Jump to content

Who do you put in Expanded Ring of Honor?


Rock
 Share

Recommended Posts

I’m a little surprised some think it should be quite as expansive as I’m seeing suggested. RoH should be reserved for truly special players, imo. Not Jay Pandolfo types (no offense to Pandolofo). I mean, where do you stop at that point? If you put in a guy like that, then you should be putting in a Colin White - 743 GP, 2 Stanley Cups, alternate captain for several years, etc. 

Idk, I have a bunch of “non-rafters” Devils players that are personal favorites (Madden, White, Gio, etc), but I’m not sure any of them really need to be included in the RoH tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

I’m a little surprised some think it should be quite as expansive as I’m seeing suggested. RoH should be reserved for truly special players, imo. Not Jay Pandolfo types (no offense to Pandolofo). I mean, where do you stop at that point? If you put in a guy like that, then you should be putting in a Colin White - 743 GP, 2 Stanley Cups, alternate captain for several years, etc. 

Idk, I have a bunch of “non-rafters” Devils players that are personal favorites (Madden, White, Gio, etc), but I’m not sure any of them really need to be included in the RoH tbh. 

I definitely wouldn’t be shocked if everyone on my list doesn’t get in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

I’m a little surprised some think it should be quite as expansive as I’m seeing suggested. RoH should be reserved for truly special players, imo. Not Jay Pandolfo types (no offense to Pandolofo). I mean, where do you stop at that point? If you put in a guy like that, then you should be putting in a Colin White - 743 GP, 2 Stanley Cups, alternate captain for several years, etc. 

Idk, I have a bunch of “non-rafters” Devils players that are personal favorites (Madden, White, Gio, etc), but I’m not sure any of them really need to be included in the RoH tbh. 

Colin White is a good example, he was here a long time and remains active with the team. I’m not sure you leave a guy like that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should ditch the Grammy museum(does this place actually make any money?) and make that a ring of honor room, clips of the retired number players plus the ring of honor name and face plaques on the wall with clips on TVs of their big moments too. Could be jerseys and other items in there too. 

Charge $1 minimum admission or pay more if you wish and all of that goes to whatever charity of the month that they are sponsoring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Satans Hockey said:

They should ditch the Grammy museum(does this place actually make any money?) and make that a ring of honor room, clips of the retired number players plus the ring of honor name and face plaques on the wall with clips on TVs of their big moments too. Could be jerseys and other items in there too. 

Charge $1 minimum admission or pay more if you wish and all of that goes to whatever charity of the month that they are sponsoring. 

I’d pay significantly more than $1 to visit a Devils museum. Definitely a great idea. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd still remain very strict with this or else you just become a joke like the Rangers with their stanley cup finals participation banners.

Lou, Burns, Lemaire, Robinson, no questions.

As for players... i don't know... i mean... i'd tend to be verrrry strict with that too and not open a can of worms. We already have Dano in the rafters and with context, fans all agree with it. But it's still impossible to explain it to curious non-fans without starting the explanation with "wellllllll......" lol I mean. A 0.14 point per games average won't impressed many people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can accept it if the Devils edit down my list, but I still don’t think a Ring Of Honor has to be this uber-restrictive entity…that’s what number retirements are for.  I think if the Devils had been doing this through the years, I don’t think there would be many objections to the players that I listed…I think it’s more of a case of it feeling like too much now (with the number of worthy names right off the bat), so there’s a natural need to want to whittle things down to those who seem more “deserving” than others.  If it had been one guy here and one guy there over the last 15 years, I doubt there’s much of an outcry over any particular induction.  

It’s more a testament to how successful this franchise was…you win THREE championships, a number of very notable players are going to be involved.  You do it over nine seasons, and that means even more guys played a role…some guys are here for one, some for two, even three.  A lot of these guys played 500+, 600+, even 700+ games in a Devils uniform.  They were staples here, players you just knew were going to be around year after year.  No, in many cases, they weren’t superstars or even stars at all…but what they all did HERE in the defined roles that they were given greatly helped the cause.  I’m good with those guys getting their day.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

We already have Dano in the rafters and with context, fans all agree with it. But it's still impossible to explain it to curious non-fans without starting the explanation with "wellllllll......" lol I mean. A 0.14 point per games average won't impressed many people.  

