carpandean Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 People can say what they want about Briere, but Philly & Pittsburgh both made the right moves and it pisses me off to see them that far in the playoffs when we were one step ahead of the Pens the last 2 years, and Philly was the last place team in the NHL just 1 year ago. I'll give management 1 more year to right the ship, but I don't have high confidence in them. Yeah, we should have really tanked this season to finish in the cellar. Pittsburgh did it in 2003-04 and 2005-06, then the Flyers did it in 2006-07, and look at them now! When we have a bad season, we still can't do any worse than just out of the playoffs. We can't even get that part right! :nana:
tom webster Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 I guess this thread just won't die. Should we start a new one titled "The Pomminstein Waiver: What does it really suggest?" Darcy has said on the record, and recently, that they got lucky with Pomminstein. And the context of the discussion was that every team gets lucky some times, and every team makes decisions that hindsight reveals probably should not have been made. No front office is perfect, just like no team is perfect. That being said, I still don't understand what they see in Peters. The guy just does not have enough game for my taste. There are enforcers with skill out there and we could certainly use an upgrade in that role. But I digress: Briere. He's good. But not good enough to warrant year-long (and counting) arguments and lamentation. He has moved on and so too should fans. A couple of points why I don't see the need for this thread to stop. 1) For the most part, the discussion has been intelligent save for a few of the extremes on both side, and interesting at least to me. 2) Every post is another opportunity for DeLuca to show just how irrelevant he is. He rips on Briere for not being an elite offensive player, spends his afternoon doing research to prove his hypothesis, then proves himself wrong so he adds new argumnents to the mix. Now he's sunken to dismissing Briere's contributions by lauding Umberger without mentioning the fact that Umberger is able to play the third line because of guys like Richards and Briere. You have to admit he is amusing.
tom webster Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 Nobody likes the idea of losing key guys. And nobody cheered the day the Flyers signed Briere. I grumbled for a few days, too. He's easy to cheer for and clearly a good guy. Fun to watch skate and play. Sometimes astonishingly good in shootouts. Etc. But come on, it gets to the point where dwelling on losses past and worrying about losses future detracts from the fun of being a fan of the team. But to say that we're not in the ECF (or playoffs) this year because we didn't have Briere or Drury is oversimplifying it. An array of factors kept us out, and I don't think we need to rehash those factors. It's also important, vitally important, that we all open our eyes to the reality that the league has swung back in the other direction. Interference isn't called like it was during the 05-06 playoffs. Clearly the NHL does not want the game to become a league of mighty mites with blazing speed and dazzling skill. They seem to prefer a game in which size and physicality prevail. I like both aspects of the game, but I stopped watching hockey for years because it had become so boring, with all those 1-0 games and 1-1 ties resulting in no winner in the point column. It was a time investment that felt like a total drag. And I hope they don't let it get back to that. I agree that pre-lockout hockey was a bore but it is just another Sabre excuse (reason) for blowing up their team. Look at the three remaining teams. Do Detroit, Pittsburgh and Philly strike you as boring? The Sabres could have been right up there with these three teams with a couple of tweaks but instead part of their explanation was the need to go back to some old style hockey, which coincidentally would translate into cheaper as tough, hard nose players are cheaper then highly skilled ones.
SabreNod Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 A couple of points why I don't see the need for this thread to stop.1) For the most part, the discussion has been intelligent save for a few of the extremes on both side, and interesting at least to me. 2) Every post is another opportunity for DeLuca to show just how irrelevant he is. He rips on Briere for not being an elite offensive player, spends his afternoon doing research to prove his hypothesis, then proves himself wrong so he adds new argumnents to the mix. Now he's sunken to dismissing Briere's contributions by lauding Umberger without mentioning the fact that Umberger is able to play the third line because of guys like Richards and Briere. You have to admit he is amusing. I think his avatar is amusing. But there are decent arguments on both sides. It's not like there's some Platonic Truth out there regarding Briere and the branched discussions based on his contributions to the Sabres and Flyers, and managements handling of him before his market value exploded. They're fan opinions. And clearly, everyone's opinions are entrenched. I don't think there has been much in the way of illumination, save for my education in plus minus. Which is why I'd love to see new, more interesting and forward-looking threads at the top of the list.
