bottlecap Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Can't he just let in 1-2 goals in the average rout? His inability to concentrate for 60 minutes is troubling.
connee Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 The Sabres toyed with the Islanders tonight, they had 4 breakaways in the first.
Bmwolf21 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I didn't see anything that indicated a lack of focus or concentration on Ryan's part...the Isles, despite playing as awful of a first period as possible, actually played a lot better in the 2nd and 3rd, and we took some dumb penalties, which led to PP goals. Also, if I were Ryan, I would politely ask my defensemen that if they think they might want to try to block a shot, then make a decision FAST and block it or get the hell out of the way.
RayFinkle Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I didn't see anything that indicated a lack of focus or concentration on Ryan's part... Ryan does seem to be developing a nack for keeping games closer than they should be in the third. Hopefully it is just a phase....
Stoner Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I didn't see anything that indicated a lack of focus or concentration on Ryan's part...the Isles, despite playing as awful of a first period as possible, actually played a lot better in the 2nd and 3rd, and we took some dumb penalties, which led to PP goals. Also, if I were Ryan, I would politely ask my defensemen that if they think they might want to try to block a shot, then make a decision FAST and block it or get the hell out of the way. I don't know why you defend the guy. He hasn't earned any passes in his young career. However they go in, four goals against is four goals against. Ryan is playing like he wants to finish above 3.00 in GAA. He's over 2.8 now. And that's a big number, in this era, or any era, of hockey.
bottlecap Posted March 31, 2007 Author Report Posted March 31, 2007 Sometimes I wonder if the team, having seen his tendency to lose focus doesn't "play for him". I think he might be wound too tight, judging these last times he's going off in the press. Just save the puck.
X. Benedict Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I think the most important stat for goaltenders is wins.
Bmwolf21 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I don't know why you defend the guy. He hasn't earned any passes in his young career. However they go in, four goals against is four goals against. Ryan is playing like he wants to finish above 3.00 in GAA. He's over 2.8 now. And that's a big number, in this era, or any era, of hockey. I defend him because, regardless of however vehemently people deny it, Ryan is unfairly judged against Dom's legacy and against guys like Brodeur. I defend him because he is the starting goalie for my favorite team, and I know that he is going to be one of the biggest factors in the playoff run. I defend him because he is often hung out to dry by the Sabres' 5 other skaters on the ice who get lazy and stop skating, or fail to pick up their defensive responsibilities. I defend him because I try to look at individual games and the types of goals he lets in, rather than going "ooh - 4 goals bad!" In my eyes, the better question is why are you so quick to criticize him, insinuating that damn near every goal that goes in should have been stopped? X is dead on - the most important stat for goalies, especially on this team, is wins. This team isn't built to win games 3-1 or 4-2; they are built to freewheel, push the O, put pucks in the net.
swordofbflo Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Goalies don't usually win games, but they sure can lose them. I hope we don't regret trading Marty
inkman Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Goalies don't usually win games, but they sure can lose them. I hope we don't regret trading Marty Boo!
Stoner Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I defend him because, regardless of however vehemently people deny it, Ryan is unfairly judged against Dom's legacy and against guys like Brodeur. I defend him because he is the starting goalie for my favorite team, and I know that he is going to be one of the biggest factors in the playoff run. I defend him because he is often hung out to dry by the Sabres' 5 other skaters on the ice who get lazy and stop skating, or fail to pick up their defensive responsibilities. I defend him because I try to look at individual games and the types of goals he lets in, rather than going "ooh - 4 goals bad!" In my eyes, the better question is why are you so quick to criticize him, insinuating that damn near every goal that goes in should have been stopped? X is dead on - the most important stat for goalies, especially on this team, is wins. This team isn't built to win games 3-1 or 4-2; they are built to freewheel, push the O, put pucks in the net. I don't compare him to Hasek or Brodeur. I compare him to the goalie that he has shown he can be. And he pales in comparison to that guy. Of course he makes a lot of big saves! You have explained why: that's the Sabres' system. But I don't see a ton of goals going in off of unstoppable odd-man rushes. I just see weird goals... from angles, from behind the net, from 60-footers.
Bmwolf21 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 PA, my beef with the apparent anti-Miller crowd (for lack of a better term) is that it doesn't matter where or how the goals go in - if he was screened or it was tipped - still should have stopped it; like the rebound goal from the other night (where Danny thought he was supposed to just watch the Devil skate past him and bang it in) - still should have stopped it; people get on him no matter what type of goal it is, and there are a lot of fans who simply look at a scoresheet and go "ooooh, 4 goals- Ryan play bad." I have no problem debating whether an individual goal should have been stopped, so long as you talk about and explain why it's a bad a goal, in your opinion. But there are too many people who discount the Sabres' attacking system; their defense's inability to physically clear the front of the net; and the defense's propensity to try to block as many shots as possible (which leads to bad deflections) and they simply yell Ryan sucks. Any attempts by Miller "fans" to look at a goal somewhat objectively (not wearing Lorentz's blue & gold glasses) are shouted down as "making excuses" for him. IMO, there is, no matter how much people try to downplay it or deny it, a subconscious comparison to Dom, just like there are people who are pissed because the Sabres traded away the "good guy" goalie. Do I think he is above criticism? Of course not. Are there games and goals he needs to be better on? Absolutely. But this Chicken Little assessment of his goaltending is getting a little old and tired.
evil_otto Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Yeah, Ryan really lacked focus last night when he stabbed that sudden redirect out of the air along with a few other great saves. Even if some the "bad" goals that go in are his fault, I'd still rather have him in the net for the Sabres than any other goalie in this league right now. Even if Ruff doesn't give him a break when he needs it, he still comes to play every game and has proven himself as a number one playoff goalie. He still has many years ahead of him (hopefully, all with the Sabres too) and will only get better. He's Ryan Miller, not the second coming of Dominik Hasek.
