Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SueNJ97

  • Birthday 06/02/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lincoln Park, NJ
  • Interests
    Hockey, History, Travel, Cats, Writing

SueNJ97's Achievements

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer (10/11)



  1. No, nobody except me has commented on a thing in the article except the parking lot line, which tells me it's not a thing that should be up on this site. They can't see anything but that line. I made an error in posting it.
  2. I'm not thrilled with that either. But Marty was given space in a publication that rarely gives any notice to hockey and his career was compared favorably - in fact was lauded compared to Jeter's. But, if you guys are going to get this upset about the parking lot metnion, can someone remove the post, please???? I put it up, can one of the site moderators remove it?
  3. Yes. In Sports. It was posted late last night. No sure if it is in the print version, I only have the on-line version.
  4. You may need a subscription to get at this. But, I'll link to it in any case. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690411827214083.html Key quotes from beginning of the piece: "Ask New Yorkers to name the greatest local sportsman of the current generation and they'll inevitably put Derek Jeter's name at, or at least near, the top of the list. But by numbers alone, the charismatic Yankee captain isn't the greatest New York-area athlete of his generation. That honor belongs to a guy who probably wouldn't even be recognized if he showed up at Le Cirque in full pads: New Jersey Devils goalie Martin Brodeur." The article notes that while their careers have mirrored each other interms of rookie of the year honors, years played for the same team, titles in their respective sports, the way they have won other individual awards, etc., Jeter isn't set to smash key records and Marty is. The Journal doesn't sit up and take notice of hockey in general that often so this is interesting.
  5. They were promised this before and ESPN broke almost every promise. But, I will admit, ESPN did it for a reason. The way ESPN used to justify their coverage of the NHL was that it delivered one key demographic. Despite the continual low ratings (and they were always low, they just became lower as it went along) the sport used to attract a solid, coveted demo in decent numbers: white men 18-29. Around the year 2000, this demo started to watch less and less TV, inlcuding cable (if it wasn't movie channels, basiaclly, anything that had commercials) and, if they did watch it, they were early adapters to TiVo. ESPN lost any reason to carry the sport. It lost the only reason it had to sell the sport to advertisers. You will recall the last campaign ESPN used to try to attract viewers. It certainly wasn't trying to attract 'casual' sports fans. No casual sports fan was going to see the 'Hockey Falls' ad execution, which portrayed hockey's rabid fans (and their own ESPN announcers) as hicks and idiots and basically said - "look everyone, here's our core audience and the people who announce our games, join us, why don't you - watch the NHL" and go anywhere near the sport. Yep, that was the way ESPN decided to go out and sell the NHL to the casual fan near the end of the contract. That, and not giving the game a regular night. And laughing at it - when they discussed it at all - on any other ESPN programming. ESPN now has Monday Night Football, the NBA (and, as part of that contract, they have contractual obligations that they cannot break to the WNBA and believe me, they give a damn about not breaking the NBA contract - they don't give a sh*t about not breaking an NHL contract), MLB, men's college baskeball, women's college basketball (and thus, at some level, both tournaments, which is they have it), college football, plus a sh*t-load of other stuff. Where are they going to program the NHL? Oh, right, they'll do what they did before. Shove it in wherever they can fit it, which was part of the problem, and it will die, just like it did before. And, if you really think ESPN is going to give up a college bowl game on News Years day just because this year the Winter Classic outdrew some of the bowl games, it isn't happening. If, somehow, this were to wind up on ESPN, I guarantee you, it suddenly wouldn't be what it is now, good alternative programming for people who are bored by the lackluster bowl games now on New Year's day, ESPN will make them move the game, and ruin it.
  6. Maxpower, you said you don't trust Martin. Is it that you don't think he'll stay healthy, or you just don't think a team with Martin as the top defender (and he is the best D-man we have) is going to win anything?
  7. How close to the end of the season is the last NJ/Philly game. I was thinking about 1997 (or 1998?), when NJ played them the last game of the season, couldn't sit everyone and wound up with Andreychuck with a broken ankle and at least one other injury. I don't want to play them the last week or two of the season. It wouldn't surprise me to see the same thing happen.