carpandean Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 I agree that pre-lockout hockey was a bore but it is just another Sabre excuse (reason) for blowing up their team. Look at the three remaining teams. Do Detroit, Pittsburgh and Philly strike you as boring? The Sabres could have been right up there with these three teams with a couple of tweaks but instead part of their explanation was the need to go back to some old style hockey, which coincidentally would translate into cheaper as tough, hard nose players are cheaper then highly skilled ones. Honest question, not sarcastic at all: did the Sabres' organization actually ever say this? I know a lot of fans have said this, but I didn't think that the FO actually had. Lindy suggested that if people wanted them to play a physical, banging type game, then they would have to get those type of players, because they don't have them. However, that didn't strike me as a suggestion of what they should do, just why they were playing they way they were. They did say they needed a little more physical presence when they grabbed Bernier, but I still don't remember them ever saying that they didn't sign Drury or Briere because they needed a more physical, Old NHL type team. Did I miss it?
tom webster Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 I think his avatar is amusing. But there are decent arguments on both sides. It's not like there's some Platonic Truth out there regarding Briere and the branched discussions based on his contributions to the Sabres and Flyers, and managements handling of him before his market value exploded. They're fan opinions. And clearly, everyone's opinions are entrenched. I don't think there has been much in the way of illumination, save for my education in plus minus. Which is why I'd love to see new, more interesting and forward-looking threads at the top of the list. I waiting to start that the thread when Buffalo actually signs one of the two prospects or one of the restricted free agents it has to deal with. Right now, however, I don't think anyone would consider this off season interesting.
Taro T Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 I agree that pre-lockout hockey was a bore but it is just another Sabre excuse (reason) for blowing up their team. Look at the three remaining teams. Do Detroit, Pittsburgh and Philly strike you as boring? The Sabres could have been right up there with these three teams with a couple of tweaks but instead part of their explanation was the need to go back to some old style hockey, which coincidentally would translate into cheaper as tough, hard nose players are cheaper then highly skilled ones. Not sure I'm following you on this one. Have the Sabres been stating a reason for not re-signing Danny and Chris and not bringing in an additional leader when Teppo became unavailable is due to loosening of the penalty standards? (I haven't followed them as closely as normal this year as my workload has increased substantially this past winter.)
carpandean Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 A funny fact that just occured to me: last year (2006-07), our top three line centers averaged 5' 9-2/3", but Gaustad single-handedly brought the overall average for centers up to 5' 11-1/4".
tom webster Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 Not sure I'm following you on this one. Have the Sabres been stating a reason for not re-signing Danny and Chris and not bringing in an additional leader when Teppo became unavailable is due to loosening of the penalty standards? (I haven't followed them as closely as normal this year as my workload has increased substantially this past winter.) Not the Sabres. More than one poster has said that the team was retooling because of the new NHL. Several posters make it seem that last year was a complete illusion and one poster even believes they were just lucky. They have rationalized CD and DB's departure in the beilief the team will be better for it in this new old NHL. I do believe, however, that the Sabres have helped perpetuate the myth that a primary reason for their failure this year has to do with this new old NHL. Furthermore, I do believe their changing the make up of this team is derived in part by the realization that a defensive team cost less then an offensive team.
stenbaro Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 Not the Sabres. More than one poster has said that the team was retooling because of the new NHL. Several posters make it seem that last year was a complete illusion and one poster even believes they were just lucky. They have rationalized CD and DB's departure in the beilief the team will be better for it in this new old NHL. I do believe, however, that the Sabres have helped perpetuate the myth that a primary reason for their failure this year has to do with this new old NHL. Furthermore, I do believe their changing the make up of this team is derived in part by the realization that a defensive team cost less then an offensive team. It will only work with a time machine to bring back Hasek of the 90's..LOL
carpandean Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 4 .. 5 .. 6 .. 7 .. 8 .. 9 .. 10 .. 11 .. 12 .. 13 .. 14 .. 15 .. 16 .. 17 .. 18 .. 19 .. 20 .. 21 .. 22 .. 23 .. 24 .. 25 .. 26 .. 27 .. 28 .. 29 .. 30 .. WE WANT 31!!!!!
