Jump to content

GDT : Bruins @ Devils - 7:00 PM - MSG+2, NESN


Devs3cups
 Share

Recommended Posts

I get the disappointment from people. I'm also disappointed, but the fact still remains that this team wasn't anticipated to do shizz this year and they had a good early start to the season. We all knew we had to enjoy the success while it lasted.

The real heartbreak comes from the seemingly constant bad luck on the ice and with injuries, loss to teams they have outplayed, and seemingly inexplicable lapses in play for short stretches that costs them the game. I'm right there with you guys I swear, but the future is still bright. Believe it, and believe Ray can get this team where it needs to be to win. Before the season began I was thinking playoffs in 1-3 years but they're actually playing for a spot right now. I hate to see people completely give up on the team when we can all admit they pretty much outperformed their expectations already and it still isn't over yet. 

Remove the horrid luck from the league since December and things aren't nearly this close to Armageddon proportions either. Also, most teams in the league can expect their backup G to come in for 2-3 weeks and not completely make a mess of things. I don't think we can expect this "perfect sh!t storm" EVERY year. Please, try to at least hold out until the next lockout to be so pissed off you stop watching the team.Then you have a real excuse to be done.

On that note, I'm going on vacation to the Tampa area this week and have been looking forward to the game there on Saturday for a while. I've wanted to see a game in Tampa for years so I hope they don't suck. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Neb00rs said:

Not sure if this was mentioned here yet but:

Butcher got an assist too.

Doesn't count officially though because he missed time due to injury. 

So that's 21 points over the 14 game streak (9 goals, 12 assists) and he's 12 points off Kucherov while having played 5 less games.

Why does he say back on? Even without the assist he scored a goal so how was the streak ever over to begin with? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Neb00rs said:

Not sure if this was mentioned here yet but:

Butcher got an assist too.

Doesn't count officially though because he missed time due to injury. 

So that's 21 points over the 14 game streak (9 goals, 12 assists) and he's 12 points off Kucherov while having played 5 less games.

Wow, I had no idea he was that close to the NHL lead.  I saw today there's a few guys, including 3 fvcking Pens, who are in the low 60s, with Kucherov leading the way at 69, and I just assumed Hall was further down the list at like 15 or 20, but if he's only 12 off, then he's probably in the top 10.  Very impressive, especially given the time he's missed like you mentioned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I swear if I ever come across one of his jerseys when I am at the Meigray warehouse I will make sure to fart on it.  That way they stink, just like how he is as a goalie.

It still won't beat your Parenteau jersey. But its still a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Satans Hockey said:

Why does he say back on? Even without the assist he scored a goal so how was the streak ever over to begin with? 

The assist was given on Palmieri's goal in Columbus, that's why. Other than that there would have been no Hall point in Columbus. 

And for the record, I still think that streak counts. Its 14 games in a row that he played in, whether he missed 2 for injury is irrelevant. Still 14 games played, 14 games with points. 

Edited by mfitz804
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still seething over that bs 'call on the ice is a goal' and subsequent review. I despise the review system and nhl officials. Garret Rank was one of them last night and he sounds awfully familiar as being a repeat abuser of the Devils.

Edited by devlman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

The assist was given on Palmieri's goal in Columbus, that's why. Other than that there would have been no Hall point in Columbus. 

And for the record, I still think that streak counts. Its 14 games in a row that he played in, whether he missed 2 for injury is irrelevant. Still 14 games played, 14 games with points. 

Ah I clearly didn't read that correctly, I half ass read it and thought he was talking about yesterday's game lol

Edited by Satans Hockey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, devlman said:

I'm still seething over that bs 'call on the ice is a goal' and subsequent review. I despise the review system and nhl officials. Garret Rank was one of them last night and he sounds awfully familiar as being a repeat abuser of the Devils.

And I'm sorry, if it takes THAT friggin' long to see if the puck crossed the line...it's not conclusive.  Would love to know what the ref saw that made him so sure that it went across the line in the first place.  At the same time the Devils put themselves in a lousy position to begin with...that never should've happened. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

And I'm sorry, if it takes THAT friggin' long to see if the puck crossed the line...it's not conclusive.  Would love to know what the ref saw that made him so sure that it went across the line in the first place.  At the same time the Devils put themselves in a lousy position to begin with...that never should've happened. 

For me, with these calls, it's just that I've never seen anything like them before, especially last night's. I've never seen the refs call something a goal when there is absolutely no evidence that the puck went over the line. If anything, they've erred on the opposite side. It really boggles my mind that they called it a goal.

I really think the Devils players do need to get on the refs a bit more. Not that it will make all the difference but don't be the nice guys, don't make it easy for them to look you in the eye and tell you that you were offsides.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Neb00rs said:

For me, with these calls, it's just that I've never seen anything like them before, especially last night's. I've never seen the refs call something a goal when there is absolutely no evidence that the puck went over the line. If anything, they've erred on the opposite side. It really boggles my mind that they called it a goal.

I really think the Devils players do need to get on the refs a bit more. Not that it will make all the difference but don't be the nice guys, don't make it easy for them to look you in the eye and tell you that you were offsides.

I know it's been debated multiple times, but I really do want to see the Devils lose their sh!t over one of these "huh?!" calls soon.  I know the fallout could be costly within a game (penalties, etc), but the Devils just seem so damned PASSIVE when it comes to this sh!t...almost too calm to a fault.  I like Hynes in general, but I guess I would just to like see him go full-human just one time.  Yeah, probably won't make any difference, but I guess I'd like to see him show that some of this crap makes him as crazy as it makes us. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

And I'm sorry, if it takes THAT friggin' long to see if the puck crossed the line...it's not conclusive.  

