Post-Game Talk: Your 5 "Goats" of this debacle against the Sharks

[Better Call Sal]

C'mon, you're really related to Bob aren't you?

Only Buccigross and perhaps Eyeon (Nobody else in the world pronounces Ian like me) Eagle value their own opinion more than Wischusen. Ponderous and torturous at the same time and everything bad about modern sportscasters.

I respectfully disagree. And no, no relation. You're allowed your opinion, as am I. Similar to your largely incorrect opinions about Jesper Bratt.

 

[AfroThunder396]

Graves has looked terrible for about two weeks now.

McLeod can't do anything other than win faceoffs. He is completely anemic and turns everything he touches into garbage.

Smith is apparently incapable of making good decisions both with and without the puck.

Does Zacha even play for this team anymore? Every time I check the stat sheet I'm dumbfounded he has any points this year, he's invisible every game. TBH I'd try putting him with Hughes to jump start his play.

Looks like the Sharks found the antidote to Bratt/Mercer/AJ - pin them in their own zone by chipping pucks in and beating them up in the corners. Mercer's defensive game is massively overrated, he is way too reckless and in the defensive zone and can't win a faceoff to save his life. He's young and it will get better, but if I have to hear another person rave about his "two-way play" I'm going to rip my hair out.

I'm not sure Kuokkanen will be here next year, he just doesn't do enough to warrant a spot over the other guys knocking on the door. He's been on the PK lately and seems to be doing decent, maybe that's his ticket. But my goodness, for as much as we rag on McLeod this guy can't generate anything either.

Team defense and preparation is placed solely on the coaching staff and we've been awful at both. I don't know why these things have fallen off but ultimately it's Lindy's responsibility to fix this stuff and he hasn't. I don't want him fired (yet) or anything rash but he clearly still has a lot of work to do and it's not encouraging that these things haven't shown improvement.

The comments about Jack transforming the PP with his movement are dead on, he constantly probes the PK with his feints and movement trying to get the to bite and open up lanes. It's been sorely missing on our PP. Although I don't like how he always tries to force the royal road pass, yes it's a super high quality scoring chance but that seems to be his only move and he can't execute it consistently.

 

[Buck Dancer]

We looked straight up awful, like we do every time we face a bigger team who just dumps the puck and controls play in our own zone. This is a reminder that for those who seem to think that having size up front is nothing but a myth and that we can just run and gun our way to wins. That type of hockey won’t be there come 7 game series in the month of May and we better figure out a way to play smarter, cause we’re not getting bigger overnight, or else teams will utilize that same blueprint and we can kiss our playoffs chances goodbye. Blackwood prevented this from being an utter and complete joke cause we could’ve easily been down 6-0 at one point, if it wasn’t for a couple of miraculous saves.

 

[guitarguyvic]

No it's pure negative nonsense to suggest that Jack could score at a PPG pace and the team would barely improve.

It implies all the good things the team does will cease and all the bad things will continue and get worse.

It's baseless and needlessly negative.

The bolded is nonsense. It doesn’t imply any such thing. The devils could keep doing all the good things they have been…all of it could stay exactly the same…and Jack scoring an extra 0.4ppg is still not necessarily going to automatically result in more than maybe a few extra wins over the course of the season. That’s not “needlessly negative” that’s the reality of hockey.

The point being we need additional changes in our forward personnel to see a substantial change in the win/loss column. If this team wants to win on a regular basis, we’re gonna need more than a single ppg guy surrounded by soft perimeter players who can barely score 20 goals a season.

 

[Buck Dancer]

No it's pure negative nonsense to suggest that Jack could score at a PPG pace and the team would barely improve.

It implies all the good things the team does will cease and all the bad things will continue and get worse.

It's baseless and needlessly negative.

That wasn’t my point at all and I do agree that if Jack scores a PPG, we’re heading in the right direction but it doesn’t guarantee us anything other then a couple of more wins here and there.

What I do worry about is Jack scoring a PPG. We gave Nico his deal after proving more then Jack and we gave Jack the bigger deal, purely based on potential. We want to do the same thing with Bratt and I think he’s the one that has proven to be the most reliable out of the 3 and I’m still on the fence about his play. Being fast and flashy doesn’t necessarily mean that superstardom is on the way, it’s exciting to see and brings you out of your seat from time to time but being consistent while producing is what I want to see first and foremost.

 

[PKs Broken Stick]

Bring back Holtzy. If we can’t be 25% on PP with this group incl him in the next 5 games then Recchi needs to go.

Might as well try to get Crosby and Ovechkin and see if they can improve the pp too. Recchi already needed to go.

 

[PKs Broken Stick]

Although I don't like how he always tries to force the royal road pass, yes it's a super high quality scoring chance but that seems to be his only move and he can't execute it consistently.

The way to fix that is not have him stop it, but have other players stop being pylons.

 

[Buck Dancer]

The point being we need additional changes in our forward personnel to see a substantial change in the win/loss column. If this team wants to win on a regular basis, we’re gonna need more than a single ppg guy surrounded by soft perimeter players who can barely score 20 goals a season.

People get annoyed when bringing up size for whatever reason and are left scratching their heads when we look like utter dog shit when facing teams that controls play in our zone by outmatching us to the puck.

I just don’t know how you can look at this roster and not be worried about all the small and soft forwards we have in our top #9. Yes, we look great when the opposition is giving us time and space but when they don’t and we have to play a more "boring" game, meaning that space is harder to come by, we look outclassed.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

People get annoyed when bringing up size for whatever reason and are left scratching their heads when we look like utter dog shit when facing teams that controls play in our zone by outmatching us to the puck.

I just don’t know how you can look at this roster and not be worried about all the small and soft forwards we have in our top #9. Yes, we look great when the opposition is giving us time and space but when they don’t and we have to play a more "boring" game, meaning that space is harder to come by, we look outclassed.

Because you make the same stupid argument every time we lose and are nowhere to be found when we play well. Two of our smaller players have been our clear cut best players. You’ve been begging to trade one for absolutely no reason, in fact.

“Size” has absolutely nothing to do with why we lost to the Sharks. Who is so big on their team? I don’t get it.

 

[njdevil26]

This team has no offensive zone structure. Almost every single goal they score is off the rush or a broken play. They run around like chickens with their heads cut off in the D zone, can't sustain pressure and turn it into goals in the offensive zone and power play, but we'll get yelled at by the advanced stat people because of zone entries.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Because you make the same stupid argument every time we lose and are nowhere to be found when we play well. Two of our smaller players have been our clear cut best players. You’ve been begging to trade one for absolutely no reason, in fact.

“Size” has absolutely nothing to do with why we lost to the Sharks. Who is so big on their team? I don’t get it.

The sharks are bigger and heavier than the devils, and more importantly they play a bigger, heavier game. And they had actual structure. We do basically lose everytime we play teams like that. Is this not something others see??

Anyway it’s not always strictly about the actual size of the players, though I do believe it’s more important than people here (conveniently) seem to think. It’s also a style of play/skill. The willingness to get into dirty areas, winning puck battles in corners, not getting easily knocked down/knocked off the puck. Managing the puck well in all zones. Making good decisions and being well structured in all zones.

The forwards we have show a lot of speed and flash at times. Unfortunately this is the NHL not pond hockey. Teams that win consistently have players capable of playing as described above and that’s why they win games - because they can play multiple types of styles and beat different teams different ways. And they are especially effective at beating teams like ours who rely on the game to unfold a very specific way to get wins.

 

[John Pedro]

People get annoyed when bringing up size for whatever reason and are left scratching their heads when we look like utter dog shit when facing teams that controls play in our zone by outmatching us to the puck.

I just don’t know how you can look at this roster and not be worried about all the small and soft forwards we have in our top #9. Yes, we look great when the opposition is giving us time and space but when they don’t and we have to play a more "boring" game, meaning that space is harder to come by, we look outclassed.

Problem of your top9 isn't being small, but not having enough skill to score goals, imo. Apart from Mercer-line, they're dog shit. Our captain is on pace for 9 goals in 82 games, that's absurd. Zacha will score a goal here and there but he's no threat on a daily basis, like Hischier he rarely make plays other than the obvious one (dump the puck, tries to retrieve, shot from bad angle, pass to the point). Tatar sucks. Sharangovich is a 3rd line that lives and dies by his shot, one trick pony.

We've had dominant periods where we just couldn't capitalize, it seems like we are facing Shesterkin all the time. They make any goalie a vezina contender. I bet if we had a guy like Hall on Nico's line we would be at the top of our division

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

The sharks are bigger and heavier than the devils, and more importantly they play a bigger, heavier game. And they had actual structure. We do basically lose everytime we play teams like that. Is this not something others see??

Anyway it’s not always strictly about the actual size of the players, though I do believe it’s more important than people here (conveniently) seem to think. It’s also a style of play/skill. The willingness to get into dirty areas, winning puck battles in corners, not getting easily knocked down/knocked off the puck. Managing the puck well in all zones. Making good decisions and being well structured in all zones.

The forwards we have show a lot of speed and flash at times. Unfortunately this is the NHL not pond hockey. Teams that win consistently have players capable of playing as described above and that’s why they win games - because they can play multiple types of styles and beat different teams different ways. And they are especially effective at beating teams like ours who rely on the game to unfold a very specific way to get wins.

They have to manage the puck better, no one is arguing that.

