deluca67 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Game thoughts... - Forget about going after Gomez. The correct response to Miller getting run was to return the favor and run Lundqvist when the game was in hand. - Roy with a really good game. - Connolly showed on the PP goal why he is so valuable....when healthy. - The little toughness the Sabres have, comes and goes. How does Gaustad skate away after getting punched in the face by Orr? - How about those intangibles last night! :doh: Gaustad had a chance and he decided to wuss out and try to make it 5-1. He should have forgotten about the puck and skated right through Lundqvist.
NowDoYouBelieve Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 There are fans who chose to get emotionally invested in a franchise and a team they have followed since childhood and those fans that chose to stay on the periphery. It really doesn't matter if the players know someone like me exists. They are at best temps and will be long gone from this organization while I will still be here following the Sabres 20 years from now. I'm emotionally invested too, but I'm far more happy when the team wins than I am angry when they lose. I don't consider myself on the periphery, but I just don't let negative aspects of the team get me upset. I consider hockey entertainment, and I want a Stanley Cup more than anything, but a hockey season without a Stanley Cup at the end is still an amazing thing. For a lot of fans, the response to a win is "Ok good. We needed that one." Satisfaction, not happiness. Whereas the response to a loss is "Aw come the f*ck on, these pieces of sh*t are worthless. Why do I even watch if they aren't going to try?" Ire, not disappointment. When happiness and disappointment are replaced with satisfaction and ire, it means you're not having fun watching the game.
NowDoYouBelieve Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Gaustad had a chance and he decided to wuss out and try to make it 5-1. He should have forgotten about the puck and skated right through Lundqvist. And what if the Rags had made it to 4 goals? Would you have wanted the 5th goal then? 4-1 seems like a sure win, but remember when the Isles scored 2 goals on us in a minute and a half? The game wasn't "in hand" until the waning seconds. Every goal is necessary.
deluca67 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 And what if the Rags had made it to 4 goals? Would you have wanted the 5th goal then? 4-1 seems like a sure win, but remember when the Isles scored 2 goals on us in a minute and a half? The game wasn't "in hand" until the waning seconds. Every goal is necessary. The message sent is far more valuable then the two points. The two points are simply there for this team to hide behind. Read this, it may be the best thing written in the Buffalo News Sports section in 30 years. Sully!
NowDoYouBelieve Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 The message sent is far more valuable then the two points. The two points are simply there for this team to hide behind. Read this, it may be the best thing written in the Buffalo News Sports section in 30 years. Sully! I'm sorry, but with our position in the standings, nothing is more important than the two points. And it's not like running Lundqvist would have un-injured Miller.
deluca67 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 I'm sorry, but with our position in the standings, nothing is more important than the two points. And it's not like running Lundqvist would have un-injured Miller. Running Lundvist sends a message that the Sabre goalies are untouchable. Nothing is more important. If the Sabres would have taken care of it earlier Miller wouldn't have been knocked out last night. They are now paying the price.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 I'm sorry, but with our position in the standings, nothing is more important than the two points. And it's not like running Lundqvist would have un-injured Miller. It should never have gotten to the point of deciding whether retaliation or winning this game was more important. Face it, this goes back further than the Gomez hit. Over the last few years this team has allowed teams to repeatedly bang, bump and run our goalies, generally without any repercussions or even the threat of response or retaliation. Now, because they've allowed someone to run Miller (yet again) and injure him, they've put much more than 2 points in jeopardy. With Lalime in net the team is going to have to play very good hockey over the next couple weeks to stay on course until Miller comes back.
sjb012 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 The message sent is far more valuable then the two points. The two points are simply there for this team to hide behind. Read this, it may be the best thing written in the Buffalo News Sports section in 30 years. Sully! You are literally saying it is more important to run another teams goalie than making it to the playoffs. The two points are unbelievably more important than running Gomez or Lundqvist. C'mon man, you are stretching now.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 The message sent is far more valuable then the two points. The two points are simply there for this team to hide behind. Read this, it may be the best thing written in the Buffalo News Sports section in 30 years. Sully! Loved the end: The classic Sabres response: Let the refs take care of it. Maybe some of the softer Sabres can get their big brothers to stick up for them. Or maybe their big sisters. Something has to change if they?re going to survive the physical battle of wills at Stanley Cup time. Of course, Tim Connolly could always finesse teams to death. There?s been an essential lack of toughness on the Sabres since Mike Grier and Jay McKee went out the door. There I go again, bringing up the past. When was the last time one of their defenseman put a real hurting on someone? No one is afraid to play them. Why would anyone fear this bunch after watching video of Gomez?s hit? Ruff didn?t want to risk the two points. But what was the excuse when they went ahead by three goals with eight minutes left? Did it have to be 10-1 before someone took a shot at one of the Rangers and sent a message to the league? They sent a message, all right. It came through loud and clear. Same old Sabres.
sjb012 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 So Sully defines tough as going after Gomez...wow. Just like the people whinning about us not going bonkers, Sully has no clue either.
