SterioDesign Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 thing is the Rangers acquired and developed a LOT of talent while we've lost most talent within 2 years than ive ever seen a team ever lose. Added to an aging group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDfan1711 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm a few posts behind, but while we're on the subject of favorite but bad sports teams...I'm a Devils/Giants/Mets fan, so the past 2-3 years have been particularly brutal for me, pretty much the entire calendar year All 3 teams have been bottom feeders since about 2013 and it's been hard to get excited and/or remain competitive towards the end of each team's seasons. Thankfully, because I love hockey so much, I started following the Lightning as my 2nd favorite team ever since I moved to Florida in the late 90s (I was at Game 7 of the 2004 Finals). I have gone to every single Devils game when they've come to Tampa for the past 17 years or so, and for the first time ever I was contemplating not going to the game tonight just because they're so bad, and it literally doesn't matter, for either team. BUT...as a true fan, and because I only get to see my favorite team live in person twice a year, I'll be going. I'm not wearing my jersey, but I'll still be rooting for them. As usual though, and even more so really, if the Lightning score or win, I'll be cheering for them too, because they actually are a fun team to watch lately and I am definitely pulling for them in the Stanley Cup playoffs now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) Hats off to the Rags, I don't know how but Sather and his scouts have put together an incredibly talented team. Well... 1. When you've got one of the best players in the league (Rick Nash, 42 goals this year) handicapping his team with a no-trade clause, to be traded "to New York and only New York"... 2. And another one of the league's top players (Martin St. Louis, 50 points this season, which would be the most points on the Devils) doing the same and worse (right at the 11th hour of the week or two before the trade deadline), to come "to New York and only New York"... 3. And have the $50-60m+ budget to make all your god awful mistakes "just go away" in a matter of 2-3 years (buyouts, NHLers buried in the minors, etc.), mistakes that would land 27 of the other teams in the league into perpetual awfulness, maybe bankruptcy. I mean, the NHL instituted compliance buyouts with Wade Redden and Scott Gomez (at that point, in Montreal) in mind!!!!! Devils were affected by NHL rule changes meant to counteract our style of play, then CBA changes and fines aimed at our means of being able to sign an elite player (Kovalchuk), but the Rangers had NHL terms changed to help them from the weight of two of Sather's biggest mistakes!!!! That should be mind-boggling, if not infuriating to you all, and most people in the league (who aren't Montreal or Philly)... 4. And, yes, make a few very good signings/draft picks (Lundqvist, Stepan, Zuccarello, Kreider) and trades (McDonaugh, Yandle I'm not so sure about in the long run) to even out the cast... ...You're bound to make some sh!t stick for a few years and create a contender, you'd have to royally screw up not to. The opportunities, the immense budget, the help that Slats has had at his disposal in the past 5 years are unmatched in the NHL. Not even Montreal could get away with some of the dealings and money-bleeding that Sather has been able to in the past 5 years. I'd say Toronto is similar but their buyouts pale in comparison and we're at a point where I don't think players "want" to go to Toronto anymore. So yeah, good for them. Edited April 9, 2015 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Get over yourself. Open your eyes the Devils Stink. You want to make chicken salad out of chicken $hit, be my guest, you eat it. Please post when you have something intelligent to say. BTW one year doesn't make 10 years of crap look good. It went from 5 years to 10 years now over a span of one post. Wonderful. Yet I am the one that needs to watch my postings. We all know you were hinting at Lou is to blame for the issues. That's fine but that's just another post in a long lists of posts you go out of your way to bash Lou about. Surprised too given that you claimed a few weeks back that he considered you for an Olympic coaching position. A 3 year major decline is more like it. Everything has been horrendous except for Cory since we made those finals. Sadly it feels like ages ago already. 3 years is indeed more accurate. Team probably won't be good next year and not sure the year after that. As long as we are heading in the right direction I am fine. If someone told me 20 years ago that in exchange for 20 years of playoffs including 3 cups and 5 finals in exchange for 5-6 years of crap afterwards, I would take that 100 times out of 100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titans04 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Well... 1. When you've got one of the best players in the league (Rick Nash, 42 goals this year) handicapping his team with a no-trade clause, to be traded "to New York and only New York"... 2. And another one of the league's top players (Martin St. Louis, 50 points this season, which would be the most points on the Devils) doing the same and worse, to come "to New York and only New York"... 