Buffalo Fan Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I think this is a bad indicator. THe kid has been up for 3 games and he LEADS THE TEAM in +/-?!?!?!!! At +3??? What happened to Vanek's +47 in 06-07? Or Talinder's +19? Or Pomms +25!!! I can't tell if Miller is below average, or this team just isn't as responsible as it used to be. These kinds of comparisons go up and down the roster. I think if I were Lindy, I would be pretty pissed...
spndnchz Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I think this is a bad indicator. THe kid has been up for 3 games and he LEADS THE TEAM in +/-?!?!?!!! At +3??? What happened to Vanek's +47 in 06-07? Or Talinder's +19? Or Pomms +25!!! I can't tell if Miller is below average, or this team just isn't as responsible as it used to be. These kinds of comparisons go up and down the roster. I think if I were Lindy, I would be pretty pissed... He's only been up for 2 and is getting Roy to produce. Me thinkie Lindy not mad.
Bmwolf21 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I think this is a bad indicator. THe kid has been up for 3 games and he LEADS THE TEAM in +/-?!?!?!!! At +3??? What happened to Vanek's +47 in 06-07? Or Talinder's +19? Or Pomms +25!!! I can't tell if Miller is below average, or this team just isn't as responsible as it used to be. These kinds of comparisons go up and down the roster. I think if I were Lindy, I would be pretty pissed... Thwoing out the flaws of the plus/minus stat for a second, a quick look at the numbers: In 06-07 Buffalo led the league with 212 even-strength goals, while giving up just 151 ES tallies. We had one 40-goal scorer, three 30-goal scorers, and three 20-goal scorers. That doesn't include Hecht's 19 or Kotalik's 16 (in 66 games.) This year's +/- numbers are probably a combination of things - the team hasn't played well for large stretches of the season, they definitely aren't scoring at the same pace as that 06-07 team, and the switch to a more defensively responsible hasn't been smooth. Not to mention inconsistency from the goaltending position.
shrader Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 This year's +/- numbers are probably a combination of things - the team hasn't played well for large stretches of the season, they definitely aren't scoring at the same pace as that 06-07 team, and the switch to a more defensively responsible hasn't been smooth. Not to mention inconsistency from the goaltending position. Nevermind the fact that this team has only played 27 games. Yeah, they're not going to hit those '06 figures, but they will look different when May rolls around.
Bmwolf21 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Nevermind the fact that this team has only played 27 games. Yeah, they're not going to hit those '06 figures, but they will look different when May rolls around. True.
SabresFan526 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I think this is a bad indicator. THe kid has been up for 3 games and he LEADS THE TEAM in +/-?!?!?!!! At +3??? What happened to Vanek's +47 in 06-07? Or Talinder's +19? Or Pomms +25!!! I can't tell if Miller is below average, or this team just isn't as responsible as it used to be. These kinds of comparisons go up and down the roster. I think if I were Lindy, I would be pretty pissed... If you've watched most of the games this year, there is a very consistent and recurring theme that keeps appearing when the Sabres give up goals. Most of the goals they have given up this year have come from transition defense breakdowns with a trailer or open man skating free in the slot or the backdoor and who is not picked up by any of the Sabres forwards on the backcheck. It has been a recurring problem all season long. Even the first Fedetenko goal was due to him not being picked up by anyone on the transition. There have generally been a lot of defensive zone breakdowns where either the forwards or the defenseman are not getting back and picking up the trailer and he gets a wide open net to shoot at. Miller's definitely given up the soft goal here and there, but by and large I've noticed that most of the goals this season have been coming from breakdowns by the forwards in the defensive zone not picking up the open man. Maybe you could argue that Miller should be faster at covering the other side of the net, but Miller comes out pretty far to cut the angle and so it's almost impossible for him to get back fast enough to cover the other side of the post, which makes it even more critical for the forwards to be responsible in the defensive end and pickup the trailer and make sure he does not get an open net to shoot at. It's kind of a trade off you have to choose. If Miller does not come out so far to challenge the shooter, he gives the shooter a better angle to shoot at, if Miller stays back in the net he can cover post-to-post better but shooters generally will have better angles to shoot at meaning Miller's reflexes have to be even quicker than most goaltenders. Goalies like Esposito, Fuhr, Brodeur, and Potvin were able to get away with sitting so far back in the net because they had glove hands and reflexes faster than most everyone so they could afford to sit back in the net, but a goalie that plays butterfly technique must come out to challenge the shooter and cut down the angle, which can leave them vulnerable to the backdoor play. This is why Jay McKee was so valuable with his blocked shots and why the Sabres need to play sound responsible defense to cover the backdoor and pickup the trailer on the transition. Just one man's take. Apologies for hijacking the thread on Nathan Gerbe's +/-.
el_Polako Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 and people wonder why Darcy said that changes need to come from within
billsrcursed Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 If you've watched most of the games this year, there is a very consistent and recurring theme that keeps appearing when the Sabres give up goals. Most of the goals they have given up this year have come from transition defense breakdowns with a trailer or open man skating free in the slot or the backdoor and who is not picked up by any of the Sabres forwards on the backcheck. It has been a recurring problem all season long. Even the first Fedetenko goal was due to him not being picked up by anyone on the transition. There have generally been a lot of defensive zone breakdowns where either the forwards or the defenseman are not getting back and picking up the trailer and he gets a wide open net to shoot at. Miller's definitely given up the soft goal here and there, but by and large I've noticed that most of the goals this season have been coming from breakdowns by the forwards in the defensive zone not picking up the open man. Maybe you could argue that Miller should be faster at covering the other side of the net, but Miller comes out pretty far to cut the angle and so it's almost impossible for him to get back fast enough to cover the other side of the post, which makes it even more critical for the forwards to be responsible in the defensive end and pickup the trailer and make sure he does not get an open net to shoot at. It's kind of a trade off you have to choose. If Miller does not come out so far to challenge the shooter, he gives the shooter a better angle to shoot at, if Miller stays back in the net he can cover post-to-post better but shooters generally will have better angles to shoot at meaning Miller's reflexes have to be even quicker than most goaltenders. Goalies like Esposito, Fuhr, Brodeur, and Potvin were able to get away with sitting so far back in the net because they had glove hands and reflexes faster than most everyone so they could afford to sit back in the net, but a goalie that plays butterfly technique must come out to challenge the shooter and cut down the angle, which can leave them vulnerable to the backdoor play. This is why Jay McKee was so valuable with his blocked shots and why the Sabres need to play sound responsible defense to cover the backdoor and pickup the trailer on the transition. Just one man's take. Apologies for hijacking the thread on Nathan Gerbe's +/-. I see your point, but I would take it even further and suggest some of our D -men are pinching a little too much and getting caught. That leaves 1 D man back w/forwards trying like hell to catch up. I know this isn't the case on EVERY goal, but I'm noticing this A LOT. Seems that Lydman and Tallinder are usually the guilty parties, and when they pinch, they're getting out worked for the puck. I enjoy our aggressive play in the offensive zone, and often times our pinch is warranted, I just think there are times where it isn't worth it. Paetsch was guilty of this alot as well, when he was playing. If you're gonna pinch, you HAVE to win that puck battle along the boards.This is just a portion of our horrid transition play overall. The book is out on Miller, which I think is why his play hasn't been as good as in years past. Bottomline is if you get him moving side to side, he's swiss cheese. Your point that he comes out to eliminate the angle is dead on, but EVERYONE knows this now and is taking advantage of this. They've been making him look WAY out of position this year. I hope someone on OUR team notices this and shows him the appropriate adjustments needed to prevent this from continuing to happen. Sorry for continuing the threadjack, I couldn't help myself.
wjag Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I see your point, but I would take it even further and suggest some of our D -men are pinching a little too much and getting caught. That leaves 1 D man back w/forwards trying like hell to catch up. I know this isn't the case on EVERY goal, but I'm noticing this A LOT. Seems that Lydman and Tallinder are usually the guilty parties, and when they pinch, they're getting out worked for the puck. I enjoy our aggressive play in the offensive zone, and often times our pinch is warranted, I just think there are times where it isn't worth it. Paetsch was guilty of this alot as well, when he was playing. If you're gonna pinch, you HAVE to win that puck battle along the boards.This is just a portion of our horrid transition play overall. The book is out on Miller, which I think is why his play hasn't been as good as in years past. Bottomline is if you get him moving side to side, he's swiss cheese. Your point that he comes out to eliminate the angle is dead on, but EVERYONE knows this now and is taking advantage of this. They've been making him look WAY out of position this year. I hope someone on OUR team notices this and shows him the appropriate adjustments needed to prevent this from continuing to happen. Sorry for continuing the threadjack, I couldn't help myself. Isn't this the bottom line for every goalie? A goalie that doesn't have to move can concentrate on the shot and protecting a zone of the goal. A goalie on the move is clearly improvising and vulnerable.
Buffalo Fan Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Posted December 10, 2008 If you've watched most of the games this year, there is a very consistent and recurring theme that keeps appearing when the Sabres give up goals. Most of the goals they have given up this year have come from transition defense breakdowns with a trailer or open man skating free in the slot or the backdoor and who is not picked up by any of the Sabres forwards on the backcheck. It has been a recurring problem all season long. Even the first Fedetenko goal was due to him not being picked up by anyone on the transition. There have generally been a lot of defensive zone breakdowns where either the forwards or the defenseman are not getting back and picking up the trailer and he gets a wide open net to shoot at. Miller's definitely given up the soft goal here and there, but by and large I've noticed that most of the goals this season have been coming from breakdowns by the forwards in the defensive zone not picking up the open man. Maybe you could argue that Miller should be faster at covering the other side of the net, but Miller comes out pretty far to cut the angle and so it's almost impossible for him to get back fast enough to cover the other side of the post, which makes it even more critical for the forwards to be responsible in the defensive end and pickup the trailer and make sure he does not get an open net to shoot at. It's kind of a trade off you have to choose. If Miller does not come out so far to challenge the shooter, he gives the shooter a better angle to shoot at, if Miller stays back in the net he can cover post-to-post better but shooters generally will have better angles to shoot at meaning Miller's reflexes have to be even quicker than most goaltenders. Goalies like Esposito, Fuhr, Brodeur, and Potvin were able to get away with sitting so far back in the net because they had glove hands and reflexes faster than most everyone so they could afford to sit back in the net, but a goalie that plays butterfly technique must come out to challenge the shooter and cut down the angle, which can leave them vulnerable to the backdoor play. This is why Jay McKee was so valuable with his blocked shots and why the Sabres need to play sound responsible defense to cover the backdoor and pickup the trailer on the transition. Just one man's take. Apologies for hijacking the thread on Nathan Gerbe's +/-. No apology necessary, this is exactly what I wanted to hear. Do we have anyone on the back line not affraid to block shots?
