I'm going to disagree with this a little bit. The reason they "controlled" the game a bit is BECAUSE the fell behind. At the time of the first Montreal goal Montreal was winning the shot attempts battle. Behind a bit the Devils came back, tied the game and played better the rest of the period. They had a very sloppy start of the 2nd where Montreal got 2 goals on 2 shots, that is when the Devils shot attempt advantage really kicked into gear as the urgency of the game kicked it. Goals change games, especially quick successive goals. It is one area where I think the models such as the "deserve-on-meter" struggle with. Teams ahead get a more conservative and more importantly teams behind get more urgency. The start of the third was sloppy as well.
Did they get goalie'd? Yes, in the sense that VV should have stopped 2 our of the 3 goals despite the sloppy defensive play and their goalie did make some big saves after Montreal took the lead. But had the Devils answered I don't think the shot disparity would have been the same as it was. It was a classic case of team piling up shots because they got down kind of early and couldn't get answers.
It wasn't a case though of them stepping on a team from the start and but still end up losing. On that front I think it is ok to not be happy about the performance overall. Slow starts are becoming a problem and you will run into a game like this as a result. Leading the league in come from behind wins is a blessing and a curse, it means you can come from behind, but it also means you are falling behind a lot. Start of game/start of period performance has to get better.
However overall it is one game of 82 and not that concerning. But I think it is fair to be critical of their play tonight. Again it wasn't as if the were hammering Montreal from the beginning and Montreal happened to score on the counter against the run of play (to use a soccer term).