GDT: Biggest game of the season! Devils @ Canes

Negan4Coach

Fantastic and Stochastic
Aug 31, 2017
5,783
14,668
Raleigh, NC
Easier to say when Hanifin has fallen off a cliff offensively and is still terrible defensively. 7 points and -10 in his last 26 and that is with a 3 point night mixed in.

or better yet we could have picked this Barzal prick instead of Hanafin. or any of the other stupendous forwards that we passed on while picking up our random shitty 1st rounders over the past 5 years. Fluery? Madness.
 

Negan4Coach

Fantastic and Stochastic
Aug 31, 2017
5,783
14,668
Raleigh, NC
IDK how in the name of dog-dicks this team is still tied for the 2WC spot after the past 3 games. I mean wow. 40 plus shots @ night into a "bevy of humanity". Lets just fire pucks straight into the ankles and sticks of dudes just packed up infront of the goalie. these other coaches have us figured out- just post 2 dudes right in front of the net and nothing bad ever happens.
 
Jun 21, 2016
7,216
29,654
Latvia
"I thought we had some good looks. Had the puck lots. … Tough one," head coach Bill Peters said.

"I like the way we're playing, but we didn't make much hay as we would have liked. We didn't get as many points as we would have liked," Peters said. "We're right there in every game."

And this is why nothing changes. They are accepting losing. Every time it is the same - had good looks, just didn't score. We looked good. Blbalbalblaba. f*** you Peters.

He is way too calm for a coach who hasn't made playoffs ever in his career and his team is somehow on edge of playoff spot now, but still we find a way to not even win 1 divisional game in this 3 game stretch. He is just okey with losing all the time. Calmly saying - "It's not good enough", will never motivate them, because it didn't motivate them in previous years. Everyone on this team is a loser. Peters is a loser. Brindy cares, but he is not a head coach.
 
Last edited:

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
Oh that. That’s not new. Playing him with Ryan and Hanifin is asking to give up a goal.

Absolutely... in a sense, giving that trio an offensive zone faceoff on OT is a “go for it” move, because of what’s probably going to happen if they don’t score.

I just wanted to draw attention to HOW bad Skinner was defensively on that last shift. It’s like he literally didn’t know what to do, like he was playing 5-on-5 defense instead of 3-on-3. It’s not going to be in the 5-second clip of the goal, but it very materially contributed to the situation on the ice.

I’ve gotten into a habit of defaulting to “he’s a young goal scorer, he’ll mature out of it” with Skinner. Then I remind myself, this guy’s about to turn 26 and wears an A. Goal scorer or not, playing like that in a must-win overtime is a sign of either selfishness or brainlessness characteristic of a player who doesn’t understand how to win hockey games.
 

NotOpie

"Puck don't lie"
Jun 12, 2006
9,218
17,638
North Carolina
Absolutely... in a sense, giving that trio an offensive zone faceoff on OT is a “go for it” move, because of what’s probably going to happen if they don’t score.

I just wanted to draw attention to HOW bad Skinner was defensively on that last shift. It’s like he literally didn’t know what to do, like he was playing 5-on-5 defense instead of 3-on-3. It’s not going to be in the 5-second clip of the goal, but it very materially contributed to the situation on the ice.

I’ve gotten into a habit of defaulting to “he’s a young goal scorer, he’ll mature out of it” with Skinner. Then I remind myself, this guy’s about to turn 26 and wears an A. Goal scorer or not, playing like that in a must-win overtime is a sign of either selfishness or brainlessness characteristic of a player who doesn’t understand how to win hockey games.
I'm thinking it is becoming pretty apparent that the concept of "winning" is very difficult for these guys.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
Bill Peters all season played the 4th line about 9-12 minutes a game when Kruger was in at center. Wallmark comes up and the 4th line gets 5 minutes of ice time. I don't get it.

The answer is in his situational deployment. Peters sheltered the hell out of Wallmark, unlike Kruger. If you’ve got a 4th liner who needs sheltering, the only way to give him more minutes is to either put him in an unfavorable defensive situation, or give his line offensive opportunities that would normally belong to the top lines, or to actually move him to a higher line and give an AHL’er way too much TOI. It’s a catch-22 from a line matching perspective.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
The answer is in his situational deployment. Peters sheltered the hell out of Wallmark, unlike Kruger. If you’ve got a 4th liner who needs sheltering, the only way to give him more minutes is to either put him in an unfavorable defensive situation, or give his line offensive opportunities that would normally belong to the top lines, or to actually move him to a higher line and give an AHL’er way too much TOI. It’s a catch-22 from a line matching perspective.

