Devils discussion (news, notes and speculation) - part II

[JimEIV]

All fair.

But come playoffs, assuming we are still playing good hockey, I think we would be as dangerous as anyone.

I like to believe that's true but I don't. I don't believe we are tough enough and don't believe our scoring depth is good enough.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

All fair.

But come playoffs, assuming we are still playing good hockey, I think we would be as dangerous as anyone.


It's about sample size.

Our run of good play is 40 games. 40 games does not an upper echelon team make.

are the Wild an upper echelon team?

how about the Caps?

Jets?

where is the "line" of when we can start saying we're good?

do you see how none of this makes any sense........?

 

[Forge]

One reason I love Jack's contract even more is that I don't think Luke can demand more than his brother... If we can ink Luke to the same contract, we're going to be so wet

He can definitely ask for more than his brother and I'd be surprised if he didn't get more than his brother

 

[devilsblood]

I like to believe that's true but I don't. I don't believe we are tough enough and don't believe our scoring depth is good enough.

I think we are absolutely tough enough.

That's one of the positive takeaways from last nights game. Necas is the guy faking injury. Haula blasting that guy behind the net. Other stuff.

But in general we consistently have multiple big guys jumping into scrums to sort things out.

 

[TrufleShufle]

are the Wild an upper echelon team?

how about the Caps?

Jets?

where is the "line" of when we can start saying we're good?

do you see how none of this makes any sense........?

We are a good team, great team even right now. But when these guys are saying "upper echelon" I'm taking it to mean undeniably good for a few years where nobody questions where they fall the next year. Can't really blame anyone from holding back a bit even if they are excited with the way the team is playing and more than hopeful.

At the other end of the discussion, "upper echelon" seems like any other term argued over like "elite" or "generational." There is no set definition in the context it's being used, so can be argued forever. But I wouldn't take it as a knock on the team if someone's definition of upper echelon is "consist playoff contenders for multiple years in a row" because someone else's definition could be 10 game win streak, or even just top half of the league, which could also make sense.

 

[devilsblood]

are the Wild an upper echelon team?

how about the Caps?

Jets?

where is the "line" of when we can start saying we're good?

do you see how none of this makes any sense........?

I'm rarely able to make sense of your posts.

 

[TrufleShufle]

I like to believe that's true but I don't. I don't believe we are tough enough and don't believe our scoring depth is good enough.

If that's true, we could be at our point in Tampas timeline where we need to find our Colemans to push us over the edge. Which is a great place to be.

 

[Incharge1976]

All fair.

But come playoffs, assuming we are still playing good hockey, I think we would be as dangerous as anyone.


It's about sample size.

Our run of good play is 40 games. 40 games does not an upper echelon team make.

Teams with previous success get the benefit of the doubt when a new season starts., especially when they keep all their players. With that said, every year is different. 40 games is enough to tell who is elite this year. I bet you would have no problem saying the Islanders, Predators, and Sharks are not good at all at 40 games.

Teams can make trades or have injuries that change their trajectory, but as it is now, we are elite and a ton of people around the NHL and even models show us with one of the best, if the best chances to win the Cup.

 

[devilsblood]

We are a good team, great team even right now. But when these guys are saying "upper echelon" I'm taking it to mean undeniably good for a few years where nobody questions where they fall the next year. Can't really blame anyone from holding back a bit even if they are excited with the way the team is playing and more than hopeful.

At the other end of the discussion, "upper echelon" seems like any other term argued over like "elite" or "generational." There is no set definition in the context it's being used, so can be argued forever. But I wouldn't take it as a knock on the team if someone's definition of upper echelon is "consist playoff contenders for multiple years in a row" because someone else's definition could be 10 game win streak, or even just top half of the league, which could also make sense.

Yeah, and it's obviously a matter of discussing opinions. This stuff is all fairly arbitrary.

But we were a lottery team last year. We've looked good, even very good, for 40 games. I'm going to keep my excitement in my pants for now.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

I'm rarely able to make sense of your posts.

reading isnt that hard.

What is the line between "just good" and "upper echelon"?

what do prior seasons have to do with this one? Rosters, coaches, goalies, etc change so much that what happened last year let alone 11 years ago (as initially brought up by Jim) is irrelevant.

the Bruins were great for years and years and years. Long playoff runs, a Cup, etc. They look average this year. Are they still "upper echelon"?

 

[JimEIV]

I think we are absolutely tough enough.

That's one of the positive takeaways from last nights game. Necas is the guy faking injury. Haula blasting that guy behind the net. Other stuff.

But in general we consistently have multiple big guys jumping into scrums to sort things out.

It's certainly has been better... But I don't think the toughness from the forward group is good enough.

