CarpathianForest Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 This is a good one too. I'm bored. Don't know why haters refer to Marty as fat. BTW nice belt and pants Marty! Obviously he's going to retire in Palm Beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim777 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 This is a good one too. I'm bored. First time I saw that pic, I was wondering why Marty had gone all limp wristy on Kovy in that shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Of course, pick any other finals in the last 7 years besides that one and your point doesn't work. The starting point everyone seems to be talking about is the lock-out, so it really has only been five seasons. So far as I'm concerned, there isn't a large enough sample size to make categorical statements that this or that component is the key. I can also add that Montreal making it to the conference finals, beating Washington and Pittsburgh in the process, also supports the non-silver bullet theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Of course, pick any other finals in the last 7 years besides that one and your point doesn't work. Exactly, that is the only series I can think of since the lockout that didn't have a good amount of bona-fide stars on it. Just how the game is and since the lockout, the game is going towards the shooting gallery known as the 80's and early 90's era of hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Not sure if this was posted already. NHL may not have a leg to stand on. http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/have+stand/3311943/story.html#ixzz0uWyo7gTr I hope the NHLPA, Kovy and Jay Grossman nail the NHL and Bettman to a wall when they win this case. The NHL and Bettman made a big mistake to use Lou and the Devils as an example IMO. I doubt you'll find an agent who's going to do anything but tout the party line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Don't know why haters refer to Marty as fat. BTW nice belt and pants Marty! Obviously he's going to retire in Palm Beach. He was a little overweight (by athlete standards that is) back about 3 years ago and he even admitted himself he needed to lose a few pounds then. Now, he is at a good weight and is in pretty damn good shape if you ask me at his age. They (mostly Rags fans) call him fat because it is what Avery says. Of course Rags fans have major hard-ons for Avery so they love anything that comes from his mouth, include sperm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 First time I saw that pic, I was wondering why Marty had gone all limp wristy on Kovy in that shot I love how our John MacLean is looking like the other John McLean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogonjdevil Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I didn't get to see the interview, but I assume "this is team" is a quote from Kovy. What context was it in? I see people posting about but I'm not quite sure what he meant by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joonas #6 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 If this helps here is the link and maybe download the link to a Youtube account. Kovy Returns.... http://devils.nhl.tv/team/console.jsp?catid=745&id=74033 Thanks man, I'll try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim777 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 At the equipment sale I asked Johnny Mac, "What did Kovy say when you called him up and told him how much you were looking forward to coaching him next year?" He got a nervous smile and gave a vague answer that basically said "I have no say in whether we land him or not". He seemed really happy to be around the fans and be there, which was cool. I really wish him the best because he's a good guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) I love how our John MacLean is looking like the other John McLean Yea but our Johnny Mac needs a bit of a tan. He always looks so white. The guy needs to atleast get a spray-on tan or something. Maybe this year with the head-coach big bucks coming his way, he'll splurge a bit. On a totally unrelated note, I really don't understand why the "Championship Plaza" banner on the side of that building couldn't have covered the entire side. Why do we need to see ugly brick wall on the edges? Edited July 23, 2010 by Amberite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Yea but our Johnny Mac needs a bit of a tan. He always looks so white. The guy needs to atleast get a spray-on tan or something. Maybe this year with the head-coach big bucks coming his way, he'll splurge a bit. His skin will turn a nice shade of leathery tan like Lemaire after he started spending his summers in Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 So far as raw numbers, in the first two years of Lemaire's first stint ('93-94, 94-95), the Devils fared pretty well in goals scored. I'm not a nuts and bolts hockey guy, but it seems to me that when only one team on the ice is playing the trap, which is a system that is based just as much on counter-attack as it is on defense, it can do pretty well offensively. It's when both teams play the trap is when the goal total really starts to suffer. (There was a saying in the late 90s that "all teams play the trap.") That was the story from '97 to '99. Partly because Lemaire was gone, but also because of players like Niedermeyer, Arnott, Skora, Elias reaching their prime, and with the addition of Mogilny, the team did well offensively, in factleading the league in goals in 2000-2001. And you don't necessarily need bona-fide stars to win the Cup, even today. (It certainly helps, but it's not the end all be all). Look at the Carolina/Edmonton finals series in 2006. Not too many superstars on those teams. At most maybe Pronger and Stahl count, but that's about all I can think of off the top of my head. Or you can look at Washington that has arguably the most superstar laden team in the league, yet playoff success, for the most part, has alluded them. edmonton got violently outchanced in 2006 and they haven't been close to a stanley cup since. have they even made the playoffs since then? please don't say that was just because of pronger - pronger helped, certainly, he's an outstanding player. still, they ran hot on shooting percentage for 20 games and ended up in a stanley cup final, it happens. carolina was also not a particularly great team but also got some puck luck and took advantage of a very weak eastern conference lineup - they didn't even have to face ottawa, who were absolutely dominant that season. so yes, you can make it to the finals, with exceptional luck, when your team doesn't have star players, but good luck winning it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpathianForest Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 First time I saw that pic, I was wondering why Marty had gone all limp wristy on Kovy in that shot Yeah. Marty looks like he has a little deformed hand like Chris Elliot in Scary Movie 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The starting point everyone seems to be talking about is the lock-out, so it really has only been five seasons. So far as I'm concerned, there isn't a large enough sample size to make categorical statements that this or that component is the key. I can also add that Montreal making it to the conference finals, beating Washington and Pittsburgh in the process, also supports the non-silver bullet theory. There are exceptions every here and there. Look at the amount of reg. season goals scored on the last 6 Stanley Cup winners. Look at the players they had. Look at their forwards, look at their D-men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 edmonton got violently outchanced in 2006 and they haven't been close to a stanley cup since. have they even made the playoffs since then? please don't say that was just because of pronger - pronger helped, certainly, he's an outstanding player. still, they ran hot on shooting percentage for 20 games and ended up in a stanley cup final, it happens. carolina was also not a particularly great team but also got some puck luck and took advantage of a very weak eastern conference lineup - they didn't even have to face ottawa, who were absolutely dominant that season. so yes, you can make it to the finals, with exceptional luck, when your team doesn't have star players, but good luck winning it all. Exactly. 