3. And have the $40m budget to make all your god awful mistakes "just go away" in a matter of 2-3 years (buyouts, NHLers buried in the minors, etc.), mistakes that would land 27 of the other teams in the league in perpetual awfulness, maybe bankruptcy. I mean, the NHL instituted compliance buyouts with Wade Redden and Scott Gomez (at that point, in Montreal) in mind!!!!! Devils were affected by NHL rule changes meant to counteract our style of play, the Rangers had NHL terms changed to benefit two of Sather's biggest mistakes!!!! That's mind-blowing... 4. And, yes, make a few very good signings/draft picks (Lundqvist, Stepan, Zuccarello, Kreider) and trades (McDonaugh, Yandle I'm not so sure about in the long run) to even out the cast... ...You're bound to make some sh!t stick for a few years and create a contender, you'd have to royally screw up not to. The opportunities, the immense budget, the help that Slats has had at his disposal in the past 5 years are unmatched in the NHL. Not even Montreal could get away with some of the dealings and money-bleeding that Sather has been able to in the past 5 years. I'd say Toronto is similar but their buyouts pale in comparison and we're at a point where I don't think players "want" to go to Toronto anymore. So yeah, good for them. We did get Kovi for what 100M+, that worked out well. We tried with Clowe/Havlat/Ryder this year. Hit a home run with Camm. The rags though have so much more that they've brought through their system and/or didn't have to overpay to bring in. Staal, Girardi, Hayes, Moore, Klien, Hagelin etc. None of them superstars but their role players would be some of the top players on this roster especially up front. Really Toronto and Montreal don't have the money to blow like the Rangers did eliminating their mistakes? Rags haven't made a huge mistake since Richards, clearly Redden was a disaster. The rule changes were when? 04-05 ish? over 10 years ago are we still pointing to that as an issue today? it all runs in cycles us trending towards mediocrity and below while they've been pretty solid the last 5 or more years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDfan1711 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 it all runs in cycles us trending towards mediocrity and below while they've been pretty solid the last 5 or more years. That's what's funny -- I always liked to believe, and probably most people did too, that we, as Devils fans, had a team that was the exception not the rule -- that we were always going to be, at the very least, a decent team, usually in the playoff fold. You won't always win the Cup, but when you're in the hunt for the better part of 15 years, it always looks like rainy days will never come. But, alas, they're here, and it sucks because we don't know how long it'll last. We just need to enjoy the time we had and hope that it comes back sooner rather than later. In all reality, we were fortunate, because the only team I can think of that was as competitive as we were for longer was probably Detroit, who is actually still riding their streak (what's it been, something insane like 24 years in a row in the playoffs now, assuming they make it this year?) I know I couldn't believe the stat a few years back when he retired that Lidstrom made the playoffs EVERY year of his career. Makes sense obviously for playing for one team his whole life and that team being the Wings who haven't missed the post-season during his tenure and I believe one or two seasons prior, but man, what a stat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) Well... 1. When you've got one of the best players in the league (Rick Nash, 42 goals this year) handicapping his team with a no-trade clause, to be traded "to New York and only New York"... 2. And another one of the league's top players (Martin St. Louis, 50 points this season, which would be the most points on the Devils) doing the same and worse (right at the 11th hour of the week or two before the trade deadline), to come "to New York and only New York"... 3. And have the $50-60m+ budget to make all your god awful mistakes "just go away" in a matter of 2-3 years (buyouts, NHLers buried in the minors, etc.), mistakes that would land 27 of the other teams in the league into perpetual awfulness, maybe bankruptcy. I mean, the NHL instituted compliance buyouts with Wade Redden and Scott Gomez (at that point, in Montreal) in mind!!!!! Devils were affected by NHL rule changes meant to counteract our style of play, then CBA changes and fines aimed at our means of being able to sign an elite player (Kovalchuk), but the Rangers had NHL terms changed to help them from the weight of two of Sather's biggest mistakes!!!! That should be mind-boggling, if not infuriating to you all, and most people in the league (who aren't Montreal or Philly)... 