New Jersey Devils Manage to Hold on to Victory and Defeat Carolina Hurricanes, 4-2
hile the big story may be that Martin Brodeur didn't get his 104th career shutout, I think the team's performance is worthy of more attention. Were I to be simplistic, I could say the New Jersey Devils went up 3-0 on the Carolina Hurricanes, conceded two in the second period, but managed to hold on and snag an empty net goal to win 4-2. Not completely unlike what the Hurricanes did to the Pittsburgh Penguins on Monday night.
However, that wouldn't be honest with what happened on the ice. The Devils looked great in the first period, playing as if they were still in Buffalo. But the team declined in the second and third period, only waking up near the end to shut the door on Carolina's hopes of an equalizer. I hate to sound like someone with high expectations or a sore winner, but like the recent wins over Tampa Bay and Detroit, the 4-2 win over Carolina wasn't a great one for New Jersey. Sure, I'm glad they got the result without a shootout or a late tip-in goal; but I can't get past how the game actually went or how the Devils nearly gave up a 3 goal lead. One thing is for sure, Carolina certainly didn't play the whole game like the last place team in the NHL.
NHL.com has their recap up complete with links to the boxscore and other stats. For the opposition's perspective, check out Canes Country later for their recap. Read on for further thoughts about tonight's game.
First, for those who want a visual set of highlights of tonight's game, NHL.com has a video of that:
Now, let's start with the first period. Pay no mind to the 10-7 shot differential between the two teams, tonight was a game where what the boxscore says isn't necessarily indicative of the flow of the game. The Devils were very strong in the first, battling Canes for pucks, applying a deep forecheck, and constant stick-checking whenever a Devil was in range of the opposing puck carrier. The stick-check is a fairly basic defensive move, but the Devils were very effective with it in the neutral zone and on defense to prevent Carolina from really getting some sustained offense going.
Those loose pucks were quickly moved up ice for the Devils' own offense. While some of the passes were off, the Devils did manage to beat Cam Ward twice - one with a bit of a fluke (Patrik Elias' goal) and one great slapshot from the high slot (Andy Greene's first goal). The Devils were playing like this all the way through the period, ending with Brian Rolston keeping a Cane holding onto the puck in the corner of his own zone in the dying seconds. I took at as proof that the Devils weren't looking past the Canes, that they had the right attitude for this game, and that they're going to keep up the effort and put this game out of doubt in the second.
I was definitely wrong on the last point.
For the next 40 minutes, the Devils' team effort declined. From the start of the second period onward, much of the stick-checking and defensive work in the neutral zone that the Devils used to so much success wasn't utilized. That was a mistake and I'm amazed that it even continued into the third period. As a result, Carolina saw that they had space to go forward on offense and did just that. They started to cycle and the Devils' defense started making some bad decisions, some poor clearances, and take some bad calls. It wasn't Carolina's first goal that got the Canes going in that period, it came right from Mike Mottau's trip of Jussi Jokinen (I thought it was a dive in the heat of the moment, in retrospect, I was wrong). Sure, they didn't score on that power play, but they were far more competitive. From then on, Carolina started building confidence, gaining momentum, and pinning the Devils back more and more - all the way through the third period. It became a game again, unofficially, from that power play onward.
Officially, it became again when Brandon Sutter took a shot that took a deflection off Mark Fraser's stick and then his body, which fooled Martin Brodeur. The crowd hated this goal as it ruined the shutout. I can't blame Fraser because he was in the right position; upon looking at the goal, I wonder whether Brodeur should have had that. They were shocked by Tuomo Ruutu's shot on the power play nearly 2 minutes later (P.S. the hook by Rob Niedermayer was the only big mistake he made all night). That was just a well-placed shot, credit Ruutu for that. Still, in mere minutes, the Devils went from being up by 3 to scrambling to make sure they don't give up a third goal against. Definitely not worthy of praise.
Oddly enough, the Devils' offense was actually quite good in the first half of the second period. They put 13 shots on Cam Ward in the second period; they were able to get the puck up ice; and they scored on the first power play they got (Greene's second goal). Then again, Brian Rolston threw a bad cross-ice pass at the point that Brandon Sutter took down ice and got lucky with a deflection to score; and the power play wasted two man advantages later in the period. The Devils remained in this lull on offense for the first 8 to 11 minutes (depends on who you ask). A re-tooled line of Patrik Elias, Jamie Langenbrunner, and Brian Rolston finally had a strong shift (you see some of that in the video), and a late power play nearly gave the Devils that fourth goal, but Ward somehow stopped Langenbrunner on a rebound (also in the video). I mean, I saw it live and I'm not quite sure how he did it, but he did.
