apuszczalowski Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 I'm really starting to hope Darcy doesn't make a move, just to see the reactions/excuses around here if they don't win the cup. As for the Sabres players coming back from injury at 75%, and the team would still demolish others, yeah cause they were demolishing teams all year with everyone in the lineup at 100%
hopeleslyobvious Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 Who's saying Connolly's the saviour of this team? This team has lead the league in scoring without Connolly all season, now all of a sudden they need him to win in the playoffs? Connolly will help this team because he's giving them a fourth line threat and an extra playmaker on the power play. But nobody has been able to match up successfully with the Sabres top three lines (five 20+ goal scorers) this season. Make no mistake, this team can win the Cup without Connolly. Bring him back turns the Sabres from a matchup nightmare into a matchup catastrophe for the opposing team. Anyway, they lead the league in points, they have the fewest losses in the league, they lead the league in goals scored, they lead the league in even-strength goals, they've come back from 2 goals down to win 7 games (most in the league), they have three elite scoring lines, they have one of the best coaches in the league, they have a playoff-tested goaltender, they have four defensemen who are +10 or better. So if you can take all that in and say that they still aren't a legimate Cup contender, I have to wonder what the hell you're basing your opinion on. Some keep saying the team is only in first overall because of the first 10 games of the season. I am going to go out on a limb here and say going 7-2-1 in the last 10 isn't hurting either.
Wraith Posted February 26, 2007 Author Report Posted February 26, 2007 As for the Sabres players coming back from injury at 75%, and the team would still demolish others, yeah cause they were demolishing teams all year with everyone in the lineup at 100% Why do you insist on cherry picking from my argument? My opinion, and the general sentiment around here, is that the Sabres slumps this year have come from a lack of intensity rather than a lack of talent. You've probably said it yourself. My point in the post that you just butchered was the Sabres have an over-abundance of talent on offenseand only need 75% of it if they can muster the intensity we know they're capable of. I supported this claim by discussing the last two games, where I think we can all agree the Sabres were missing much more than 25% of their "talent" yet still broke even against a really good, really hot Senators team by relying on intensity even when the other team should have been intense also. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Sabres to come close to that intensity in the playoffs, seeing as how it's the PLAYOFFS and we've seen this same group in the PLAYOFFS last year play pretty damn intensely.
Stoner Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 Those two traits certainly make it seem like you would rather the Sabres lose to prove your point. You appear to be an idiot. I always want to be proven wrong. I was proven wrong during the offseason when I doubted Tom Golisano's commitment to the team, and I admitted I was wrong. I want to be wrong about Ryan Miller, I want to be wrong about how soft the Sabres are, and I want to be wrong about how injury-prone I think they are. For the record, I've said several times I expected the Sabres to have a disappointing regular season (and it's been disappointing to me after about Game 15), until about Game 60 when they turned it on (which has happened), and make a nice run in the playoffs. After 32 years as a fan, I'm not the type to predict a Cup. I didn't just fall off the Slug merchandise cart. But I honestly believe this could be our year. We have a great chance. It's just so hard to win the damned thing. You have to be good, lucky and healthy at exactly the right time.
inkman Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 You appear to be an idiot. I might have to change my sig. :lol:
ko12010 Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 I'm not pretending. It's for real. Don't be surprised if we don't even have to face Ottawa this postseason. I think Pittsburgh can and will take them down for us.
hopeleslyobvious Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 You appear to be an idiot. I always want to be proven wrong. I was proven wrong during the offseason when I doubted Tom Golisano's commitment to the team, and I admitted I was wrong. I want to be wrong about Ryan Miller, I want to be wrong about how soft the Sabres are, and I want to be wrong about how injury-prone I think they are. For the record, I've said several times I expected the Sabres to have a disappointing regular season (and it's been disappointing to me after about Game 15), until about Game 60 when they turned it on (which has happened), and make a nice run in the playoffs. After 32 years as a fan, I'm not the type to predict a Cup. I didn't just fall off the Slug merchandise cart. But I honestly believe this could be our year. We have a great chance. It's just so hard to win the damned thing. You have to be good, lucky and healthy at exactly the right time. Then why don't you stop complaining and enjoy the ride?
Taro T Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 I'm really starting to hope Darcy doesn't make a move, just to see the reactions/excuses around here if they don't win the cup. As for the Sabres players coming back from injury at 75%, and the team would still demolish others, yeah cause they were demolishing teams all year with everyone in the lineup at 100% :blink: Wow. :blink: The lineup the Sabres have now (the healthy version, anyway) IS capable of winning the Stanley Cup. WILL they? The odds are greater that 1 of the other 15 will win it, but I don't give any other single team a better chance to win Lord Stanley's Chalice than the Sabres have. If you could show me what player will put the odds of the Sabres winning it to be greater than that of 1 of the other 15 winning it, then I would say "go get him". I don't believe that player is out there. I do not want to see the Sabres making Don Wadell type trades. He is giving up a ton of his future just trying to get INTO the playoffs this year. There is no guarantee that the trades he's made will get them in (they're in 6th as I write this, but only 3 points from 10th with other teams having games in hand on them) and I don't believe either player increases the Threshers chances beyond that of "darkhorse". When close to healthy, I am very happy with the Sabres forwards and goaltending. When fully healthy, I am happy with the D, but would like to see another D-man brought in. I don't expect to see the Sabres trade for a top 4 guy, but wouldn't be surprised either way if they do or don't bring in a 7 or 8. That sort of player would add the depth that the Sabres needed last year, wouldn't mortgage the future, and would be very unlikely to disrupt team chemistry. I'm very disappointed that Gaustad is apparently out for the year, although I am hoping he shows up about the time my vintage sweater should show up (mid-May), but believe the Sabres can pretty much make up for his loss by committee with what they do have in house. They can't do it completely, but I think they can do it well enough to get where they need to be. While I realize you were exaggerating in your post (or at least I think you were ;) ), I definitely am not looking forward to the possibility of a trade that mortgages the Sabres future and then not having the Sabres get it done. If the Sabres could get a "Gary Roberts type" for a reasonable cost, I wouldn't have a problem with it (and my idea of what constitutes "reasonable" is probably lower than yours); but I don't see that 1 player being the Sabres Butch Goring, nor do I think they necessarily need that outsider to augment what's here.
Stoner Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 Then why don't you stop complaining and enjoy the ride? Why don't you stop complaining about my complaining and enjoy the ride? I don't call discussion of some of our weaknesses "complaining." And, I have to be honest, whether it makes me negative or whatever -- from about Game 25 to about Game 55, this team was pretty tough to enjoy.
BuffalOhio Posted February 26, 2007 Report Posted February 26, 2007 Yeah, I meant exactly what I wrote. Last year they didn't make it anywhere with a bunch of rookies in the lineup after their defencemen went down. Last time I checked they lost that series and didn't make the cup finals. They lost Connolly and Tallinder in the Sens Series, mcKee, and I believe Teppo went down in the Carolina Series. Its not like they opened the playoffs with half a team of rookies. They got where they did because of their starters, not because of a bunch of rookies. Game 2 - Ottawa Series - Lost Connolly and Kalinin Game 1 - Carolina Series - Lost Numminen Game 3 - Carolina Series - Lost Tallinder Game 7 - Carolina Series - Lost McKee before it started
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.