dejaentendu2101 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 LMAO, yes that's it. Then what is it? Kovalchuk must be the reason. He plays every position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Let me say Marty did his best but it wasn't enough. Thanks Marty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Blame Lou it's simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 LMAO, yes that's it. Who are all these incredible defensemen the Devils were supposed to sign? Paul Martin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Not for nothing, but where the tits is Anton Volchenkov? Stiff neck...yeah right, I guess that's the new Scott Stevens 'flu' (aka a concussion). Or a broken orbital bone which they're also hiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Stiff neck...yeah right, I guess that's the new Scott Stevens 'flu' (aka a concussion). Or a broken orbital bone which they're also hiding. What does this secrecy do for anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 What does this secrecy do for anyone? in all honesty, it may be for volchenkov's safety when he comes back. part of the reason you don't reveal its a concussion if it isnt a severe one, dont need a POS player to take a cheap shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 And why do we have sub par defense...... You do realize that if it wasn't for some (less than) mediocre play by Hedberg and Brodeur, noone would even be thinking twice about the defense right now, right? Also, I can definitely see how you can think that with 15 goals in 9 games, we don't need an offensive presence like Kovalchuk or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 You do realize that if it wasn't for some (less than) mediocre play by Hedberg and Brodeur, noone would even be thinking twice about the defense right now, right? Also, I can definitely see how you can think that with 15 goals in 9 games, we don't need an offensive presence like Kovalchuk or anything. you're kidding, right? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 you're kidding, right? lol No? But glad you find it funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 their defensive play has pretty much been awful in every game they've played. OTOH, Marty had one bad game. and my opinion of his play goes up with the fact that they actually seem to be getting WORSE defensively as they go along. don't slag the only reason they have 2 wins, just saying. even in Montreal, they should have been down multiple goals after 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) their defensive play has pretty much been awful in every game they've played. OTOH, Marty had one bad game. and my opinion of his play goes up with the fact that they actually seem to be getting WORSE defensively as they go along. don't slag the only reason they have 2 wins, just saying. even in Montreal, they should have been down multiple goals after 1. Mmm hmm. And yet the chances and shots against per game are pretty in line with what a relatively good defensive team experiences. Don't get me wrong, there have been some bad breakdowns. But there have been a lot of goals against that have been the result of bad luck and / or bad goaltending. Not saying our defense is great, but it's not our biggest problem, and exchanging Kovalchuk for a top defenseman would not put us in any different situation now. Edited October 25, 2010 by Amberite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) you can keep believing that. even Moose, as awful as he was, was really only responsible for 2 of the 4 he gave up. the sh!tty first goal (which was far worse than anything Marty gave up, yeah, even that one), and the rebound right out to another Sabre. not that the coverage was good on that, so I could bump him up to 1 out of the 4. or maybe 1 1/2. either way. some of these guys, no offense to them or their families, fvcking suck. see how Magnan got totally snookered today on the interference call? well, the Sharks do alot of video work, so look forward to that happening early and often when he gets out of position and tries to hit someone. Corrente is nowhere near where he's supposed to be, ever. and Tallinder should be tethered to the net. But he'd probably get turned around the wrong way anyway. Edited October 25, 2010 by maxpower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) Mmm hmm. And yet the chances and shots against per game are pretty in line with what a relatively good defensive team experiences. I call bs on this...we've given up 259 shots on goal in 9 games, that's right around 29 a game. I'd like to see where 29 shots a game (and many high-quality) ranks among 'good defensive teams'. It won't rank among good defensive teams, they're an awful defensive team right now. You can support Kovy all you want but you're not watching the same team the rest of us are if you think the defense is even mediocre. Yeah Marty always works off the pasta in the beginning of the season but he does have two shutouts somehow and was the only reason we even had a shot to tie the game tonight. Granted, part of the reason the defense sucks is Volchenkov's played four periods as a Devil and Salvador got hurt (if he was even going to be around due to the cap). But still. Edited October 25, 2010 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) I call bs on this...we've given up 259 shots on goal in 9 games, that's right around 29 a game. I'd like to see where 29 shots a game (and many high-quality) ranks among 'good defensive teams'. It won't rank among good defensive teams, they're an awful defensive team right now. You can support Kovy all you want but you're not watching the same team the rest of us are if you think the defense is even mediocre. Yeah Marty always works off the pasta in the beginning of the season but he does have two shutouts somehow and was the only reason we even had a shot to tie the game tonight. Granted, part of the reason the defense sucks is Volchenkov's played four periods as a Devil and Salvador got hurt (if he was even going to be around due to the cap). But still. Once again, mmm hmm. NHL.com