So why did the Devils end up outshooting the Canes 31-23? Well, Carolina got blocked 13 times in the game (Johnny Oduya led with 4 blocks) so their shooting wasn't exactly proficient. I also think they took too much time on offense to get a good shot. I fully understand the concept of setting up an offense. I fully understand why teams do this, but given that Carolina was giving the Devils' defense the run around for most of the post-first period game, they really should have tried firing away more often. Martin Brodeur played well, but he wasn't necessarily dominating tonight.
In contrast, the Devils offense had the game plan of getting Cam Ward moving as much as he could. Not a bad idea for most goalies, especially ones returning from a leg laceration. Especially on the power play, the Devils attempted a number of cross-ice and cross-crease passes. Again, I fully understand why a team would want to do this. If the pass hits it's target, the target can have a great chance to score. However, while the theory makes sense, the execution wasn't and so a lot of shots from sharp angles and glancing shots and those cross-slot passes weren't so effective. A lot of the attempts got on net, the Devils weren't blocked much or missed much; but there was more than a few times where you'd watch the play develop and just go "OH!" when that final pass didn't hit home.
At first, I thought Ward looked rusty; but by the end, I felt he played well in his return from injury. The goals that beat him were a deflection off Aaron Ward, a shot in the slot behind a screen, and a cross-crease pass that actually hit Andy Greene in the right spot for a goal. Not exactly shots most goaltenders could stop. That said, I wish the Devils mixed it up and tried firing more low, hard shots on Ward as he was giving up some choice rebounds. There were plenty tonight for the Devils as-is, but if they kept at it, then maybe a Devil beats the Carolina defense to one of them for the big score.
In terms of who I felt had a good night, well, Andy Greene and Zach Parise stick out as the most logical choices. Parise had 5 shots on net and 2 assists, and Greene looked fairly decent playing 24:56 and putting in 2 goals. They got stars of the game and deservedly so. Rob Niedermayer actually rates right up there too. He played fairly solid on defense, put 3 shots on net, screened Ward on Andy Greene's first goal, played 19:37, iced the game with a shorthanded empty net goal, and most impressively went 18 for 23 on faceoffs. That's just fantastic work at the dot. When Bryce Salvador took a cross checking call at the end of the game, I noticed Niedermayer was right there for the faceoff. Good thing, as he won yet another one and it allowed the Devils to kill off the game. Without Niedermayer's work, I don't think the Devils don't hold on to win tonight. He did very well - aside from the dumb hooking infraction he committed, of course.
I would also like to highlight Bryce Salvador, who took a nasty hit from Erik Cole, left the game, but managed to come back and play defense for the Devils later on. He didn't get up immediately after the hit and many in the arena were concerned. It was a scary moment, but the fans applauded when he got up after a few minutes with the trainer. I was very glad to see him return to the game and contribute 14:10 total of work on the blueline. This post-game post from Tom Gulitti covers what Salvador was thinking and how he returned from what maybe was an injury. I recommend reading it and I hope he did not sustain an injury by coming back into tonight's game.
Yet, that the Devils had to hold on to win tonight is what many of the Devils fans who left tonight game weren't happy about. That the Devils managed to get 3 goals up on the worst team in the NHL, and it nearly was given away. Why couldn't the Devils respond to those two goals with getting one more past Ward? Why couldn't they hit home on the three power plays beyond the 30 minute mark of the game? Why were the Devils being pinned back by Carolina so much in the second and third periods? Most of all, why did we see such a great first period by the Devils followed up by a poor second and third periods?
I'm hoping Jacques Lemaire will ask the players these same questions because tonight could have easily ended up as an embarrassing night if a few things went a bit differently. Carolina played well after the first period and didn't give up on the game after Greene's second goal. They didn't look like the worst team in the NHL tonight and it only goes to prove my earlier point that looking past this team or letting up on them is a big mistake. While the Devils didn't look past them, it cannot be argued that they let the proverbial foot off the proverbial pedal on defense despite allowing 23 shots on net.
There is a cliche that good teams know how to win games where maybe they shouldn't. There is another one about how sometimes a team just has to win ugly. I'm glad the Devils won their last four games. Again, this is a results-oriented business and no Devils fan can complain about the results. I'm not. But I can't help but think that they should be doing a better job in these games. Especially after playing so well against Buffalo on Monday night, one wonders what happened to that kind of effort and performance. I will say this win was better than the recent wins over Tampa Bay and Detroit because the offense was actually involved for a part of this game and the team's first period performance. However, I don't think that is saying much. I think the Devils need to get back to playing strong hockey for all 60 minutes (or even 40-50) if they want to continue their winning streak.