I'm really confused as to how a lot of people (not you necessarily, CR76) view replays.

On the Hall and Johansson offsides, people were screaming about how the referees screwed us. Those calls went in our favor. If you want to argue that the replay was inconclusive and it shouldn't have been overturned, I get that argument. But if the refs are out to screw you, you don't get the call on the ice. 

On the goal last night, if you want to argue the refs screwed us by calling that a goal on the ice, I can see where you are coming from. But then people are arguing that the replay was inconclusive. If the replay is inconclusive, the call on the ice stands.  So arguing that it was inconclusive is not really relevant. 

It just seems like sometimes people are making the wrong argument. 

5 minutes ago, Neb00rs said:

I've never seen the refs call something a goal when there is absolutely no evidence that the puck went over the line.

I have no idea how they could have called that a goal, no way anyone saw the puck. And, I would add, the ref that was right behind the goal was right there, never made a motion, just stood there like a statue until time expired. How can the "call on the ice" be a goal, when no call was ever made???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Neb00rs said:

For me, with these calls, it's just that I've never seen anything like them before, especially last night's. I've never seen the refs call something a goal when there is absolutely no evidence that the puck went over the line. If anything, they've erred on the opposite side. It really boggles my mind that they called it a goal.

I really think the Devils players do need to get on the refs a bit more. Not that it will make all the difference but don't be the nice guys, don't make it easy for them to look you in the eye and tell you that you were offsides.

I also understand the desire for Hynes to go berserk and start throwing stuff, but he's not that guy. Plus, it would accomplish absolutely zero as you noted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

And I'm sorry, if it takes THAT friggin' long to see if the puck crossed the line...it's not conclusive.  Would love to know what the ref saw that made him so sure that it went across the line in the first place.  At the same time the Devils put themselves in a lousy position to begin with...that never should've happened. 

My guess is that he took into account the fact that Lack wasn't showing him the puck.  That to me is the greatest evidence that the puck was probably in - if Lack knows it's not in and knows where the puck is, he reveals it to the ref, no goal.  Instead not only did I never see where the puck was, I never saw it get fished out of wherever it was.

I don't think it's a call NHL refs should be making like that, but I get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mfitz804 said:

I'm really confused as to how a lot of people (not you necessarily, CR76) view replays.

On the Hall and Johansson offsides, people were screaming about how the referees screwed us. Those calls went in our favor. If you want to argue that the replay was inconclusive and it shouldn't have been overturned, I get that argument. But if the refs are out to screw you, you don't get the call on the ice. 

On the goal last night, if you want to argue the refs screwed us by calling that a goal on the ice, I can see where you are coming from. But then people are arguing that the replay was inconclusive. If the replay is inconclusive, the call on the ice stands.  So arguing that it was inconclusive is not really relevant. 

It just seems like sometimes people are making the wrong argument. 

I have no idea how they could have called that a goal, no way anyone saw the puck. And, I would add, the ref that was right behind the goal was right there, never made a motion, just stood there like a statue until time expired. How can the "call on the ice" be a goal, when no call was ever made???

The bolded was where I was coming from...but on that one I'm thinking "Man, it shouldn't be taking nearly this long if there's clear evidence that SUPPORTS the call."  That's where my ass was chapped.  I did see him call it goal on ice just after it happened though...I remember thinking "WTF, that's goal on the ice?!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ref did indicate goal. This is what Lack said and I honestly believe it:   "My stick was there, my blocker was there, my glove was over it," Lack said. "But I mean, if the ref says it was in, it was in. He didn't say anything and the third guy yelled, and all of a sudden it seemed he changed his opinion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Triumph said:

My guess is that he took into account the fact that Lack wasn't showing him the puck.  That to me is the greatest evidence that the puck was probably in - if Lack knows it's not in and knows where the puck is, he reveals it to the ref, no goal.  Instead not only did I never see where the puck was, I never saw it get fished out of wherever it was.

I don't think it's a call NHL refs should be making like that, but I get it.

Your own comment explains that Lack might not have known where the puck was, which would be why he didn't reveal the puck as goalies do all the time. No matter what you try to shimmy your pads a bit and manipulate the puck away from the goal line, even if it might not be in.

In any case, the ref isn't supposed to play detective, he's an official who is supposed to carry out the rules by the book.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Neb00rs said:

Your own comment explains that Lack might not have known where the puck was, which would be why he didn't reveal the puck as goalies do all the time. No matter what you try to shimmy your pads a bit and manipulate the puck away from the goal line, even if it might not be in.

In any case, the ref isn't supposed to play detective, he's an official who is supposed to carry out the rules by the book.

Yeah, felt like the ref made an educated guess at best.  I don't want refs making those. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

The bolded was where I was coming from...but on that one I'm thinking "Man, it shouldn't be taking nearly this long if there's clear evidence that SUPPORTS the call."  That's where my ass was chapped.  I did see him call it goal on ice just after it happened though...I remember thinking "WTF, that's goal on the ice?!"

I figured that was what you meant, that's why i said not necessarily you. :)

38 minutes ago, Jimmy Leeds said:

Are you sure?   I ask because I don't know for sure and the refs hand is pointing down like he was still signaling goal.  You're probably correct

The referee pointing doesn't mean "its in the goal right now", it just means it was a good goal. Even if it hit the back bar and came flying out, the call on the ice would be to point down into the goal to signal a good goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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