4. And, yes, make a few very good signings/draft picks (Lundqvist, Stepan, Zuccarello, Kreider) and trades (McDonaugh, Yandle I'm not so sure about in the long run) to even out the cast... ...You're bound to make some sh!t stick for a few years and create a contender, you'd have to royally screw up not to. The opportunities, the immense budget, the help that Slats has had at his disposal in the past 5 years are unmatched in the NHL. Not even Montreal could get away with some of the dealings and money-bleeding that Sather has been able to in the past 5 years. I'd say Toronto is similar but their buyouts pale in comparison and we're at a point where I don't think players "want" to go to Toronto anymore. So yeah, good for them. I dont want to throw this out again but its so true and on subject. They were also a lot more proactive than us. See this year? They were clearly in the run for the playoffs and gave an ultimatum before the deadline to Zucc which is a really really important player for them. Yet they were gonna trade him if he was not gonna re-sign with them, same happened with Stepan i think. And they traded their CAPTAIN when they saw that he was not gonna re-sign with them. That's great assets management and that's the one thing i've been pinning on Lou and his fvcking approach. Out of just that, they got Zucc signed long term, they got st-louis and they got Stepan signed. Those were HARD decisions but it was for the best of the franchise. Again, those moves HAD to be done in order to get the team they have now, but in NJ those moves would not even be looked into at all and no one can deny that. in one year NONE of those guys would have been on the roster with Lou and they would have lost them all for nothing. im sorry im bringing this up again but its truly the right way to do things and a reason why the Rangers are strong now. Edited April 9, 2015 by SterioDesign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) We did get Kovi for what 100M+, that worked out well. We tried with Clowe/Havlat/Ryder this year. Hit a home run with Camm. The rags though have so much more that they've brought through their system and/or didn't have to overpay to bring in. Staal, Girardi, Hayes, Moore, Klien, Hagelin etc. None of them superstars but their role players would be some of the top players on this roster especially up front. I'm not comparing Devils to Rangers, we've done a ton of things wrong. I'm more speaking in generalities. And yes, they've had some fantastic signings: the McDonaugh deal and Zuccarello deal ring out recently as two of Sather's best. But these deals and these signings make a good team, maybe a very good team, a regular playoff team, but not an elite President's Trophy-winning contender, not if you still have Brad Richards on the team claiming $6.7m and are in the same rut as 15 other teams with big-name players: re-signing players under the cap with the albatross of a Richards contract and suddenly Rick Nash on the team. But no, Rick Nash falls into their lap, Brad Richards is bought out using the rule/loophole that was tailor-made for Glen Sather in 2012, enter Martin St. Louis, and voila... Really Toronto and Montreal don't have the money to blow like the Rangers did eliminating their mistakes? Toronto and Montreal have the money, yes, but for whatever reason not the same clout anymore (although Montreal still has it, which I said in my post; Montreal can still pull it off, Toronto not so much). Clarkson will probably go down as the last player for a while to "flee" his original team because "he wants to go to Toronto". Toronto's Toronto, but will elite players flex their no-trade clause to be traded there because they "want to go"? I don't think so. But New York continues to remain the capital of "I want to be traded there", and sure, Sather plays the cards right and gets them, but it's a unique bargaining chip 27 of the other teams don't have, it's not some Sather skill or savvy or voodoo. MSL and Rick Nash, two of the top players in the league, fell onto his lap, there's no other way to put it. Rags haven't made a huge mistake since Richards, clearly Redden was a disaster. Henrik Lundqvist's monstrous contract may end up being a mistake in a few years. Might we see another bending of the CBA/NHL rules "allowing more compliance buyouts for the league" in the 2018-2019 season? My money's on yes. And that's the kind of almost insider trading-like opportunism that is falling onto Sather's lap. Make a disastrous mistake because, poof, the NHL will come swinging in with an easy fix. The rule changes were when? 04-05 ish? over 10 years ago are we still pointing to that as an issue today? I was just putting things into perspective. I'm not blaming the rule changes on anything Devils-related TODAY, I'm just saying, there were changes in 2005 and an about-face to the CBA when we were fined in 2011 (re: Kovalchuk) that affected the Devils negatively. Compliance buyouts, the magical golden unicorn rule pops out of no where in 2012, magically when all of Glen Sather's (and 2 or 3 other irresponsible GMs in the league, like Philadelphia's) problems begin to mount. That's all I'm saying. it all runs in cycles us trending towards mediocrity and below while they've been pretty solid the last 5 or more years. And I just want to reiterate, I'm not making these points to compare with the Devils. Lou and Conte, and our management and ownership have made their mistakes and that's where we are today. I'm just not giving Glen Sather all the credit he's bound to receive now suddenly that his team is good. It's like telling a middle class kid from Newark that he should hold Paris Hilton in high regard for "how she's succeeded in life." I'm not patting Sather on the back and saying he's done a great job. Edited April 9, 2015 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Bringing this thread back to hockey/the "let's celebrate everything" New York Rangers: They will be honoring the team for the President's Trophy tonight. Rangers twitter trying to blow it up like its the damn Cup. That's what they want. I just actually devoted a whole post to this silly garbage. That is the way MSG is run. Cater to the newbies