devils were going to pick three songs that were clearly less far disastrous than "This Is Our House" (this time I'm sure SOME organizational research went into the three choices).  Fine...hell, two of the three songs are light-years better than "This Is Our House"...but most people can see through this pretty easily, which makes we wonder why the Devils didn't just come out and be honest with their fanbase JUST ONCE since this whole thing began.

 

It always goes back to the same thing...even though several Devils fans wouldn't have liked the sacking of R&R Part 2 the second it was announced, and some would then refuse to give anything else a real chance, if the Devils had just been honest about how they were handling this just ONE DAMNED TIME, fans would be a lot less annoyed by all of this now.  Maybe not happy and thrilled, but definitely less aggravated.


  • 1