The defense is fine. But the top 6 can be pushed around and have been. I don't think Noesen and Cotter move the needle. And it's kinda gross to see Tatar on the 4th line.

When you see Bratt just completely disappear in game like last night who fills the void? I think a line with Jack and Bratt is susceptible to being shutdown and physically corralled by a bigger more physical team and there is not enough physical secondary scoring to do anything about it.

 

[Incharge1976]

Yeah, and it's obviously a matter of discussing opinions. This stuff is all fairly arbitrary.

But we were a lottery team last year. We've looked good, even very good, for 40 games. I'm going to keep my excitement in my pants for now.

This is not a good take. We were a lot lottery team because of the injuries we had on D, a coach that was not good for the team, and goaltending that was terrible. Each one of these things was addressed and we are IMO even more rounded than 2 seasons ago. All we need is a bit more scoring depth that we can get a the deadline.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

It's certainly has been better... But I don't think the toughness from the forward group is good enough.

The defense is fine. But the top 6 can be pushed around and have been. I don't think Noesen and Cotter move the needle. And it's kinda gross to see Tatar on the 4th line.

When you see Bratt just completely disappear in game like last night who fills the void? I think a line with Jack and Bratt is susceptible to being shutdown and physically corralled by a bigger more physical team and there is not enough physical secondary scoring to do anything about it.

he literally created the 2nd goal by himself? and led the team in high-danger CF?

what are you talking about?

 

[MB3]

I'd just like to continue praying that Eric Haula isn't going to shoot (checks notes) 3% or something the rest of the way, what the actual f*** is up with that lol

A lot of people were saying Bratt was invisible last night in the GDT, too. I saw one of the prettiest assists of the season, created entirely by himself. Thought that was pretty visible.

 

[guitarguyvic]

Lots of semantics. “Upper echelon”. “Elite”. I think what a couple of posters might be talking about is the reputation of a team’s core. If a team has an extremely strong core and they string together a couple of really good seasons, an expectation develops that the core will deliver a lot of wins year in and year out. Throw in multiple seasons of finishing near the top of the standings and now people think of that team as “upper echelon” or “elite” or whatever.

But at the end of the day, even though the expectations are high for these teams going into each season, that doesn’t mean they are a lock for that particular season. Rosters change, injuries happen, core players start to age. So in any given year a team that has developed a reputation as being “upper echelon” team might not actually turn out to be among the best, while another team that doesn’t have a strong regulation actually is among the best (even if it’s just for that one year).

 

[TrufleShufle]

Lots of semantics. “Upper echelon”. “Elite”. I think what a couple of posters might be talking about is the reputation of a team’s core. If a team has an extremely strong core and they string together a couple of really good seasons, an expectation develops that the core will deliver a lot of wins year in and year out. Throw in multiple seasons of finishing near the top of the standings and now people think of that team as “upper echelon” or “elite” or whatever.

But at the end of the day, even though the expectations are high for these teams going into each season, that doesn’t mean they are a lock for that particular season. Rosters change, injuries happen, core players start to age. So in any given year a team that has developed a reputation as being “upper echelon” team might not actually turn out to be among the best, while another team that doesn’t have a strong regulation actually is among the best (even if it’s just for that one year).

If you are saying it's not important to figure out if we are actually an "upper echelon" team or not, I kindly ask you to leave, the grown ups are talking.

 

[JimEIV]

Most teams knock on the door a little while before they get in. It's usually a progression....

While you're in that progression I don't believe you are elite or upper echelon...I think without proof, without receipts you don't get any benefit of the doubt.

 

[forceten]

The East's ESTABLISHED upper echelon teams are all on the down swing. Boston and Tampa for sure. Florida is the only one still there IMO. So whoever said there is a void is correct. I think Carolina deserves mention there despite the playoff disappointments. They're like us in the late 1990s - elite teams that bounce out early, first or second round.

Carolina is VERY MUCH like us. It's scary - in shots against, in goals scored, in how there's a little reliance on the same handful of guys for scoring, with having some role players peppered into the forward group to plug roster holes. Their defense improved in the offseason, and goaltending is suspect although their goaltenders are far younger than our NHL pair. Well coached team that plays a tight system to win.

I do think they dive a lot. I do hate their idiot fans who just simply do not know hockey and are arrogant in their wrongness. They trash us for being Jersey... wow.

 

[Bleedred]

I think this year we’ve shown to be upper echelon. Will we be next year and going forward? We probably should be.

The East is hilarious this year. There’s not one team in the East over NHL 500 who don’t currently occupy a playoff spot.

Ottawa is currently on pace for 89 points and the second wild card spot. Everyone under them is either NHL 500 or below it.