who celebrate everything. Why Celebrate A President's Trophy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 That's what they want. I just actually devoted a whole post to this silly garbage. That is the way MSG is run. Cater to the newbies who celebrate everything. Why Celebrate A President's Trophy? I'm glad you agree, you give a voice to the sane Rangers fans out there. The building will probably be louder than last year's Finals in there tonight too, which is sad. Just roll with the success, keep quiet, and stay focused as the playoffs come around; but alas, I'm not James Dolan or on his payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonNala370 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 He's been posting here for many years with many intelligent things to say. You remind me a lot of LucifersDog, someone who was thankfully banned a year ago. Hmm.. You and I have had many discussions off line about your immaturity u should mind you own business, stop attacking me and other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonNala370 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 It went from 5 years to 10 years now over a span of one post. Wonderful. Yet I am the one that needs to watch my postings. We all know you were hinting at Lou is to blame for the issues. That's fine but that's just another post in a long lists of posts you go out of your way to bash Lou about. Surprised too given that you claimed a few weeks back that he considered you for an Olympic coaching position. 3 years is indeed more accurate. Team probably won't be good next year and not sure the year after that. As long as we are heading in the right direction I am fine. If someone told me 20 years ago that in exchange for 20 years of playoffs including 3 cups and 5 finals in exchange for 5-6 years of crap afterwards, I would take that 100 times out of 100. Do you know what you are talking about? You accept Lou and his failure while your team crashes, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Do you know what you are talking about? You accept Lou and his failure while your team crashes, Where did I say I accept Lou and his failures? Sorry but in the 27 years of him being the GM we have been in the playoffs about 20 times, 5 trips to the finals and 3 cups. Somehow that is completely wiped clean because of the last 3 years (but for some reason you insist it is 5 years and then immediately after that you said its 10 years of failure). I do think the team has to go in another direction and that does include Lou stepping aside as it seems like he is running out of ideas. However I am not going to label him a failure. Devils and pretty much every other sports team in existence goes through cycles and right now we are on the downswing. Again this is after about 20 years of excellence so if a few miserable years is what it takes to pay the piper, then so be it. Finally I know you are supposed to respect your elders and whatnot, but damn are you one crotchety, miserable and often confused old fart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Neb00rs, I'm not 100% dead-set against the ideas of remakes, and don't dislike them by default, but too many movies that were excellent the first time around have gotten remakes that were destined to be inferior to the originals, no matter how much they were modernized or had bigger and better budgets. To me, if there's an idea that had potential but simply wasn't executed well the first time, that's when you do a remake. Not every older story needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present day. A great example is the original Willy Wonka movie...it was filmed in 1971 and still holds up just fine. The 2005 remake was completely unnecessary. I agree. Unfortunately people flock to remakes. The whole 'remake' label is a marketing tool in and of itself. For example, there aren't many people in today's movie-going population, that hold any sort of sentiment towards True Grit, or even knew what it was before the remake. But the movie was advertised as a remake of a 'classic western' and a bunch of current stars were thrown into the leading roles, and so people went in droves to see it. The movie did FANTASTICALLY at the box office. When you think about it, on it's own it's just a pretty standard Western. It's the aura of 'remake' that pushed it to new heights. But yeah, the remake didn't do anything that the old one did, so on that note, it wasn't necessary. Production companies don't make decisions for artistic reasons though, they make them for financial reasons. Any sort of dynamic or pattern in movie-making today is the result of the movie-watching public. If a movie is old enough, I really don't have an issue with remaking it, no matter how relevant the old one still is. In the end, all stories and literature are derivative of the earliest generations of storytelling. Nothing is original; plot devices, hero/villain traits, plot structure; all of these things are copied from one piece of storytelling to the next. My real issue is when not-so-old movies (such as Totall Recall or Spiderman) or recent international movies (such as Oldboy or Infernal Affairs) are remade. The former is just artistically pointless, and the latter assumes the American public can't digest international cinema (which is partly true but still bothersome). And yet the $$$$ available to be made incentivize production companies to remake these movies anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Yeah a 5 year major decline that included a trip to the Stanley Cup finals. Yeah, but this is only relevant if you want to take reality into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 If a movie is old enough, I really don't have an issue with remaking it, no matter how relevant the old one still is. In the end, all stories and literature are derivative of the earliest generations of storytelling. Nothing is original; plot devices, hero/villain traits, plot structure; all of these things are copied from one piece of storytelling to the next. My real issue is when not-so-old movies (such as Totall Recall or Spiderman) or recent international movies (such as Oldboy or Infernal Affairs) are remade. The former is just artistically pointless, and the latter assumes the American public can't digest international cinema (which is partly true but still bothersome). And yet the $$$$ available to be made incentivize production companies to remake these movies anyways. To a point there's some truth in "most of the good stories have been already told"....its more often not in how you get through the story that helps..... while Star Trek, probably didn't need a reboot....the way they did it was TOTAL GENIUS....they didn't tear down the original.....they just made an "alternate future" that they can seal the rift on one day and get all Timey Whimey and "fix" one day if they feel the need Total Recall, just took the original idea (and all the fun of the first movie) and tossed it out the window and while trying to be "original" it missed the mark horribly and was just terrible Spider-Man 3 was so terrible (how do you hire a director who hates Venom and make him use Venom!??!?! Oi....) that it almost needed a re-start hell X-Men first class lead to an X-Men reboot....but it was done right so no one was upset even Man of Steel was a needed boost to Superman (poor Brandon Routh he was an awesome Superman.....though he's become a good Atom on TV so I'm ok with that too_ it's not in rehashing the old idea that is the problem....it's when you do a sh!tty job of it screw hockey....MOAR MOVIE TALK!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoffeecake Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I meant 'taking over' in relative terms. Don't get started with them. Rangers fans are pretty much all the same. Their numbers at Prudential Center haven't been that substantial since the first lockout, and I've seen them claim they had over 2/3rds of the arena in the conference finals in 2012. Tuesday was pretty much the most blue you'll ever see in there again, maybe short of a playoff sweep scenario like we had in 06 or something similar to this year. Considering most Rangers fans live closer to Newark than most Devils fans, it's surprising you only see things like that in situations of extreme on ice disparity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titans04 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm not comparing Devils to Rangers, we've done a ton of things wrong. I'm more speaking in generalities. And yes, they've had some fantastic signings: the McDonaugh deal and Zuccarello deal ring out recently as two of Sather's best. But these deals and these signings make a good team, maybe a very good team, a regular playoff team, but not an elite President's Trophy-winning contender, not if you still have Brad Richards on the team claiming $6.7m and are in the same rut as 15 other teams with big-name players: re-signing players under the cap with the albatross of a Richards contract and suddenly Rick Nash on the team. But no, Rick Nash falls into their lap, Brad Richards is bought out using the rule/loophole that was tailor-made for Glen Sather in 2012, enter Martin St. Louis, and voila... Toronto and Montreal have the money, yes, but for whatever reason not the same clout anymore (although Montreal still has it, which I said in my post; Montreal can still pull it off, Toronto not so much). Clarkson will probably go down as the last player for a while to "flee" his original team because "he wants to go to Toronto". Toronto's Toronto, but will elite players flex their no-trade clause to be traded there because they "want to go"? I don't think so. But New York continues to remain the capital of "I want to be traded there", and sure, Sather plays the cards right and gets them, but it's a unique bargaining chip 27 of the other teams don't have, it's not some Sather skill or savvy or voodoo. MSL and Rick Nash, two of the top players in the league, fell onto his lap, there's no other way to put it. Henrik Lundqvist's monstrous contract may end up being a mistake in a few years. Might we see another bending of the CBA/NHL rules "allowing more compliance buyouts for the league" in the 2018-2019 season? My money's on yes. And that's the kind of almost insider trading-like opportunism that is falling onto Sather's lap. Make a disastrous mistake because, poof, the NHL will come swinging in with an easy fix. I was just putting things into perspective. I'm not blaming the rule changes on anything Devils-related TODAY, I'm just saying, there were changes in 2005 and an about-face to the CBA when we were fined in 2011 (re: Kovalchuk) that affected the Devils negatively. Compliance buyouts, the magical golden unicorn rule pops out of no where in 2012, magically when all of Glen Sather's (and 2 or 3 other irresponsible GMs in the league, like Philadelphia's) problems begin