On this one, I don't care what non-fans think.  It's not like any Devil fan ever said, "Aw man, I really wish Daneyko could provide more offense!"  He was never asked to do that and that was never his game...but what he was tasked with, he usually did very well, and he was able to do it for a long long time.  Like you said, we have the full context (Mr. Devil, being here forever, playing all on three Cup teams, etc), so WE all get it.  Any outsiders who are judging a defensive defenseman strictly by points-per-game is using the wrong criteria to begin with.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Satans Hockey said:

They should ditch the Grammy museum(does this place actually make any money?) and make that a ring of honor room, clips of the retired number players plus the ring of honor name and face plaques on the wall with clips on TVs of their big moments too. Could be jerseys and other items in there too. 

Charge $1 minimum admission or pay more if you wish and all of that goes to whatever charity of the month that they are sponsoring. 

These owners?! Lmfao. They’d never do something like that unless they got ROI. Charity? Josh Harris and David Blitzer never heard of it 🤣

Edited by MadDog2020
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

These owners?! Lmfao. They’d never do something like that unless they got ROI. Charity? Josh Harris and David Blitzer never heard of it 🤣

True, but do like SH's idea a lot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MadDog2020 said:

Btw I haven’t seen Langenbrunner mentioned. He could also be a ROH guy. Was HUGE in the 2003 Cup. Could’ve won the Conn Smythe. 

I had him in my initial list, but accidently left him off throughout the thread.  Yeah agree, 2003 doesn't happen without him, and he played in 564 games here, so it's not like he was here and gone.  Also a bit of an overachiever...did anyone see him cracking 60+ points three times?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

I had him in my initial list, but accidently left him off throughout the thread.  Yeah agree, 2003 doesn't happen without him, and he played in 564 games here, so it's not like he was here and gone.  Also a bit of an overachiever...did anyone see him cracking 60+ points three times?  

Also a former Captain too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MadDog2020 said:

SH’s? 

Satan's Hockey...he was the one who suggested ditching the Grammy museum for a Ring of Honor room.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Satan's Hockey...he was the one who suggested ditching the Grammy museum for a Ring of Honor room.  

Oh gotcha lol. Yeah that is a great idea for sure. I totally missed the word ‘idea’ and misread the post lol.

Edited by MadDog2020
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2022 at 1:15 PM, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Only McMullen so far...then the whole thing just kinda stopped cold.  Looks like it's firing back up again.

I've gotta think Lou is next, then Lemaire.  Then you could probably induct some players, then Robinson, then some more players, then Burns, and ending with Zajac.  Not sure exactly what order the Devils will go in.  

Thank you!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2022 at 8:12 AM, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

On this one, I don't care what non-fans think.  It's not like any Devil fan ever said, "Aw man, I really wish Daneyko could provide more offense!"  He was never asked to do that and that was never his game...but what he was tasked with, he usually did very well, and he was able to do it for a long long time.  Like you said, we have the full context (Mr. Devil, being here forever, playing all on three Cup teams, etc), so WE all get it.  Any outsiders who are judging a defensive defenseman strictly by points-per-game is using the wrong criteria to begin with.  

Sure but fans of other teams always does this, they'll accept what makes sense to them and try to discard it when it's for someone else, especially rival teams. Well at least when it's not like a no brainer retirement like Mario Lemieux or something lol I remember recently fans here mocking the Jean Ratelle number retirement. I doubt too many people here even saw him play in his prime or were old enough to fully grasp was was going on then considering he retired before the Devils even existed. 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Sure but fans of other teams always does this, they'll accept what makes sense to them and try to discard it when it's for someone else, especially rival teams. Well at least when it's not like a no brainer retirement like Mario Lemieux or something lol I remember recently fans here mocking the Jean Ratelle number retirement. I doubt too many people here even saw him play in his prime or were old enough to fully grasp was was going on then considering he retired before the Devils even existed. 