  8. That means both Fleury and Smith are in agreement that it should never have happened, but he never would have had a chance to accept the offer if Checketts hadn't made Smith get back on the plane. I'm not a St. Louis Blues fan, but I hope for the sake of fans of that club that Checketts is staying out of the decision making process regarding players.
  9. That is slightly unfair to Smith. He did strip the team to win that Cup. However, some of the free agent signings were not his call. For example, he walked away from Theo Fleury. He knew Fleury was a bad fit who had no interest in being in NY other than for the money - and that it was not the right place for Fleury. His boss, Dave Checketts, forced him to get back on the plane and make the offer to Fleury, who accepted, even though he knew he was doing it for the money and was dreading going to NY. I'm not sure what Smith should have done in that situation - maybe he should have quit - maybe that's why you saw him quit in Long Island.
  10. It's a 2nd this year and a 3rd next year. At least if NHL on the Fly has their facts straight.
  11. NJ has had 14 games decided in OT or the SO this year, one more than Boston. If what you are saying is, NJ has won more of those games, whether by SO or OT, then you are correct. Boston has won 6 and lost 7, NJ has won 11 and lost 3. However, some of NJ's win's are still by the SO. We still aren't pure, either. Under your rules, NJ would give back 4 points from the wins by SO, and all 3 of the points from the losses. That's 7 points. Boston would give back the 7 points from the losses and 3 points from the wins in the SO, that's 10 points. They would still be ahead of NJ. I don't really see that that would change. I love that in your version of the game in Boston, you seem to think that the first Boston goal just magically appeared, and wasn't caused by our own goalie's stupidity. Also, I don't recall that their getting away with spearing Colin White actually caused them to score a goal. Yes, they should have gotten a penalty for it. But, it didn't actually put the puck in the net for them. I read the Boston boards after that game. You want to know what they were saying? Their goalie cost them the game. It's amazing how the two sides can look at it. They think Thomas was a sieve on both the 3rd NJ goal and the winning OT goal. Please, you know what your post would sound like if you read it? Joe Micheletti doing color commentary on a Ranger game (if you substituted NY for NJ). According to him, the refs pretty much cost NY most of their games.
  12. I would be more interested in this as well, as it would break Elias' team points record.
  13. Actually, I think the Bruins have been very, very good this year. Although NJ played very well against them and won in OT the last game, do you think the lead they have on the rest of the conference is some sort of a mirage? I agree, there are better teams in the West than the Wings this year, but you make it sound like Bruins suck. They don't. Savard can't possibly dive his way to enough calls to explain this season. I hope if NJ faces them in the playoffs (which would require that both teams win a round or two if things keep up the way they are going) that the Devils don't take the Bruins as lightly as you do. Has the officiating often been perplexing? Yes. But NJ has at or near the bottom of the league in PP awarded for years now. You somehow thought this would change? The difference may be that they also used to be among the least penalized teams, you rarely saw a period like the second period last night where there was just one after another. However, there was also one after another for the Kings at one point, it was NJ penalty, then an LA penatly, they would switch off and there would be 4-on-4 and it was only a matter of time before somebody connected. Essentially, it was insane - and whichever side connected first, the fans on the other side were bound to be extremely unhappy. Even Chico - who was sputtering about the officiating - admitted between the 2nd and 3rd that NJ wasn't exactly playing their best. Blame the officiating all you want. The team wasn't all that great.
  14. SueNJ97

    Tom Renney

    I saw the third and they completely fell apart, including the goaltender. I didn't know that Lundqvist had the flu and was backing Valiquette up only in theory - they couldn't pull the goalie once things got bad. What I wonder and we'll never know is whether more guys were out there with the flu and they just stopped skating because they couldn't do it anymore. The organization at least didn't try to say we gave up because we were sick. And the coach certainly didn't act like that was the problem after the game, he closed the door to the room for about 10 minutes to the press and I guess let them have it.
  15. It's a sign of "respect and affection" among Ranger and Flyer fans to call him that.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.