True, but the question is why he felt he had to shelter the hell out of Wallmark to the point of not playing him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as he knows these guys way better than I do, but that line seemed to do very well every time it was out there.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
True, but the question is why he felt he had to shelter the hell out of Wallmark to the point of not playing him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as he knows these guys way better than I do, but that line seemed to do very well every time it was out there.

Because again, what was being deleted from their TOI wasn’t offensive opportunity. The difference between Kruger’s 10:00 and Wallmark’s 5:00 is five minutes of defense.
 

The Faulker 27

Registered User
Nov 15, 2011
12,819
47,242
Sauna-Aho
I just heard that Peters has taken the team for an "off-site workout" this morning. That sounds exciting.

I picture a "We are the Titans" jog through the misty woods.

He's pulling out all the stops now. Watch out. This big bunch of losers will be a battle hardened platoon of rugged, highly skilled ice ninjas before you know it.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
Because again, what was being deleted from their TOI wasn’t offensive opportunity. The difference between Kruger’s 10:00 and Wallmark’s 5:00 is five minutes of defense.

I get that, but what was absence from Kruger's 10:00 was 5:00 of creating any offense, yet the coach still played him. It just seemed to me that in a game where you scored 1 goal for 58 minutes, you can't find a couple more minutes for a line that was creating offense as much, if not more than any other.

Not saying it would have changed the outcome or that it's a big deal, just clear that Peters would rather play Derek Ryan no matter how poorly he performs. That play where he and Williams gave up the 2-1 was something that would have gotten someone else stapled to the bench IMO.
 

The Stranger

Registered User
May 4, 2014
1,233
2,077
Because again, what was being deleted from their TOI wasn’t offensive opportunity. The difference between Kruger’s 10:00 and Wallmark’s 5:00 is five minutes of defense.

This is true, but if he's on the roster, I'd like to see BP figure out a way to get him more TOI...doesn't need to be PK.

To have a guy sit on the bench for 30 minutes (or however long a period takes with stoppages), and only give him a 2 or 3 shifts...more than likely is not going to yield good results because the player stays "cold" the entire time.

...or, why not just skate 7 D, double shift Ryan on the 4th line and give him 24 minutes instead of 20.....
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
I get that, but what was absence from Kruger's 10:00 was 5:00 of creating any offense, yet the coach still played him. It just seemed to me that in a game where you scored 1 goal for 58 minutes, you can't find a couple more minutes for a line that was creating offense as much, if not more than any other.

Not saying it would have changed the outcome or that it's a big deal, just clear that Peters would rather play Derek Ryan no matter how poorly he performs. That play where he and Williams gave up the 2-1 was something that would have gotten someone else stapled to the bench IMO.

Here were the lines last night:

Skinner-Ryan-Williams <-- 8 shots in ~16 minutes, scored goal
McGinn-Staal-Lindholm <-- 11 shots in ~16 minutes, shut down the Hall-Hischier-Palmieri line
Aho-Rask-Teravainen <-- 10 shots in ~17 minutes, scored goal
Nordstrom-Wallmark-Di Giuseppe <-- 3 shots in ~5 minutes

So if you want to give Wallmark's line even MORE offensive opportunity than the 5 minutes they got (which is normal for a 4th line -- Wallmark's line simply didn't play any defense) then you're talking about taking that chunk of time almost inevitably out of either Skinner-Ryan-Williams or Aho-Rask-Teravainen. Meaning you're taking Skinner off the ice for Nordstrom and Williams off the ice for PDG; or taking Aho off the ice for Nordstrom and Teravainen off the ice for PDG. Which would not only be disadvantageous in theory, but would take our 2 actual goal scorers off the ice in reality.

The other option is to put Wallmark, a guy with 3 points in 13 career NHL games, in between Skinner and Williams. Maybe he is actually a better player than Ryan, but you can see why a coach would be hesitant to do something like that in an absolutely critical game.

It's a catch-22 from a coaching perspective. There aren't enough good players on this team. Wallmark is not a "good" NHL player. Neither is Ryan. Peters elected to take the guy with almost zero NHL experience and give him a few sheltered minutes, and to lean more heavily on a veteran squeezed by necessity into the lineup between Skinner and Williams.