I think the beef most people had with Ratelle was that they decided to retire his number a million years after he retired, like they were just looking to retire a number and have a ceremony so they just picked someone. 

He hadn’t played for the team since 1976-76 and retired in 80-81. If his number was worth retiring, why wait 40 years?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I think the beef most people had with Ratelle was that they decided to retire his number a million years after he retired, like they were just looking to retire a number and have a ceremony so they just picked someone. 

He hadn’t played for the team since 1976-76 and retired in 80-81. If his number was worth retiring, why wait 40 years?

 

Well you gotta pace yourself lol

And i understood the beef, there was good arguments on both sides of that one. Just pointing out that its one of those things when it goes your way you let it go and when it doesnt you pick on it.

The guy was inducted in the Hockey Hall of Fame. How is it a problem if his own team want to retire his number? 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Well you gotta pace yourself lol

And i understood the beef, there was good arguments on both sides of that one. Just pointing out that its one of those things when it goes your way you let it go and when it doesnt you pick on it.

The guy was inducted in the Hockey Hall of Fame. How is it a problem if his own team want to retire his number? 

It’s not. But he was inducted over 30 years ago. Why wasn’t he worth before that?

Again, that’s the argument, not saying necessarily that I agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ratelle was my favorite player years ago so smooth.  The Rangers are terrible in this area.  I've heard/read they didn't want to retire numbers from players from their 1940 cup drought teams. 

(this was years ago) They only retired Bathgate because he wore the same number as (Graves? Forgive me I'm not up on my Ranger numbers as I was since the '80's)😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2022 at 3:26 PM, devlman said:

Sarge has to be the first one in. The amount of disrespect this guy gets is wrong. 

I guess I am disrespecting him a little. Personally, I put MacLean, Claude Lemieux, McKay, Driver, Holik and Madden ahead of him because they were more important players who played in NJ for a long time. I put Brylin on the Colin White and Jay Pandolfo level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Sure but fans of other teams always does this, they'll accept what makes sense to them and try to discard it when it's for someone else, especially rival teams. Well at least when it's not like a no brainer retirement like Mario Lemieux or something lol I remember recently fans here mocking the Jean Ratelle number retirement. I doubt too many people here even saw him play in his prime or were old enough to fully grasp was was going on then considering he retired before the Devils even existed. 

The funny thing is I remember Graves getting his number retired seemed silly to some people (and yet another example of the Rangers looking for yet another excuse to celebrate 1994), but on that one, I understood it completely.  Guy was a terrific player for them (and a big-time overachiever), and was also incredibly active in the community…exactly the kind of player you love being associated with your brand.

Ratelle did feel hollow to me, no question…shouldn’t take THAT long before you decide a player’s worthy of that honor.  But if their fans were feelin’ it, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

The funny thing is I remember Graves getting his number retired seemed silly to some people (and yet another example of the Rangers looking for yet another excuse to celebrate 1994), but on that one, I understood it completely.  Guy was a terrific player for them (and a big-time overachiever), and was also incredibly active in the community…exactly the kind of player you love being associated with your brand.

Ratelle did feel hollow to me, no question…shouldn’t take THAT long before you decide a player’s worthy of that honor.  But if their fans were feelin’ it, so be it.

Well again, if the guy is legit worthy, then why does it matter? He's in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Should be a no brainer for his actual team.

So the conversation should be "why did they wait so long?" rather than some people trying to turn it into a "they just wanted to retire someone for the sake of it and picked him almost randomly" narrative.

I mean, i'd rather see them take decades to honour someone deserving than something like.... retiring Jacob Trouba's number in 2028. lol 

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.