Jump to content

Coleman to the Bolts


jagknife
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DevsMan84 said:

Looks like you answered your own question.

I am not pissed or upset about all this lol.  I just find it really amusing how much they try to sound smarter.

At least it is not yet on the cringe level as when these pseudo hockey bloggers write "player x is a treat to watch."  Sorry but that gets my skin crawling lol.

I don't agree. "No-fly zone" is a colloquial saying. It isn't like he scoured the depths of the oxford dictionary to use obscure or unnecessary wording. 

Also, he is a stats guy by trade. He even works for a junior team doing just that. The people that follow him on twitter must do so to get that kind of content.

 

This came to mind:

homer simpson nerd GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DevsMan84 said:

Good god is that pretentious and redundant.  That goes for both the addition of a graph and the wording.

I gotta admit, neither the wording nor the graph bothered me at all...if anything, I like that the graph fleshed out what he said...because my next question would have been "OK, so where did most of the shots come from...ah, there we go!"  

And if anything, the graph shows just HOW futile the Devils were on offense last night.  There are certain teams that just SO completely have their way with the Devils...yes, the Devils will have their fun and entertaining wins here and there, but some of these losses...just torture on the eyeballs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, NJDevils1214 said:

I don't agree. "No-fly zone" is a colloquial saying. It isn't like he scoured the depths of the oxford dictionary to use obscure or unnecessary wording. 

Also, he is a stats guy by trade. He even works for a junior team doing just that. The people that follow him on twitter must do so to get that kind of content.

 

This came to mind:

homer simpson nerd GIF

I rarely hear anyone use "No-Fly Zone" colloquially.  Maybe I need to be around smarter people lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

I gotta admit, neither the wording nor the graph bothered me at all...if anything, I like that the graph fleshed out what he said...because my next question would have been "OK, so where did most of the shots come from...ah, there we go!"  

And if anything, the graph shows just HOW futile the Devils were on offense last night.  There are certain teams that just SO completely have their way with the Devils...yes, the Devils will have their fun and entertaining wins here and there, but some of these losses...just torture on the eyeballs.

Without the graph I would have assumed from the perimeter of the Blues zone.  I mean, where else would they have come from unless the Devils decide to have some fun and take shots from their own goal line.

My main thing is that the graph was just redundant.  Add to the fact that the Devils are a team that is really hard-pressed for scoring and played against one of the top 5-6 teams in the league the end-result was pretty much what I expected.  I don't really think seeing where shots coming from changes how bad the game was for the Devils.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

I'm not a big fan of over-analyzing stats but I didn’t see anything pretentious about his wording or graph. It showed statistically what the eye test was saying. It felt like we had no high chance shots and that confirms it. 

Same here, I'm only bothered by the fact that he was dead on with his analysis.  That game was nowhere close to the final score. Turn the page, burn the tape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I’m more annoyed by the people who insist it was a coaching issue, like they were told to only take sh!tty shots from outside the slot, not that the Blues just absolutely sh!t them down. 

Well they could mean that the offensive strategy implemented was getting shut down and pushed outside by the Blues and the coaching staff did not adjust or just couldn't crack it.

So that could be the coaching issue.  I don't know how far off script the players are allowed or willing to go after a GM and coach get fired during the same season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I certainly want them to clean house from the GM on down, there's only so much you can do with one almost respectable offensive line and 9 guys who couldn't consistently put the puck in the ocean.    

Edited by titans04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Crisis said:

Well they could mean that the offensive strategy implemented was getting shut down and pushed outside by the Blues and the coaching staff did not adjust or just couldn't crack it.

So that could be the coaching issue.  I don't know how far off script the players are allowed or willing to go after a GM and coach get fired during the same season.

I don’t buy that. If they could’ve, they would’ve. The Blues wouldn’t let them. This (and not everything that is wrong) is not a coaching issue. 

Dont get me wrong, we’re FULL of coaching issues, this just isn’t one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

I’m more annoyed by the people who insist it was a coaching issue, like they were told to only take sh!tty shots from outside the slot, not that the Blues just absolutely sh!t them down. 

Getting shutout happens, but what about giving up nearly 40 shots two nights after giving up 55? Isn’t Nas a defensive minded coach? 

Yes, some of it is the players (no Vats, no Greene), but ffs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't even want to think about what's left if they move Vats.  Seriously and all kidding aside there isn't one guy I would like left back there. That's not something they're going to be able to turn around quickly either.  Soooooooo many holes in this roster after all these years of futility is really hard to be optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

Getting shutout happens, but what about giving up nearly 40 shots two nights after giving up 55? Isn’t Nas a defensive minded coach? 

Yes, some of it is the players (no Vats, no Greene), but ffs...

I can guarantee no NHL coach’s concept is to let the other team take as many shots as possible and let the goalie bail you out lol. 

Our defense is sh!t, and without Vatanen and Greene, it’s diarrhea. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

I can guarantee no NHL coach’s concept is to let the other team take as many shots as possible and let the goalie bail you out lol. 

Our defense is sh!t, and without Vatanen and Greene, it’s diarrhea. 

Well ofc not, but his job as coach is to address such things. They are obviously not going to look like the early 00’s Devils, but they also shouldn’t be giving up almost 100 shots in two games. Regardless of who is playing. It’s inexcusable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

Well ofc not, but his job as coach is to address such things. They are obviously not going to look like the early 00’s Devils, but they also shouldn’t be giving up almost 100 shots in two games. Regardless of who is playing. It’s inexcusable. 

Right. But my point is, there’s no possible way it wasn’t addressed. It just wasn’t executed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Right. But my point is, there’s no possible way it wasn’t addressed. It just wasn’t executed. 

A coach is also responsible for effectively training execution. The blame can go all the way around to everyone in this organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Right. But my point is, there’s no possible way it wasn’t addressed. It just wasn’t executed. 

That’s assuming he’s actually effective at addressing the problem, and implementing the right changes. I’m sure it’s a bit of both (bad players and poor coaching). 

And it’s been going on even before Greene left. Blackwood had a 46 save shutout a couple weeks ago. 

Whatever they’re doing, it ain’t working...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nessus said:

Does anyone know if Dhaliwal is legit? It would be insane of Vancouver to do that.

I mean he works for TSN Radio in Vancouver, he must have connections or something. TSN dudes are usually legit in some sort, don't think TSN would accept them just spewing fake stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Devs3cups said:

I'd definitely take Woo and Baertschi for Simmonds. Hell, I'd definitely take Juolevi (who Vancouver fans seem to be souring on for some reason). Seems like a steal for us.

Friedman mentioned Juolevi tonight as a possibility in a deal for Simmonds.

  • Like 1
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.