ROC Sabres Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Even that would have been acceptable. We didn't even get set up for the cycle. Oh well, think its about time for Ruff to pull out the boggle and see what new lines he can come up with, doesn't seem like too much meshing going on.
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Total garbage goal!!! Yeah!!! Buffalo: :worthy: Florida: :censored:
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 There we go.TC I think. They gave it to him... I think Lydman had more to do with that goal but oh well..
ROC Sabres Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 They gave it to him... I think Lydman had more to do with that goal but oh well.. I really didn't think connolly touched it at all but thats just me.
JujuFish Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 They gave it to him... I think Lydman had more to do with that goal but oh well.. It was Connolly's harassment that caused the Florida player to mishandle the puck. However, I'm not sure he actually touched it.
Two or less Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 What the hell happened to our PP? Believe it or not, but this year's power play has improved from last year.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Just turned the game on, 1-1...........Lets go Sabres........ :beer: :beer: :beer:
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Just turned the game on, 1-1...........Lets go Sabres........ :beer: :beer: :beer: You haven't missed anything..
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Well that PP looked better... Back-to-back PP for Buffalo... Time to salt this game away..
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Buffalo PP And there it is.. Vanek gets a B-day goal... Buffalo: :worthy: :worthy: Florida: :censored:
ROC Sabres Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 I think it's time for Vanek to start putting the puck in the net again. He been a little quiet lately. More players need to take the puck to the net like Stafford did in the first. Ask.... and you shall receive.
Foligno's Nose Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 The offense will need to be addressed. After finishing in the top five in goals scored annually since the lockout, they are not on that pace this year. Currently @ 19th in goals scored. Does not necessarily translate into a playoff spot (See last year) Oh... 2-1 TV! The night of the dribblers.
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Panthers PP... Mair got one for something.... Sure didn't see it on camera...
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 getting interesting now... 4 on 3... Tripping and a dive... what happened??? It's now 5 on 4 with only Mair in the box...
ROC Sabres Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 getting interesting now... 4 on 3... Tripping and a dive... I still don't understand how they can call both. Is it just me or is it one or the other?
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 I still don't understand how they can call both. Is it just me or is it one or the other? It always seems like a coward's call... I must not understand the rules... They call both for a penalty and neither one goes to the box...
DR HOLLIDAY Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 I still don't understand how they can call both. Is it just me or is it one or the other? Especially in this case, that was a total dive by McCrap
Eleven Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 It always seems like a coward's call... I must not understand the rules... They call both for a penalty and neither one goes to the box... They went to the box. The rule is somewhat silly, but I can understand the underpinnings of it, I guess.
ROC Sabres Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 It always seems like a coward's call... I must not understand the rules... They call both for a penalty and neither one goes to the box... They should change it so only the person that dives gets the penalty. I don't think they are offsetting. If someone hacks someone else intentionally fine, but if they have their stick between there legs and they fall intentionally, call it on the diver and not the guy without a stick.
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 They went to the box. The rule is somewhat silly, but I can understand the underpinnings of it, I guess. Then why didn't it become a 4 on 3? It stayed a 5 on 4...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.