This is going to continue until we get better hockey players on this team. Peters isn't in a position to roll out Nordstrom-Wallmark-Di Giuseppe for 11 minutes a game, we all know what's going to happen if he does that.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
...or, why not just skate 7 D, double shift Ryan on the 4th line and give him 24 minutes instead of 20.....

giphy.gif
 

Sens1Canes2

Registered User
May 13, 2007
10,664
8,284
Here were the lines last night:

Skinner-Ryan-Williams <-- 8 shots in ~16 minutes, scored goal
McGinn-Staal-Lindholm <-- 11 shots in ~16 minutes, shut down the Hall-Hischier-Palmieri line
Aho-Rask-Teravainen <-- 10 shots in ~17 minutes, scored goal
Nordstrom-Wallmark-Di Giuseppe <-- 3 shots in ~5 minutes

So if you want to give Wallmark's line even MORE offensive opportunity than the 5 minutes they got (which is normal for a 4th line -- Wallmark's line simply didn't play any defense) then you're talking about taking that chunk of time almost inevitably out of either Skinner-Ryan-Williams or Aho-Rask-Teravainen. Meaning you're taking Skinner off the ice for Nordstrom and Williams off the ice for PDG; or taking Aho off the ice for Nordstrom and Teravainen off the ice for PDG. Which would not only be disadvantageous in theory, but would take our 2 actual goal scorers off the ice in reality.

The other option is to put Wallmark, a guy with 3 points in 13 career NHL games, in between Skinner and Williams. Maybe he is actually a better player than Ryan, but you can see why a coach would be hesitant to do something like that in an absolutely critical game.

It's a catch-22 from a coaching perspective. There aren't enough good players on this team. Wallmark is not a "good" NHL player. Neither is Ryan. Peters elected to take the guy with almost zero NHL experience and give him a few sheltered minutes, and to lean more heavily on a veteran squeezed by necessity into the lineup between Skinner and Williams.

This is going to continue until we get better hockey players on this team. Peters isn't in a position to roll out Nordstrom-Wallmark-Di Giuseppe for 11 minutes a game, we all know what's going to happen if he does that.
Agreed. The only thing you can say to retort is, the same ol’ same ol’ isn’t working so why not switch it up. Which, for as reasons previously discussed, probably ain’t gonna happen.
 

Joe McGrath

Registered User
Oct 29, 2009
18,055
37,805
Here were the lines last night:

Skinner-Ryan-Williams <-- 8 shots in ~16 minutes, scored goal
McGinn-Staal-Lindholm <-- 11 shots in ~16 minutes, shut down the Hall-Hischier-Palmieri line
Aho-Rask-Teravainen <-- 10 shots in ~17 minutes, scored goal
Nordstrom-Wallmark-Di Giuseppe <-- 3 shots in ~5 minutes

So if you want to give Wallmark's line even MORE offensive opportunity than the 5 minutes they got (which is normal for a 4th line -- Wallmark's line simply didn't play any defense) then you're talking about taking that chunk of time almost inevitably out of either Skinner-Ryan-Williams or Aho-Rask-Teravainen. Meaning you're taking Skinner off the ice for Nordstrom and Williams off the ice for PDG; or taking Aho off the ice for Nordstrom and Teravainen off the ice for PDG. Which would not only be disadvantageous in theory, but would take our 2 actual goal scorers off the ice in reality.

The other option is to put Wallmark, a guy with 3 points in 13 career NHL games, in between Skinner and Williams. Maybe he is actually a better player than Ryan, but you can see why a coach would be hesitant to do something like that in an absolutely critical game.

It's a catch-22 from a coaching perspective. There aren't enough good players on this team. Wallmark is not a "good" NHL player. Neither is Ryan. Peters elected to take the guy with almost zero NHL experience and give him a few sheltered minutes, and to lean more heavily on a veteran squeezed by necessity into the lineup between Skinner and Williams.

This is going to continue until we get better hockey players on this team. Peters isn't in a position to roll out Nordstrom-Wallmark-Di Giuseppe for 11 minutes a game, we all know what's going to happen if he does that.

Skinner-Ryan-Williams did not generate a goal. Skinner scored 6-5 with Ryan at least on the bench.

They generated f*** all at even strength and gave away the goal right after the power play.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
Because again, what was being deleted from their TOI wasn’t offensive opportunity. The difference between Kruger’s 10:00 and Wallmark’s 5:00 is five minutes of defense.

You are completely missing my point Tarheel. I completely accept that if Peters was going to use Wallmark the identical way as he used Kruger, then he would not get the 5 minutes of defense that Kruger gets, so let's set that aside.

My question is why he would feel the need to limit Wallmark to ONLY those 5 minutes of offense WHEN:
1) The rest of the team scored 1 fluky goal in 58 minutes of ice time
2) Wallmark's line was creating offense seemingly every time he was out there and had one of the best scoring chances of the game.
3) Derek Ryan was one of the worst forwards on the team, statistically and eye test last night.

I'm not suggesting play that line 12 minutes, but for a coach that constantly preaches accountability and going with guys that are playing well, etc... he doesn't apply it to Derek Ryan. Ryan's advanced stats were the worst for a forward on the team. It doesn't seem like a catch 22 to me at all to give Wallmark and/or his line a couple more minutes and see if they can create some additional offense.