has us 14th in the league in SA/G, which is in no way terrible. By the way, we're better than NYR, CHI, BOS, NSH and CHI. Oh, and we're RIGHT below LAK. http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20112ALLAAAAll&sort=avgShotsAgainstPerGame&viewName=summary The one thing you said which is correct is that Volchenkov being absent is hurting us, and noone can deny that. With Volchenkov in, our defense is more than decent, despite the rantings and ravings of a few people here (Manta?) Edited October 25, 2010 by Amberite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 who cares about shots against when you don't know the quality of them. a team that rolls into a ball could give up a ton of shots, none of them any quality. when people can walk in front of your net unmolested, who cares how many they have? whatever. you keep waiting for these particular defensemen to get better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) Ill sum this up, we lost 3 games because of bad goaltending. We lost the others because of no offense production. Its a little bit of everything. Edited October 25, 2010 by Zubie#8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 who cares about shots against when you don't know the quality of them. a team that rolls into a ball could give up a ton of shots, none of them any quality. when people can walk in front of your net unmolested, who cares how many they have? whatever. you keep waiting for these particular defensemen to get better. And yet we're still giving up 12-15 chances against per game. Just think about that for a second. We're not giving up too many shots, and the chances against are low-to-normal. So what's your argument, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 forget it, you're clueless or you have your head in the sand. I'd tried. I don't think there's one other person here who would try to claim they even play mediocre defensively right now, considering sooner or later, they're going to have no one on the roster that is a +. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) forget it, you're clueless or you have your head in the sand. I'd tried. I don't think there's one other person here who would try to claim they even play mediocre defensively right now, considering sooner or later, they're going to have no one on the roster that is a +. I'm clueless, yet you're the one calling people names without anything to back up your claims. I'm showing you hard numbers. The people who say that our defense is so dismal and that the defense is the problem are the people who are looking at our situation without trying to analyze what's REALLY going on. Back up for a second and think about what's gone wrong for us so far this year. Sooner or later, you'll realize that a good amount of mediocre goaltending, some bad luck on goals-against (such as tonight) and a 5% team shooting percentage is enough to destroy any team's record. Edited October 25, 2010 by Amberite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickman Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) How anyone can seriously defend this defense is beyond me and if I have to read another post about the goaltending I'm going to lose it. I don't think there are any words to describe how bad this defense has been this year and I include the forwards in that. Even on the nights they keep the shot totals low, they still manage to give up prime scoring chances left and right. The breakdowns all over the ice that we have seen in these games are pathetic. Max is dead on about Moose last night. You can pin one goal on him, and even that goal came off a sh!t turnover. The other 3 were off of defensive breakdowns. Are the goalies really required to bail this team out every night? You can't expect that of them. When you have to count on the goaltending game in and game out to steal you games because you can't score for sh!t (another problem that the defense is contributing to) then you're nothing more then a sh!t team. Edited October 25, 2010 by Sickman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 like I said, I tried. people like to take crazy contrarian viewpoints. can't say I haven't. and to say that they are anything other than bad defensively is crazy and contrarian. they have guys who on pace to be in the -70's! lol, that doesn't happen by accident. yes, it's a short term trend, but those guys that are on that pace look like sh!t. it's not like Parise or White or even Kovalchuk is going at that clip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 max: when you shoot 5% at even strength it is impossible to be a +. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 (edited) Ok, then lets make a bet - I bet that with this same defense (plus Volchenkov of course), once this team levels off (and it will happen in the next 10 games or so), most people here won't be talking about the defense much anymore, and in fact we'll be somewhere in 5-10th place in defense in the league. And it won't be because of some miracle - it will be simply because some of the things I mentioned earlier will start to correct themselves - bad goaltending, unlucky goals-against, occasional rookie breakdowns and 5% team shooting percentage. Edited October 25, 2010 by Amberite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 max: when you shoot 5% at even strength it is impossible to be a +. it's also impossible to be a + when you don't play a shred of D. the big minuses on this team are Langs, Clarkson, Elias, Arnott, Tallinder. anything out of line there? these guys are lugging epic minuses. it is possible to keep the puck out of the net when you can't score. that first garbage Sutter team managed to do it. I mean... Elias = -8 Arnott = -8 Clarkson = -8 Greene = -6 Tallinder = -6 (hey, he's trending up, lol0 Langs = -6 hell, even Zubrus is in at -5. most of these guys have been in on goals. they have a bunch of players who have been in on nothing with small -'s.... Zajac still maintains his + somehow. you don't get minuses that bad without putting some serious defensive work in. 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.