If you’re going to fit the “size argument” to the San Jose Sharks, that unfalsifiable argument can be fit to literally any team in the league. Look at the players that actually get minutes on their team. Karlsson, Ferraro, Barabanov, Dahlen, Balcers, Nieto, Labanc…so many undersized guys.

 

[guitarguyvic]

They have to manage the puck better, no one is arguing that.

If you’re going to fit the “size argument” to the San Jose Sharks, that unfalsifiable argument can be fit to literally any team in the league. Look at the players that actually get minutes on their team. Karlsson, Ferraro, Barabanov, Dahlen, Balcers, Nieto, Labanc…so many undersized guys.

I added the disclaimer that it’s not just about physical size but also how they play. But as is often the case, that part gets conveniently ignored.

You mean to tell me you don’t notice how frequently/easily our “skilled” guys get knocked off the puck, or lose board battles, or just cycle around the perimeter ineffectively?

This is why someone like Dawson Mercer is a breath of fresh air.

 

[NjDevsRR]

What a stupid conversation. Our smallest line is literally the one with the most success.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Problem of your top9 isn't being small, but not having enough skill to score goals, imo. Apart from Mercer-line, they're dog shit. Our captain is on pace for 9 goals in 82 games, that's absurd. Zacha will score a goal here and there but he's no threat on a daily basis, like Hischier he rarely make plays other than the obvious one (dump the puck, tries to retrieve, shot from bad angle, pass to the point). Tatar sucks. Sharangovich is a 3rd line that lives and dies by his shot, one trick pony.

We've had dominant periods where we just couldn't capitalize, it seems like we are facing Shesterkin all the time. They make any goalie a vezina contender. I bet if we had a guy like Hall on Nico's line we would be at the top of our division

So you don’t see how scoring goals is influenced by the ability to be strong on the puck and boards? A players speed, shot, and passing skills are basically useless if they can’t get enough time and space because the opposition is just as fast/skilled but also bigger and stronger on the puck.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

I added the disclaimer that it’s not just about physical size but also how they play. But as is often the case, that part gets conveniently ignored.

You mean to tell me you don’t notice how frequently/easily our “skilled” guys get knocked off the puck, or lose board battles, or just cycle around the perimeter ineffectively?

This is why someone like Dawson Mercer is a breath of fresh air.

They had a miserable 2nd period. The Sharks did absolutely zero in the 1st or 3rd period. Bad periods happen sometimes. Maybe next game the coach won’t sabotage the team with his horrible lineup decisions.

 

[guitarguyvic]

What a stupid conversation. Our smallest line is literally the one with the most success.

Mercer does not play a “small” game. And neither does Johnson for that matter this year. And they compliment Bratt (who is that kind of player) quite nicely. Go figure. Again it’s not always strictly about size.

 

[Buck Dancer]

Because you make the same stupid argument every time we lose and are nowhere to be found when we play well. Two of our smaller players have been our clear cut best players. You’ve been begging to trade one for absolutely no reason, in fact.

“Size” has absolutely nothing to do with why we lost to the Sharks. Who is so big on their team? I don’t get it.

I make the same argument because we got outclassed by a team that took our lunch money, again. Not being able to see that after every single performance where we lay an egg is alarming. We were all over the place and the Sharks aren't built with giants but they do have them and they play big. Our skilled forwards couldn't generate anything and creating time and space for yourself when it isn't there is something we have trouble doing. We have 5 forwards in our top #9 that is smaller then 6'0" and you're going to tell me that size has no impact on the outcome of games like we saw yesterday? We keep seeing the same thing when we play teams who know how to counter our run and gun style. Denying us of our speed isn't a hard thing to do, keeping our diminutive wingers on the perimiter is also not too hard to do and smart coaches will take notes, leaving us chasing the game instead of controlling it.

Acting as if we're this finish product and everyone on our team is so good isn't going to help us moving forward. Yes, I would trade Bratt for someone like Tkatchuk, in a heartbeat. Does that mean I hate Bratt and I want to see him fail because I'd move him off our team, absolutely not. What it does mean is that I would like to have a more well rounded, a more balanced team and the same exemple can be said about Severson and our defence as well. This constant need to feel betrayed when someone is suggesting such a thing is nothing more then having this attachment to our current guys because they're apart of our team now and moving on from someone you know would lead you to have a semi meltdown. Sometimes you need to make the tough call for the better of the team and that's exactly what a move like this would do. It's almost as if posters who are against it have never seen Tkatchuk play. It's as if I was proposing to bring in this goon who'll rack up 17 pts and get in everyone's face after the whistle. Back in our glory days, Lou made some moves that would've rattled some of the posters on this board but it was done for the good of the team, not because he didn't like the guys he traded away. Fitz is a great hockey mind and he already started to balance out our defence and I'm certain he'll do the same with our offense. I can almost guarantee that we'll see some pretty important roster shuffling come summer time and I wouldn't be surprised if it involves one or two "key" guys.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