05-06 finals seem to be a huge anomaly when it comes to who made it. I also feel that the very low cap (around $39 mil from what I remember) also helped the smaller market teams that year, and since then it has risen and allowed teams to harvest talent again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Yeah. Marty looks like he has a little deformed hand like Chris Elliot in Scary Movie 2. another great movie... haha "take my good hand" and "my germs" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) edmonton got violently outchanced in 2006 and they haven't been close to a stanley cup since. have they even made the playoffs since then? please don't say that was just because of pronger - pronger helped, certainly, he's an outstanding player. still, they ran hot on shooting percentage for 20 games and ended up in a stanley cup final, it happens. carolina was also not a particularly great team but also got some puck luck and took advantage of a very weak eastern conference lineup - they didn't even have to face ottawa, who were absolutely dominant that season. so yes, you can make it to the finals, with exceptional luck, when your team doesn't have star players, but good luck winning it all. I don't discount luck completely, but if Ottawa were truly dominant, they would have done it when it counts. Which also proves my point. Two non-superstar teams sometimes get better results in the playoffs than superstar teams. Look, I'm not one of these people who buys into staying away from superstar players because they're not "team players" or lack some other vague quality to their game. It's just that you don't necessarily need to have one for post-season success, even post lockout. Edited July 23, 2010 by Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masked Fan Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) That Big'ole glass house in the background is my HQ. I didn't get to see the interview, but I assume "this is team" is a quote from Kovy. What context was it in? I see people posting about but I'm not quite sure what he meant by it. He was just talking about how/why this is the place to be. The link below takes you to the vid http://video.nhl.com...id=616&id=74052 for anyone who just wants to see the conference and doesn't have time to search through the previous pages. Edited July 23, 2010 by Masked Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Look, I'm not one of these people who buys into staying away from superstar players because they're not "team players" or lack some other vague quality to their game. It's just that you don't necessarily need to have one for post-season success, even post lockout. I've always been of the belief that the most pivotal aspect in Stanley Cup playoff success is simply getting hot at the right time. Having as much talent as possible with the best system for those players in place just helps your odds of being that hot team or ekeing out a win despite a cold streak. You don't need to have the most talented team, but it sure as hell can't hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I don't discount luck completely, but if Ottawa were truly dominant, they would have done it when it counts. Which also proves my point. Two non-superstar teams sometimes get better results in the playoffs than superstar teams. because they got lucky, not because they were the better team. you're of course begging the question here, but you know that. if they were truly dominant, dominik hasek wouldn't've gotten hurt - hasek was having a ridiculous, ridiculous season. Look, I'm not one of these people who buys into staying away from superstar players because they're not "team players" or lack some other vague quality to their game. It's just that you don't necessarily need to have one for post-season success, even post lockout. right, you just need a substantial dose of luck when your top line gets outshot and outplayed by the opponent's top line, which is absolutely inevitable when you don't have guys like bobby holik who can just drape himself all over the team's top center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Well if nothing else I think kovy is perfectly capable of being a puzzle piece on a team rather than the star. He had to be a star in Atlanta because they didnt really have the talent. here, at least toward the very end of the season, he started showing signs of settling down and realizing the pressure wasnt all on him to carry the team. hes still going to be a dangerous guy offensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogonjdevil Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 That Big'ole glass house in the background is my HQ. He was just talking about how/why this is the place to be. The link below takes you to the vid Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) because they got lucky, not because they were the better team. you're of course begging the question here, but you know that. if they were truly dominant, dominik hasek wouldn't've gotten hurt - hasek was having a ridiculous, ridiculous season. right, you just need a substantial dose of luck when your top line gets outshot and outplayed by the opponent's top line, which is absolutely inevitable when you don't have guys like bobby holik who can just drape himself all over the team's top center. By luck I'm not talking about injuries, which of course can reverse the fortunes of an otherwise dominant team very quickly. I'm talking about claims that, we hit a lot of posts, we got a bad call, the bounces didn't go our way, etc., but we're still a better team. Make your own luck by converting on your chances, not taking dumb penalties, playing well on your penalty kill. "Dominating play" is not a statistic that counts, or even has any meaning. Saying a team got "outplayed" but still won, especially in a seven game series, where the law of averages would say that the better team should win is utter nonsense. Edited July 23, 2010 by Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) By luck I'm not talking about injuries, which of course can reverse the fortunes of an otherwise dominant team very quickly. I'm talking about claims that, we hit a lot of posts, we got a bad call, the bounces didn't go our way, etc., but we're still a better team. Make your own luck by converting on your chances, not taking dumb penalties, playing well on your penalty kill. "Dominating play" is not a statistic that counts, or even has any meaning. Saying a team got "outplayed" but still won, especially in a seven game series, where the law of averages would say that the better team should win is utter nonsense. Saying the law of averages can hold large sway in a 4-5-6-7 game series doesn't ring true to me. One guy having a shooting percentage of 35% for a series can be enough good fortune to change a whole series. If a series only last 4 games then there could be an enormous amount of luck involved, 7 games isn't much better. Obviously 2 games is better than 1, and 3 is better than both, etc... but there can be a huge amount of luck in a series still. Edited July 23, 2010 by Devils731 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts