stuhast41 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 link I think rather than wanting to run over Darcy Tucker, most Sabre fans would like to run you over, Jerry. Christ, I am usually a glass is half empty guy myself but please....DO YOU THINK YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTER MAYBE THE START OF FA BEFORE WRITING SUCH GARBAGE?
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 Sounds like he decided to skip the drive to Niagara Falls, where he could have actually talked to someone, and spent the half hour reading this board instead ...
stuhast41 Posted June 26, 2008 Author Report Posted June 26, 2008 He was probably too busy scouting and creating a glowing piece about the inept Canisius College (my alma mater) basketball program to do any significant research.
nucci Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 Does he really think Tucker or Avery would help this team?
Bmwolf21 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 Despite his persona-non-grata status around here, he hit the nail on the head with these two paragraphs: The Sabres don?t need to clean house. But it wouldn?t hurt to rearrange the furniture. Management acknowledges that the team wasn?t big or tough enough last season, and that it needs better leadership and more of a competitive edge. and The more optimistic fans believe the Sabres are a small tweak away from contention. I?m not so sure. The Sabres will be hard-pressed to keep up in the East. This roster is more likely to be fighting for eighth place again than first. If the Sabres don?t develop more of a physical edge, they could miss the playoffs again. If that happens, they won?t be selling out the house, but cleaning it. Sounds like he decided to skip the drive to Niagara Falls, where he could have actually talked to someone, and spent the half hour reading this board instead ... Well gas prices are pretty high, you know...;)
RayFinkle Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 That is one of the single biggest turds to come out of Sully in a while. Good to see he isn't losing his touch, or lack there of.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 they need a physical edge but one old guy like Tucker is not going to solve the problem ... in general they need to play with a chip on their shoulder and play a little pissed off. That's what they did in 05-06, everyone thought they would suck and they wanted to prove people wrong. Then they started 06-07 with 10 wins and spent the whole season trying to play "poised" because they had a target on them now. Well, screw poised. It turned into "tentative" really quick ... But here we are again, everyone thinks they will suck ... make changes, for sure, but at least 15 guys are going to be the same, even if Darcy does everything we want ... if they don't regain that chip on their shoulder, Tucker's tired act is not going to help.
stuhast41 Posted June 26, 2008 Author Report Posted June 26, 2008 Yes - agreed - we need a physical presence on the back end - but at least give Darcy a CHANCE to address it before ripping them. Staggering.
ROC Sabres Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 Anyone listen to the interviews they gave the new guys. I heard a couple of people ask, "How do you think you will do in Rochester?". Ughhhhhhhhhh.... They must have missed that big press conference up in Portland a few weeks back. Wolf, I agree with the first quote but the second one CAN be addressed with some small tweak (and yes, I consider the free agency market small tweaks since it's a common practice for all teams now... well, almost all teams <_< ).
Bmwolf21 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 Anyone listen to the interviews they gave the new guys. I heard a couple of people ask, "How do you think you will do in Rochester?". Ughhhhhhhhhh.... They must have missed that big press conference up in Portland a few weeks back. Wolf, I agree with the first quote but the second one CAN be addressed with some small tweak (and yes, I consider the free agency market small tweaks since it's a common practice for all teams now... well, almost all teams <_< ). You're right, it CAN be addressed with some changes, but I don't call them small tweaks because I think it's beyond that. There needs to be a couple significant changes, IMO, and this is where I agree with Sully (and that makes me shudder): So Regier has a lot of work to do if he intends to transform his team?s personality in a meaningful way. The unrestricted free agency period begins Tuesday. We?ll find out soon if they plan to shake up the roster or simply tweak it. And that was really the point of Sully's column - we don't need to blow it up and start over, but just make a few moves to get better. The question is whether those changes will be made, or whether we go into next season with a soft defense, a questionable no.2 goalie, a second-line center made of glass, and with guys like Max eating up cap space.
Screamin'Weasel Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 You're right, it CAN be addressed with some changes, but I don't call them small tweaks because I think it's beyond that. There needs to be a couple significant changes, IMO, and this is where I agree with Sully (and that makes me shudder):So Regier has a lot of work to do if he intends to transform his team?s personality in a meaningful way. The unrestricted free agency period begins Tuesday. We?ll find out soon if they plan to shake up the roster or simply tweak it. And that was really the point of Sully's column - we don't need to blow it up and start over, but just make a few moves to get better. The question is whether those changes will be made, or whether we go into next season with a soft defense, a questionable no.2 goalie, a second-line center made of glass, and with guys like Max eating up cap space. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the definition of "small tweaks?"
Bmwolf21 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Posted June 26, 2008 Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the definition of "small tweaks?" No, and I think we're getting caught up in semantics here. Changing one-two players -- adding one and/or getting rid of one -- is making small tweaks. Needing a no.2 center; at least one, maybe two defensemen; a solid, veteran backup goalie and needing to drop at least one underachieving forward represents over 20% turnover (5 players out of 23) so I don't count that as tweaking the roster. I see that as significant changes but not a full-on rebuilding.
sabregoats Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 You're right, it CAN be addressed with some changes, but I don't call them small tweaks because I think it's beyond that. There needs to be a couple significant changes, IMO, and this is where I agree with Sully (and that makes me shudder):So Regier has a lot of work to do if he intends to transform his team?s personality in a meaningful way. The unrestricted free agency period begins Tuesday. We?ll find out soon if they plan to shake up the roster or simply tweak it. And that was really the point of Sully's column - we don't need to blow it up and start over, but just make a few moves to get better. The question is whether those changes will be made, or whether we go into next season with a soft defense, a questionable no.1 & 2goalie, a second-line center made of glass, and with guys like Max eating up cap space. fixed it
wonderbread Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 Thanks for weighing in... <_< Classic! BTW BM whats up with the sig quotes? You should take out some add space for them!
Bmwolf21 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 Classic! BTW BM whats up with the sig quotes? You should take out some add space for them! Just trying to squeeze in all the required pieces of flair on my posts...I think I'm gonna have to cut them down if I want to hit the required 15.
james duncan Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 IMO, Sullivan is a cocky SOB. But the article is not one of his worst. It's thought-provoking. I don't understand the following: "Brooks Orpik, a gritty defenseman and a local guy, would be a welcome addition. Of course, if Orpik is worth $4 million a season, it seems even more foolhardy that the Sabres wouldn?t negotiate a deal in the $4.6 million range with Brian Campbell last summer." No one will confuse these two. Sully talks about the lack of grit and would take issue with signing Orpik--who he describes as a "gritty" defensemen instead of Campbell for similar money? The Sabres still have to execute, but to me that'd be a calculated move to get tougher. I'd be ecstatic if we pulled this off. As for Tucker? JUST SAY NO! I can't see him even being on the Sabres radar--pray he's not.
gg1 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 But that is the whole point. Mr. "My Cereal Milk is Yellow & Sour" ripped the team before free agency even started. He ripped on them about the draft, even though there wasn't a single player available at #13 or #12 that could offer immediate help, never mind an upgrade of who's already on the roster. He ripped the team for not being mind readers that Max would be injured in '07 and returning as a shell of his former self. How dare Darcy not being able to see the future? How dare the team not expect Stafford to hit a soph slump? And please, don't think that I believe everything is fine in Sabreland. But I do take offense to people ripping the team for things outside their control and for actions that haven't yet happened.
inkman Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 Does he really think Tucker or Avery would help this team? I do. :unsure:
deluca67 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 Does he really think Tucker or Avery would help this team? Shouldn't Gaustad be our Avery/Tucker? The Sabres shouldn't have to go out and spend money bringing in another body to do Gaustad's job. He's 6' 5" 225lbs, he should be the face of the Sabres toughness. He's not, which is a huge disappointment.
Bmwolf21 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 Shouldn't Gaustad be our Avery/Tucker? The Sabres shouldn't have to go out and spend money bringing in another body to do Gaustad's job. He's 6' 5" 225lbs, he should be the face of the Sabres toughness. He's not, which is a huge disappointment. I think they're different roles. Tucker/Avery are pests, instigators who can chip in some offense. The more apt comparison would be Kaleta. If he can develop a little touch offensively and give then 10 goals and 20 assists this year, we wouldn't need Avery/Tucker. As it is I don't want Tucker anyway. He's not the same player he was a few years ago -- he's older, a slower and not as much of a PITA as he was in the past. Avery I'm not so sure about - if he wasn't too expensive I'd consider him, but I also don't want to see his usual BS.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 I agree (believe it or not, Wolf!) ... just because Gaustad is big doesn't mean he has to be a jerk ... I would like him to play more physical sometimes but ... if you want someone to play right on the edge and sometimes go over it, that is Kaleta ... gaustad has his head screwed on way too straight to be Tucker or Avery.
Bmwolf21 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 I agree (believe it or not, Wolf!) ... just because Gaustad is big doesn't mean he has to be a jerk ... I would like him to play more physical sometimes but ... if you want someone to play right on the edge and sometimes go over it, that is Kaleta ... gaustad has his head screwed on way too straight to be Tucker or Avery. :blink: That's it, I'm stopping at the gas station on the way to work tonight and pick up a mega millions ticket or two.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 Do I get a cut if you win? tell you what, buy $10 worth and I'll send you $5, win or lose ... we split the winnings ... something good has to come out of that goon thread, ! ;)
Bmwolf21 Posted June 27, 2008 Report Posted June 27, 2008 Do I get a cut if you win?tell you what, buy $10 worth and I'll send you $5, win or lose ... we split the winnings ... something good has to come out of that goon thread, ! ;) :lol: If I win I'll need someone to help me move funds out of the country. Just provide your bank account information and you'll get a cut of the winnings...I promise. ;)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.