Taro T Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Is the weak goal he seems to give up each game something to be concerned with? Possibly. IF they start coming at times when they become killers. Right now, though. They aren't killers. The team has collected 2/3 of the available points in games where he's gotten a decision. That puts them on pace for the 111 (or so) points they'll end up with this year. This team reminds me, in several ways, of the 80's Eulers. (Minus having multiple obvious HoFers.) Fuhr never had below a 3.43 GAA in any of the Championship seasons for 2 reasons: the style of game they played and he didn't have to have a better GAA. Miller's play reminds me of Fuhr. Miller doesn't make all the saves, and tends to let in some very frustrating ones. But when all is said and done, he makes the saves he has to the majority of the time. You have to go back to the '70's for Sabres back-to-back 100 point seasons. If it happens this year, it'll be the 1st time they've EVER had b-t-b 110 point years. Miller is a big part of that success.
Stoner Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Is the weak goal he seems to give up each game something to be concerned with? Possibly. IF they start coming at times when they become killers. Right now, though. They aren't killers. The team has collected 2/3 of the available points in games where he's gotten a decision. That puts them on pace for the 111 (or so) points they'll end up with this year. This team reminds me, in several ways, of the 80's Eulers. (Minus having multiple obvious HoFers.) Fuhr never had below a 3.43 GAA in any of the Championship seasons for 2 reasons: the style of game they played and he didn't have to have a better GAA. Miller's play reminds me of Fuhr. Miller doesn't make all the saves, and tends to let in some very frustrating ones. But when all is said and done, he makes the saves he has to the majority of the time. You have to go back to the '70's for Sabres back-to-back 100 point seasons. If it happens this year, it'll be the 1st time they've EVER had b-t-b 110 point years. Miller is a big part of that success. Faint praise. :) I think you wanted to phrase that in a much stronger way and couldn't find the words. Maybe because you have some doubts too? I will give you TBOTD.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 some people can find something to bitch and moan irregardless of the situation, plain and simple, Ryan Miller is a very important part of one of the best Sabre teams ever............. :beer:
zow2 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I agree with the sentinent that 4 goals is 4 goals. I don't care how they go in, all I know is Miller can be an awesome goalie but since around January 1st he has been very average or below. My main concern last night was how he got beat cleanly high to glove side twice. No screens, no deflections. Also, his lanky body seems to leave some holes available, especially high to either side. I'm rooting for the guy, believe me,,,he's OUR guy but his play of late does not make me feel good about the playoffs unless Buffalo can net 4 or 5 per game.
Stoner Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 some people can find something to bitch and moan irregardless of the situation, plain and simple, Ryan Miller is a very important part of one of the best Sabre teams ever............. :beer: You talkin to me? I agree with you. He is very important. :chris:
mphs mike Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Back to back 110 point seasons will be due, in part, to the number of "three point" games the team played. A proper comparison with the 70's requires subtracting the second point earned in an OT or shootout win. Even that is a little inexact because without the OT/shootout a team may have "lost" a tie late going for broke.
Taro T Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Faint praise. :) I think you wanted to phrase that in a much stronger way and couldn't find the words. Maybe because you have some doubts too? I will give you TBOTD. Not really. I suppose I should have added the word "vast" in front of "majority". Other than that, I stated what I intended to. Nobody wins more than a "majority" of their games. Ryan, while being rested on an occassional night when the Sabres are playing softer teams, is on a pace for 111 points. 111 will typically give you the 2nd best record in the league. I can count on 1 hand the number of games where Ryan giving up a soft goal cost the team the game. The Sabres have won numerous games this season when they've appeared to sleepwalk through portions of the game. Miller making that big save when he needs to is a big part of that.
Taro T Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Back to back 110 point seasons will be due, in part, to the number of "three point" games the team played. A proper comparison with the 70's requires subtracting the second point earned in an OT or shootout win. Even that is a little inexact because without the OT/shootout a team may have "lost" a tie late going for broke. I will agree that the 3 point game factors in to a SMALL part, but b-t-b 110 pointers is an indication in any era that the team is one of the absolute top teams in the league. Where that 3rd point factors in is in the # of 90+ point teams we see vs. 80 point teams. It's not as big a factor at the top of the heap, IMHO. The cream rose in the past and still does today, with or without the 3 point game. Additionally, while the '70's teams didn't get an OT point nor the chance to win in OT, the modern teams don't get to play the Seals, Caps, Scouts, Barons, North Stars, Dead Things, and pretty much the entire '70's era Smythe Division teams. While we may see 1 - 2 lousy teams per year today, 30 years ago there were several lousy teams with 1-2 that would have lost consistently to the Habs' farm teams. Without actually doing the calcs, I'd expect that playing those teams vs getting a SO win makes it a wash for the top teams of both eras. It's the mediocre teams that benefit from "grade inflation".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.