No matter, the Devils move on with four straight wins and have a back-to-back set against Florida and Philadelphia. Thank you all for reading and commenting about tonight's game. Please leave your thoughts and feelings about tonight's game in the comments.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Completely agree with your players who stood out, but would like to add Oduya to the list. He didn’t have a shot on net, managed a +1 rating, but he looked real good in the defensive end. He made some key blocks, drew a penalty while carrying the puck and had one of those games where he seemed to be everywhere. Strong game by him, even if it doesn’t show up in the stats.
Curious stat of the game: Every Hurricane save Gleason (+1) was either even or a minus for the game; every Devil player save poor, poor Zharkov (-1) was either even or a plus player for the game.
They did back off after going up 3, which is disappointing, but even more disappointing was the panic I saw in them after giving up that first goal. There was something about the Hurricane’s forecheck that was throwing the Devils off like no other team has yet this season, but once Sutter scored it went from their forecheck frustrating the Devils defensemen to the Dmen panicking and making poor decision after poor decision. If someone had committed to drinking a shot every time the Devils defense turned the puck over, they’d have died of alcohol poisoning before the 2nd period was over.
Also, has anyone else noticed that Elias just looks off? I wonder if he isn’t still ailing a little bit. I noticed a couple of occasions last night where he seemed unwilling to dig for the puck in the corners in the offensive zone and got the overall impression that he was shying away a bit from contact.
Spot-on recap and I agree with all comments. I was hoping your recap would be more positive and that you saw good things in last nights game that I didn’t, but we both saw a Devils team that played 20 mins and held-on for 40 mins.
What I didn’t like in last night’s game was how the Devils could not clear the zone. They had issues with this team and clearing the zone last year in the regular season and the post season. Not sure if it’s that the Devils took the night off, or if it’s just carry over from last years problems with Carolina.
Marty sometimes needs to back off from leaving his crease to get the puck as he also sent the puck into areas where the Devil was swarmed and a turn over occurred.
Biggest issue for me however was how no one put Ruutu on his arse as he hit everyone in sight and definitely frustrated the Elias Rolston line. We could have used an equal agitator going after Staal or at least neutralizing Ruutu. (Clarkson would have been key-come back soon!)
Elesias, i wasn’t too crazy about Oduya’s play. Yes he did make some good D-plays, but he also bobbled the puck a few times and turned over. Actually, maybe that was a team-wide issue and I just noticed when Oduya did it. He is still rather fresh off injury, but a few more games like this and Lemaire will have to light a fire under his arse. Not that he’s playing bad, but I don’t think he was playing up to his potential. Is he confused as to wether he is an offensive-D or defensive-D?
Well, a win is a win even if ugly. It will be a meaningless win however if the Devils ignore the issues they had and don’t learn from it. I’m chalking it up to an off night, and to the Devils overlooking Carolina in this game.
by Devil_Hard_Core on Dec 10, 2009 10:49 AM EST reply actions
Maybe I’m missing something here, but I cannot understand why the Devils would ever sit back against anyone when time and time again it comes back to bite them. I have to believe Jacques Lemaire when he says that he doesn’t want them to do it, so why are they? And is he attempting to break them out of it?
It doesn’t matter that Carolina is the worst team in the league, for some reason they always come hard against us, and to just sit on that 3-0 lead makes absolutely no sense. So what if you have a 3 goal lead, keep going, it’s a 60 minute game! Quite honestly, we’re lucky we won last night, because if we’re going to just mail it in after one good period of hockey every night, we’re going nowhere this year.
I hate to sound like a pessimist but I can’t understand the logic behind ever sitting back, especially when we so often hand games back to other teams like this.
Players Currently in My Doghouse: Brian Rolston, Mike Mottau
by thejerseydevil on Dec 10, 2009 11:51 AM EST reply actions
I’ll never understand it either. It’s the same in football… the old prevent defense that usually doesn’t work. Makes no sense. Just keep doing what has been working.
Give some credit though to Carolina for making adjustments, but still, yeah… there is no excuse to sit on a lead. If the lockout has changed anything, it’s that no lead is safe anymore.
I agree. the days of holding a lead and not going on the attack are over. IT should be clear to the devils that this style can not work. I’m glad that they have improved there defense greatly from last year. However, whats the point if your going to hand over the game later on. I mean thisis opposite of what the proiblem we had last year. We had the guns up front but no one to protet our end. Its like a solider going into battle. you need to be well protected but also need to take the offensive at the right moment to win. I hope the wake up soon to this reality. Philly wil be waiting for this kind of debacle
by Devilman3030 on Dec 10, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
Well I have to disagree with, well, all three of these comments.