inkman Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I'm not sure what annoys me more, the fact that no one seems to be able to spell ridiculous or Tom Webster's consistent butchering of Kaleta (only one T please).
SabreInFla Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I'm not sure what annoys me more, the fact that no one seems to be able to spell ridiculous or Tom Websters consistent butchering of Kaleta (only one T please). I'll go with the spelling of ridiculous......................
nucci Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I'll go with the spelling of ridiculous...................... agree.
Patty16 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 He's only been up for 2 and is getting Roy to produce. Me thinkie Lindy not mad. Well i think teams still try to pound the smallest guy, its just not lil roysie anymore.
RayFinkle Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 He's only been up for 2 and is getting Roy to produce. Me thinkie Lindy not mad. I have noticed since Gerbe has come up, suddenly Roy isn't taking his dives and falling down when somebody gives him a light check. Tough to play the little guy role when you have 4 inches and 20 lbs on your linemate.
shrader Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I have noticed since Gerbe has come up, suddenly Roy isn't taking his dives and falling down when somebody gives him a light check. Tough to play the little guy role when you have 4 inches and 20 lbs on your linemate. Don't worry, Gerbe can more for make up for any player in this league in the diving department. Just wait until he pulls his patented "grab the opponent's stick and fall on it" move.
Chief Enabler Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Don't worry, Gerbe can more for make up for any player in this league in the diving department. Just wait until he pulls his patented "grab the opponent's stick and fall on it" move. Gerbe definetly has a personality on the ice for sure, after 2 games he has not warmed up at all. Overall, having a shooting and speedy Gerbe is obviously one more weapon to keep an eye on; something I dont think Mancari brought. Looking at the current roster Roy, Poms, Vanek and Gerbe are the only ones I see that can score, everyone else is either single digits or in the teens for the season.
Stoner Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 OK, is it Ger-bee or Ger-BAY? Rick said BAY the other night.
wjag Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 OK, is it Ger-bee or Ger-BAY? Rick said BAY the other night. Rick always pronounces even the toughest names correctly.. It is a part of his craft. It must be Ger-bay..
carpandean Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 OK, is it Ger-bee or Ger-BAY? Rick said BAY the other night. My French is a little rusty, but I believe his name was originally (like off the boat) Gerb?, which is pronounced ger-bay (note, in Frech, Gerbe would pronounced gerb, while gerb? and gerbes would be pronounced ger-bay.) Based on the etymology, his family was originally wheat farmers or, at least, worked in the wheat fields. The Americanized pronunciation would be Ger-bee, but we also turned Roy from Wah into Roi.
JujuFish Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 the fact that no one seems to be able to spell ridiculous I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets annoyed by that. Another word that's just as bad: definitely.
Stoner Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I'm not sure what annoys me more, the fact that no one seems to be able to spell ridiculous or Tom Webster's consistent butchering of Kaleta (only one T please). And your old favorite, "then" instead of "than," which showed up in Kelley's article.
carpandean Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets annoyed by that. Another word that's just as bad: definitely. I don't know if it's just in Firefox, but with iSpell installed, it spell checks as you type in post boxes. It puts a red underline below spelling mistakes. Doesn't help with to/two/too and there/their/they're, but will remind you that it's "ridiculous", not "rediculous". And your old favorite, "then" instead of "than," which showed up in Kelley's article. Yeah, that's a personal favorite of mine, too.
Stoner Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Rick always pronounces even the toughest names correctly.. It is a part of his craft. It must be Ger-bay.. I wonder if Rick has something special planned for Gerbe's first goal? Gerbee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee would be hilarious and a nice nod to a certain other diminutive Sabre. But of course, not if it's Ger-BAY. Maybe Rick could launch into a "Dear Old Mammy" routine.
carpandean Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I wonder if Rick has something special planned for Gerbe's first goal? Gerbee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee-bee would be hilarious and a nice nod to a certain other diminutive Sabre. But of course, not if it's Ger-BAY. Maybe Rick could launch into a "Dear Old Mammy" routine. He'll probably go with a "say goodbye to Portland, say hello to Buffalo" like he did for Mancari. :rolleyes: Actually, I'm expecting a "Grrr-BAY! Grrr-BAY! Grrr-BAY!"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.