to mount. That's all I'm saying. And I just want to reiterate, I'm not making these points to compare with the Devils. Lou and Conte, and our management and ownership have made their mistakes and that's where we are today. I'm just not giving Glen Sather all the credit he's bound to receive now suddenly that his team is good. It's like telling a middle class kid from Newark that he should hold Paris Hilton in high regard for "how she's succeeded in life." I'm not patting Sather on the back and saying he's done a great job. agree with almost everything except the first point all of those guys to me are exactly why they are the best team this year up until now they don't have much of a drop off throughout their entire lineup and hardly if any marginally talented guys to begin with (well of Glass). They don't have a single guy like Fraser, Harrold, Ginota, Geluins, Zubrus, Havlat, Ryder and the list goes on. Even Fast, Miller and Hayes are playing at a high level, Don't think Brassard was even mentioned yet, He would be a top three forward here with this current mess. Time heals all hopefully, it's just a matter of how long.But the stink is real at this point unfortunately. And yes before somebody bring up the young talent on defense that we have that's true, I do believe however that's mostly in comparison to how bad the forwards are especially young ones. I think Merrill has regressed (how can that be under such a great coach (I kind I'm not sold on Steven's other than he was a great player).Larsson progressed some for sure, still a long way to go. Severson had a great start and faded after his injury but clearly has potential. Greene is very underrated imo across the league. Harrold, Fraser,Gelinas suck imo. Everybody else who knows, certainly no can't miss prospects coming up from Albany at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Don't get started with them. Rangers fans are pretty much all the same. Their numbers at Prudential Center haven't been that substantial since the first lockout, and I've seen them claim they had over 2/3rds of the arena in the conference finals in 2012. Tuesday was pretty much the most blue you'll ever see in there again, maybe short of a playoff sweep scenario like we had in 06 or something similar to this year. Considering most Rangers fans live closer to Newark than most Devils fans, it's surprising you only see things like that in situations of extreme on ice disparity.Well any Rag fan claiming they had anything close to 2/3 of the Rock in 2012 is just spitting out propaganda, to add to the ridiculous narrative that they like to spin that they have more fans than us at the games here. I was at every one of those games that year... They were lucky if they made a dent in any of them. The ticket staff did a great job at helping keep the Rag and Phailure fans to a minimum that year and making sure most tickets landed in the hands of Devils fans. And seeing the ones that were there scatter like rats after Henrique's goal was about as priceless as it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'll say this though, late 90's early 2000's at CAA, Rag fans were few and far between. They were there, but my god were they afraid to show their face. Few games it was like...1,500 Ranger fans at best and 16k Devils fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) I'll say this though, late 90's early 2000's at CAA, Rag fans were few and far between. They were there, but my god were they afraid to show their face. Few games it was like...1,500 Ranger fans at best and 16k Devils fans.Oh they were nowhere to be found back in the days when they missed the playoffs every year... Then of course a bunch of them showed up in 06 all loud and douchey, only to get punked when the Devils swept them. I remember being at game 2 and there were these two ahole Rag trolls sitting a section over. The one guy was being your typical Rag douche, just throwing out all the typical sh!t that Rag douches throw at Devils fans about attendance and parking lot parades and what not... And then we kill that 5-on-3, and Sandis Ozolinsch puts the puck in his own net... At that point I think just about everyone knew the series was over at that moment. This jerkoff sat their and sulked like someone just beat up his dog as everyone just let him have it. You could see how embarrassed he was at that point. It was great. Edited April 9, 2015 by MadDog2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 To a point there's some truth in "most of the good stories have been already told"....its more often not in how you get through the story that helps..... while Star Trek, probably didn't need a reboot....the way they did it was TOTAL GENIUS....they didn't tear down the original.....they just made an "alternate future" that they can seal the rift on one day and get all Timey Whimey and "fix" one day if they feel the need Total Recall, just took the original idea (and all the fun of the first movie) and tossed it out the window and while trying to be "original" it missed the mark horribly and was just terrible Spider-Man 3 was so terrible (how do you hire a director who hates Venom and make him use Venom!??!?! Oi....) that it almost needed a re-start hell X-Men first class lead to an X-Men reboot....but it was done right so no one was upset even Man of Steel was a needed boost to Superman (poor Brandon Routh he was an awesome Superman.....though he's become a good Atom on TV so I'm ok with that too_ it's