Did the Devils let up on the Canes? Definitely. Did they lower their intensity and aggressiveness on defense to a fault? You bet. But that isn’t the same as “sitting back.”
For starters, the Canes noticed that the Devils let up in the neutral zone and in their own zone when they had possession right from the start of the second period. The Devils didn’t drop 3 or 4 into their own zone, they had to catch up on more than a few shifts to make a play on a Cane.
Second, look at the times of the goals. Greene scored the Devils’ third goal 6:05 into the second period. 43 seconds later, Brandon Sutter’s shot deflected off of Mark Fraser and fooled Brodeur to make it 3-1. Sutter’s whole play started with a miscue on offense, leading to a one-on-one situation (I felt Fraser was OK, the deflection was accidental). Not a result of the Devils “sitting back.” Close to 90 seconds later, Rob Niedermayer took a hooking call in the defensive zone because he was beat and the refs caught him with his stick wrapped on a Cane. After one clear and 23 seconds from the penalty, Tuomo Ruutu blasted a shot that beat Brodeur.
The Canes didn’t pick up 2 goals because the Devils went into a defensive shell, they did it because they made the most of their opportunities. I will concede that in other games the Devils tend to “sit back” and rely solely on a counter-attack for any offense late in a game. But that didn’t happen against Carolina.
A decline in effort? Yes. But sitting on a lead? No.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Dec 10, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
I respectfully disagree
Letting up and lowering their intensity and aggressiveness is sitting back. They all describe the same thing: getting away from an attacking posture and allowing the other team to dictate play. Bend but don’t break.
Why they did it, I couldn’t say. As you point out, they gave up two quick goals (and spent a lot of time scrambling around their own zone) while not sitting back, so perhaps they thought it best to just ride out the third period and wait for counter-attack opportunities.
I can see how an adjustment was in order, as what they were doing wasn’t working any longer, and I’d like to say it was just that they were getting out-worked by a hungry team with nothing to lose and just couldn’t find the answers, but even that admission is troublesome because it suggests a weakness in the team’s make-up that other teams can exploit.
In the end, I’m sure we’re all happy with the end result, but it’s not a practice anyone wants to see become habitual.
Perhaps we're splitting hairs, but not quite
Not quite. Sitting back is focusing solidly on defensive hockey. As you brought up the prevent system in football, you know the system drops defensive backs and linebackers specifically to prevent the big play (to varying success).
In hockey, it’s willingly dropping 4-5 skaters behind the red line as the opposition comes forward, dropping back as necessary, specifically trying to win the puck only to clear the puck enough to get a change and await the opposition to attack again. Sometimes, team’s don’t decide to do this, they are forced to for one reason or another.
In this game’s case, the Devils stopped being as aggressive in the neutral zone and in stick-checking in their own zone; giving the Canes enough space to go forward and develop pressure. In the second period, the Devils at least made an effort to move pucks up ice and get shots on net with offensive shifts. It was more back-and-forth, as evidenced by the 13-9 shot differential from the period.
In the third period, the Canes just kept pressuring over and over, forcing the Devils to clear the puck over and over. At that point, Carolina dictated the pace of the game and the defense couldn’t make enough stops early enough to counter. It wasn’t until well after the when the Devils managed to not only get a shot on net but keep the puck in Carolina’s end for more than a few seconds. That wasn’t a result of the team deciding to “not sit back” but a result of the Devils having the time, space, and stamina to move the puck up ice properly and to get chances to shoot (which they thankfully did).
I would say the only time in the game where the Devils decided to sit back was in the last minute of the game when Carolina pulled Ward for the extra skater. Again, sometimes you have to do that and in Wednesday’s case, it ultimately worked out.
This is perhaps just quibbling (OK, I am, but whatever), but there is a difference between sitting back – where a team decides to be defensive and let the opposition take initiative – and being forced to play in your own zone. From what I saw against Carolina, the Devils were guilty of letting the latter happen by not continuing the effort seen in the first period.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Dec 10, 2009 9:32 PM EST up reply actions
Seems like a chicken or the egg kind of thing. Were they forced to play in their own zone because they were less aggressive, or vice versa? A bit of both?
I see your point and the truth in your words, but I can’t shake the belief that the tactic they employed caused them more problems than it solved.

by 

