The Pens managed to get a game over NHL 500 and then lost to the bottom of the Meteo Islanders, which pulled them out of the bottom after their win and yet another Rangers loss.

Columbus and Philly have been alternating between just over, just under and at NHL 500 all year long.

There were more teams in the East over NHL 500 in October and early November (I’m pretty sure) than there are in the last week of September lol.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Why Steven, Kakko is bigger stronger faster!

I heard he plays with men, too

 

[Guttersniped]

Lots of semantics. “Upper echelon”. “Elite”. I think what a couple of posters might be talking about is the reputation of a team’s core. If a team has an extremely strong core and they string together a couple of really good seasons, an expectation develops that the core will deliver a lot of wins year in and year out. Throw in multiple seasons of finishing near the top of the standings and now people think of that team as “upper echelon” or “elite” or whatever.

But at the end of the day, even though the expectations are high for these teams going into each season, that doesn’t mean they are a lock for that particular season. Rosters change, injuries happen, core players start to age. So in any given year a team that has developed a reputation as being “upper echelon” team might not actually turn out to be among the best, while another team that doesn’t have a strong regulation actually is among the best (even if it’s just for that one year).

Yeah, a President Trophy winner who lost in the ECF to the eventual Cup winner sounds like a dominant team to me. Throw in a Vezina and Norris winner in their prime too. Plus a forward who scored 120 points last year.

Where in the “Upper Echelon” are people currently ranking the Rangers?

 

[JimEIV]

The East's ESTABLISHED upper echelon teams are all on the down swing. Boston and Tampa for sure. Florida is the only one still there IMO. So whoever said there is a void is correct. I think Carolina deserves mention there despite the playoff disappointments. They're like us in the late 1990s - elite teams that bounce out early, first or second round.

Carolina is VERY MUCH like us. It's scary - in shots against, in goals scored, in how there's a little reliance on the same handful of guys for scoring, with having some role players peppered into the forward group to plug roster holes. Their defense improved in the offseason, and goaltending is suspect although their goaltenders are far younger than our NHL pair. Well coached team that plays a tight system to win.

I do think they dive a lot. I do hate their idiot fans who just simply do not know hockey and are arrogant in their wrongness. They trash us for being Jersey... wow.

Carolina has made the playoffs 6 out of the last 6 years.

They've won the Division 3 out of the last 6 years.

They've gotten to the 2nd round of the playoffs 5 of the last 6 years

They've gotten to ECF twice in the last 6 years.

We don't have this track record. In fact we've haven't had this much success in 20 years ....we aren't in this class.

 

[billingtons ghost]

are the Wild an upper echelon team?

how about the Caps?

Jets?

where is the "line" of when we can start saying we're good?

do you see how none of this makes any sense........?

No, he's kinda correct. We've got the talent and we've shown we can put it together for five game stretches.

We've seen this before tho, where the team goes bonkers, looks unbearable, we chant Sorry Lindy, then goes in the tank for twenty games.

Keefe and the rebuilt D are the big difference to think otherwise this year.

We are still one injury away from completely destabilizing in about six different spots and I think that lack of depth keeps us temporarily out of the conversation as a truly elite team at this point.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Yeah, a President Trophy winner who lost in the ECF to the eventual Cup winner sounds like a dominant team to me. Throw in a Vezina and Norris winner in their prime too. Plus a forward who scored 120 points last year.

Where in the “Upper Echelon” are people currently ranking the Rangers?

There's a complex explanation that involves salary cap, motivation and lockerroom stuff there so it's tough to defend that particular cherry that you've picked.

 

[Guttersniped]

The East's ESTABLISHED upper echelon teams are all on the down swing. Boston and Tampa for sure. Florida is the only one still there IMO. So whoever said there is a void is correct. I think Carolina deserves mention there despite the playoff disappointments. They're like us in the late 1990s - elite teams that bounce out early, first or second round.

Carolina is VERY MUCH like us. It's scary - in shots against, in goals scored, in how there's a little reliance on the same handful of guys for scoring, with having some role players peppered into the forward group to plug roster holes. Their defense improved in the offseason, and goaltending is suspect although their goaltenders are far younger than our NHL pair. Well coached team that plays a tight system to win.

I do think they dive a lot. I do hate their idiot fans who just simply do not know hockey and are arrogant in their wrongness. They trash us for being Jersey... wow.

Tampa is looking real good actually, they’re on a finishing/PDO bender, but they’re crushing teams under a pile of goals right now.

Carolina is fast, arguably faster than anyone, and has better forward depth. Goaltending has been hurting them quite a bit. That and their defense depth took a hit after the major losses, but that top pair has been pretty dominant. But I would prefer any other 1st round matchup.