I make the same argument because we got outclassed by a team that took our lunch money, again. Not being able to see that after every single performance where we lay an egg is alarming. We were all over the place and the Sharks aren't built with giants but they do have them and they play big. Our skilled forwards couldn't generate anything and creating time and space for yourself when it isn't there is something we have trouble doing. We have 5 forwards in our top #9 that is smaller then 6'0" and you're going to tell me that size has no impact on the outcome of games like we saw yesterday? We keep seeing the same thing when we play teams who know how to counter our run and gun style. Denying us of our speed isn't a hard thing to do, keeping our diminutive wingers on the perimiter is also not too hard to do and smart coaches will take notes, leaving us chasing the game instead of controlling it.

Acting as if we're this finish product and everyone on our team is so good isn't going to help us moving forward. Yes, I would trade Bratt for someone like Tkatchuk, in a heartbeat. Does that mean I hate Bratt and I want to see him fail because I'd move him off our team, absolutely not. What it does mean is that I would like to have a more well rounded, a more balanced team and the same exemple can be said about Severson and our defence as well. This constant need to feel betrayed when someone is suggesting such a thing is nothing more then having this attachment to our current guys because they're apart of our team now and moving on from someone you know would lead you to have a semi meltdown. Sometimes you need to make the tough call for the better of the team and that's exactly what a move like this would do. It's almost as if posters who are against it have never seen Tkatchuk play. It's as if I was proposing to bring in this goon who'll rack up 17 pts and get in everyone's face after the whistle. Back in our glory days, Lou made some moves that would've rattled some of the posters on this board but it was done for the good of the team, not because he didn't like the guys he traded away. Fitz is a great hockey mind and he already started to balance out our defence and I'm certain he'll do the same with our offense. I can almost guarantee that we'll see some pretty important roster shuffling come summer time and I wouldn't be surprised if it involves one or two "key" guys.

This is where it actually helps to know a damn thing about the team you’re talking about. Look at San Jose’s roster. They have more undersized players than us.

 

[John Pedro]

So you don’t see how scoring goals is influenced by the ability to be strong on the puck and boards? A players speed, shot, and passing skills are basically useless if they can’t get enough time and space because the opposition is just as fast/skilled but also bigger and stronger on the puck.

Not what I meant. I said that we've had periods where they dominated possession, time on puck and all that and still couldn't score. The games against Wild, Panthers (two of the best 5v5 teams in the league), first period last night... Devils played big boy hockey and couldn't score then the other team strikes back and score at will... Of course I'd love to have some bigger guys in our top9, I just feel like what we most need is skilled players regardless of their size.

 

[Buck Dancer]

I added the disclaimer that it’s not just about physical size but also how they play. But as is often the case, that part gets conveniently ignored.

You mean to tell me you don’t notice how frequently/easily our “skilled” guys get knocked off the puck, or lose board battles, or just cycle around the perimeter ineffectively?

This is why someone like Dawson Mercer is a breath of fresh air.

This notion that when talking about size is purely physical is flat out wrong. You can be of smallish stature and play a heavy game.

How is that so hard to comprehend.

 

[guitarguyvic]

They had a miserable 2nd period. The Sharks did absolutely zero in the 1st or 3rd period. Bad periods happen sometimes. Maybe next game the coach won’t sabotage the team with his horrible lineup decisions.

And why did they have a miserable second period? I know everyone loves to just play the “they didn’t put enough effort card” but you know there’s another team on the ice they’re playing against that occasionally might actually be trying to win themselves.

This is also overstating how well they played in those stretches. They couldn’t score…again…part of the inability to score is related to the type of players we have. So not sure what it is you think you’re proving by bringing that up.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

And why did they have a miserable second period? I know everyone loves to just play the “they didn’t put enough effort card” but you know there’s another team on the ice they’re playing against that occasionally might actually be trying to win themselves.

This is also overstating how well they played in those stretches. They couldn’t score…again…part of the inability to score is related to the type of players we have. So not sure what it is you think you’re proving by bringing that up.

Because they’re an extremely young team that is average (and their most important forward was clearly very rusty). Average teams will be up and down.

Agree with the bolded. We need a volume shooter. That has little to do with what you’re talking about though.

 

[devilsblood]

They had a miserable 2nd period. The Sharks did absolutely zero in the 1st or 3rd period. Bad periods happen sometimes. Maybe next game the coach won’t sabotage the team with his horrible lineup decisions.

Why did the lineup decisions sabotage the team in the 2nd, but not the first?

I do agree bad periods happen sometimes.