Bmwolf21 Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 4 .. 5 .. 6 .. 7 .. 8 .. 9 .. 10 .. 11 .. 12 .. 13 .. 14 .. 15 .. 16 .. 17 .. 18 .. 19 .. 20 .. 21 .. 22 .. 23 .. 24 .. 25 .. 26 .. 27 .. 28 .. 29 .. 30 ..WE WANT 31!!!!! Steve Shields? I know Ryan's play left a lot to be desired this year, but isn't that a little drastic?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 With players like Briere & Drury on the team, we went to 2 Eastern Conference Finals. Without them, we finished in 10th place...is that just a coincedence? Yes! :nana: :nana:
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 Only for the foolish :thumbsup: :blush: :blush:
carpandean Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 Steve Shields? I know Ryan's play left a lot to be desired this year, but isn't that a little drastic? No, no. I want Puppa!
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 Not the Sabres. More than one poster has said that the team was retooling because of the new NHL. Several posters make it seem that last year was a complete illusion and one poster even believes they were just lucky. They have rationalized CD and DB's departure in the beilief the team will be better for it in this new old NHL. I do believe, however, that the Sabres have helped perpetuate the myth that a primary reason for their failure this year has to do with this new old NHL. Furthermore, I do believe their changing the make up of this team is derived in part by the realization that a defensive team cost less then an offensive team. And now the biggy... A Good and sound defensive team almost ALWAYS has the advantage when talking about a Cup win... Like the saying in football... "Good D's win championships." And of course it is money... If logically you can get what you want (a Cup) and spend the least amount to do it... Why not?
Bmwolf21 Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 No, no. I want Puppa! I was going to go with Joe Reekie but couldn't tie it together with a joke.
carpandean Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 I was going to go with Joe Reekie but couldn't tie it together with a joke. Here's one for mine: After the crap I saw this year, I'd rather watch some Puppa! :thumbsup:
Bmwolf21 Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 And now the biggy... A Good and sound defensive team almost ALWAYS has the advantage when talking about a Cup win... Like the saying in football... "Good D's win championships."And of course it is money... If logically you can get what you want (a Cup) and spend the least amount to do it... Why not? Which is part of the reason why I wanted them to keep Drury and not Briere...Roy as the no.1 (better offense), Dru as the no.2 (better defense) but both can play both ways, and both can play the PK and PP.
Mike Oxhurtz Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 Yes! :nana: :nana: What's the excuse going to be if we don't make it to the playoffs again next year?
GoatheadInCT Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 I was going to go with Joe Reekie but couldn't tie it together with a joke. ANYTHING is better than seeing Grant Fuhr on the bench pouting like a little kid!!! :chris:
GoatheadInCT Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 What's the excuse going to be if we don't make it to the playoffs again next year? And that my friend inspires a thread!!!! :)
stenbaro Posted May 5, 2008 Report Posted May 5, 2008 :blush: :blush: ouch..you walked into that one...lol :thumbsup:
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 6, 2008 Report Posted May 6, 2008 What's the excuse going to be if we don't make it to the playoffs again next year? Talk to me in 4 years! :death: :nana:
apuszczalowski Posted May 6, 2008 Report Posted May 6, 2008 What's the excuse going to be if we don't make it to the playoffs again next year? That Quinn keeps screwing the team up, and won't let Darcy work his magic, or that the rash of injuries kept them from geling, and that they are still young with a very bright future, and they had to let player 'X' go because player 'Y' will need to be extended and the Sabres need to pinch pennies
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.