not in rehashing the old idea that is the problem....it's when you do a sh!tty job of it screw hockey....MOAR MOVIE TALK!!!!!!! Oh of course I don't disagree that execution counts. I am just saying that remakes themselves can't be condemned for the sole reason that they are a remake. I mean, the money says that people want remakes, even if they say they don't I hate it when there's poor execution of a remake. Even worse is when you are looking forward to a remake and you just know from the cast or production staff involved that it ain't going to work. Like when I heard Spike Lee was going to remake Old Boy. WTF? For those of you who aren't familiar with that film, that's like having Michael Mann remake the Godfather. Or better yet, it's like having your friend who's a really good painter, replicate "Starry Night". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonNala370 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Where did I say I accept Lou and his failures? Sorry but in the 27 years of him being the GM we have been in the playoffs about 20 times, 5 trips to the finals and 3 cups. Somehow that is completely wiped clean because of the last 3 years (but for some reason you insist it is 5 years and then immediately after that you said its 10 years of failure). I do think the team has to go in another direction and that does include Lou stepping aside as it seems like he is running out of ideas. However I am not going to label him a failure. Devils and pretty much every other sports team in existence goes through cycles and right now we are on the downswing. Again this is after about 20 years of excellence so if a few miserable years is what it takes to pay the piper, then so be it. Finally I know you are supposed to respect your elders and whatnot, but damn are you one crotchety, miserable and often confused old fart. Out of the last 5 years we have missed the playoffs 4 out of 5 times. Since 2004 we have bounced out of the playoffs in round one 4 times. Since 2004 we have made it to round 2 of the playoffs twice and once we made it to the finals and lost. Great track record just terrific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Out of the last 5 years we have missed the playoffs 4 out of 5 times. Since 2004 we have bounced out of the playoffs in round one 4 times. Since 2004 we have made it to round 2 of the playoffs twice and once we made it to the finals and lost. Great track record just terrific. You're leaving out a lot here. Think it's a coincidence that the dropoff in playoff success had anything to do with Stevens, Daneyko, and Niedermayer leaving? The first two Lou couldn't do anything about (Stevens was old and had concussion issues, Daneyko declined due to age), and he did as much as he possibly could to keep Nieds (including trying to acquire Nieds' brother), but money was clearly not the main factor in Scott's decision to leave. The Devils had an awesome defense for about a decade, two of the stalwarts being Hall-Of-Famers that are very difficult to replace, that didn't exactly fall into Lou's lap...he made a trade with Toronto that was brilliant in its foresight to acquire the pick to select Niedermayer, and had a lot of balls to go after Stevens as compensation for the Blues signing Shanahan. Lou hit two major home runs there...it's really hard to repeat those kinds of moves. This is hindsight, but part of the problem was that for a while, the Devils were consistent overachievers that had a way of putting up more regular season points than their talent suggested they should (Marty was terrific after the 2004-05 lockout, which helped in that regard), which meant they were stuck in that drafting no man's land to an extent...also meant they would often get exposed badly in the playoffs (in five out of the six series they were eliminated, they were knocked out in five games). The one common thread from 2004 to 2010 was the fact that they often looked two steps slower than their playoff opponents, and I think some of that might have been because they had to work so hard to win during the regular season (not many laughers...seemed like every game came down to one or two goals, and that every point gained in the standings was a real fight). There were postseasons where they were probably gassed. Some would say that Lou should've taken a step or two back to take one or two forward, but that's easier said than done, and it's not like fans were bitching much about the Devils consistently putting up 99+ point seasons and winning the Atlantic Division four times in a six-season period. When you have a guy like Marty would played brilliantly in three Cup-winning runs, it's easy to think he might be able to carry his team to the promised land again. In that 2004-10 period, it just didn't work out. Edited April 10, 2015 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 agree with almost everything except the first point all of those guys to me are exactly why they are the best team this year up until now they don't have much of a drop off throughout their entire lineup and hardly if any marginally talented guys to begin with (well of Glass). They don't have a single guy like Fraser, Harrold, Ginota, Geluins, Zubrus, Havlat, Ryder and the list goes on. Even Fast, Miller and Hayes are playing at a high level, Don't think Brassard was even mentioned yet, He would be a top three forward here with this current mess. True, on that ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.