It likely wouldn't have made a difference in the game so it's not a big deal, just seems inconsistent with what Peters has preached in the past with respect to the hot hand and accountability.
 

A Star is Burns

Formerly Azor Aho
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2011
12,269
38,822
Wallmark's 3 in 13 games with limited opportunities is the same as Ryan in his last 19 with much better opportunities. I get why a coach keeps Ryan in that situation, but I certainly see the argument for Wallmark getting a bigger role too. The only way a guy will become a good NHL player is to play when at that level. Wallmark, and others, have earned a chance to get legitimate playing time over some of the black holes like Ryan, Nordstrom, and Stempniak, and PDG.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,736
38,187
colorado
Visit site
We're fighting for a playoff spot. Peters for better or worse had lines. This is why Brown gets called up instead of the actual prospects, you want them playing big minutes instead of 5. There was so much special teams the fourth line didn't play much, and Peters wanted to give the kid matchups. When you're in the playoff hunt and healthy it's tough to work in kids, for any team. I'm sure he wanted to play the kid more.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
You are completely missing my point Tarheel. I completely accept that if Peters was going to use Wallmark the identical way as he used Kruger, then he would not get the 5 minutes of defense that Kruger gets, so let's set that aside.

My question is why he would feel the need to limit Wallmark to ONLY those 5 minutes of offense WHEN:
1) The rest of the team scored 1 fluky goal in 58 minutes of ice time
2) Wallmark's line was creating offense seemingly every time he was out there and had one of the best scoring chances of the game.
3) Derek Ryan was one of the worst forwards on the team, statistically and eye test last night.

I'm not suggesting play that line 12 minutes, but for a coach that constantly preaches accountability and going with guys that are playing well, etc... he doesn't apply it to Derek Ryan. Ryan's advanced stats were the worst for a forward on the team. It doesn't seem like a catch 22 to me at all to give Wallmark and/or his line a couple more minutes and see if they can create some additional offense.

It likely wouldn't have made a difference in the game so it's not a big deal, just seems inconsistent with what Peters has preached in the past with respect to the hot hand and accountability.

I mean, I'd like Ryan off this team as much as the next guy. I was the one ****ing all over him back when he was leeching points off Skinner to get our Masterton nomination. He's always been a plug in my eyes, just a particularly nice-guy sort of plug who was living the dream for a while there.

But the thing is, the reason Wallmark's line was generating so much offense was because they were sheltered as hell. If you dig down into the shift charts, here are the Devils lines on the ice when Wallmark was on the ice:

1st period
1st shift - Bratt-Zacha-Stafford
2nd shift - Coleman-Zacha-Stafford

2nd period
1st shift - Bratt-Zajac-Stafford
2nd shift - Coleman-Zajac-Noesen
3rd shift - Coleman-Boyle-Noesen

3rd period
1st shift - Bratt-Boyle-Lappin
2nd shift - Bratt-Zacha-Stafford

Devils projected lines, pregame:
Hall-Hischier-Palmieri
Coleman-Zajac-Noesen
Bratt-Zacha-Stafford <---
Pietila-Boyle-Lappin <---

It's pretty obvious what Peters was doing. He was putting Wallmark in a position to have as much success as possible, without ever facing a difficult opponent OR having to start in a disadvantageous position.

So I wouldn't take the fact that his line was generating results as meaning too much, other than that they can generate moderate levels of offense when given the best possible opportunity to do so. That definitely does not translate into an assumption that they would generate offense under more challenging circumstances -- at least not to the point that you throw him into the deep end after 2 or 3 successful shifts. You still have a game plan that involves other players fulfilling specific roles, and that game plan goes into the dustbin if you start giving your AHL callup line more minutes on a whim.

The only other option at Peters' disposal is to swap Wallmark and Ryan. Now, I'd be all for that. Don't get me wrong. I'd also expect to see Wallmark struggle mightily and everyone here have their pitchforks out after a few games.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
Skinner-Ryan-Williams did not generate a goal. Skinner scored 6-5 with Ryan at least on the bench.

They generated **** all at even strength and gave away the goal right after the power play.

This doesn't change the fact that if you give Wallmark's line a shift that would otherwise go to Ryan's line, you just swapped out Skinner for Nordstrom (points = 4 in 59 games) and Williams for PDG (points = 3 in 27 games).

The other option is to move Wallmark to the Skinner line and demote Ryan to cleanup duty. I'd be for that, but not mid-game as a result of Wallmark having like 3 successful shifts against bad opponents.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->