Kristian Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 You are literally saying it is more important to run another teams goalie than making it to the playoffs. The two points are unbelievably more important than running Gomez or Lundqvist. C'mon man, you are stretching now. No, what he's saying is that in the long run, having other teams respect you enough to not run YOUR goalie gives you a much better chance at making those playoffs. And why is it suddenly a given that if they run Lundy or go after Gomez last night, they lose the game - Everyone speaks as though the refs would've just handed us an automatic 3-0 loss if we did. Fact is we have no clue what would've happened. Seriously, stepping up and protecting your goalie is not to be taken as lightly as some people seem to think. This is about way more than just one single game. "Aw shucks, gosh darn it, tough that we lost our goalie, but we got the two points". Well good for us, but what happens if we do make the playoffs and suddenly catch fire and make it to, say the ECF again, only to find the opposition running Miller through the boards all night, because they watched the video from last night? Teams don't run goalies to draw penalties, they do it to get that goalie off his game or worse. Refs are far more easy on guys standing up for the goalie than anything else on the ice, everybody knows that, so you can't tell me that's the strategy? So what's the excuse? I can live with it if they choose not to do anything about it. I may not agree with it, but it's their call. What I really hate is the excuses.
Stoner Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 I'm having a little trouble with the logic that connects responding to your goalie getting run (ie team toughness) with your goalie not getting run in the future. Just for fun, what five teams are the toughest in the league? Do their goalies ever get run?
Derrico Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Loved the end:The classic Sabres response: Let the refs take care of it. Maybe some of the softer Sabres can get their big brothers to stick up for them. Or maybe their big sisters. Something has to change if they?re going to survive the physical battle of wills at Stanley Cup time. Of course, Tim Connolly could always finesse teams to death. There?s been an essential lack of toughness on the Sabres since Mike Grier and Jay McKee went out the door. There I go again, bringing up the past. When was the last time one of their defenseman put a real hurting on someone? No one is afraid to play them. Why would anyone fear this bunch after watching video of Gomez?s hit? Ruff didn?t want to risk the two points. But what was the excuse when they went ahead by three goals with eight minutes left? Did it have to be 10-1 before someone took a shot at one of the Rangers and sent a message to the league? They sent a message, all right. It came through loud and clear. Same old Sabres. What exactly do you mean by same old Sabres? Miller wasn't really 'run' as so many are saying. Miller came out to play the puck and unfortunately fell awkwardly. When was the last time a player on the Sabres got run and injured? I remember the Drury incident, and it didn't exactly help his injury. Look guys/girls, I'm just as ticked off today that Miller is hurt. But running over Gomez after the fact just doesn't seem like the appropriate thing in my eyes. Miller came out to play the puck first, and got a hit a little bit, the play didn't look that ugly, it was just unfortunate the way Miller fell.
... Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Well good for us, but what happens if we do make the playoffs and suddenly catch fire and make it to, say the ECF again, only to find the opposition running Miller through the boards all night, because they watched the video from last night? Teams don't run goalies to draw penalties, they do it to get that goalie off his game or worse. Refs are far more easy on guys standing up for the goalie than anything else on the ice, everybody knows that, so you can't tell me that's the strategy? Someone mentioned in one of the threads that during the post game interview it was obvious the entire situation was eating up Lindy on the inside. I agree with that. And the subject of Miller being bumped or run is not new - to us or to the team. If I were to guess, I would say that one part of this is that Lindy has been warning the team that they should protect Miller, but like other things they do it on their own time. Recently he said they would, and this is paraphrased "work on the first period, then we'd have to work on the second period again..." and that "they try to improve aspects of the game a little at time..." So, part of this has to be that Lindy is angry that his team has been warned - like we have all been saying for a while now - to grow a pair and protect Miller. Now they had to learn their lesson the hard way; much the same way a stubborn child has to learn the lessons the parents are trying to teach them the hard way. Where I'm going is that, perhaps - maybe - the Sabres have learned a hard lesson here. We will obviously find out in short order if they have, but if we make it to the playoffs only the most foolish of the fools will not remember what happened last night and WHY it happened. Let's hope that they have. I'm sure Miller himself (along with Lalime) will be quick to remind "the boys" to keep him safe.
2ForTripping Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 What exactly do you mean by same old Sabres? Miller wasn't really 'run' as so many are saying. Miller came out to play the puck and unfortunately fell awkwardly. When was the last time a player on the Sabres got run and injured? I remember the Drury incident, and it didn't exactly help his injury. Look guys/girls, I'm just as ticked off today that Miller is hurt. But running over Gomez after the fact just doesn't seem like the appropriate thing in my eyes. Miller came out to play the puck first, and got a hit a little bit, the play didn't look that ugly, it was just unfortunate the way Miller fell. Ask the person who penned the article not the poster
Kristian Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Someone mentioned in one of the threads that during the post game interview it was obvious the entire situation was eating up Lindy on the inside. I agree with that. And the subject of Miller being bumped or run is not new - to us or to the team. If I were to guess, I would say that one part of this is that Lindy has been warning the team that they should protect Miller, but like other things they do it on their own time. Recently he said they would, and this is paraphrased "work on the first period, then we'd have to work on the second period again..." and that "they try to improve aspects of the game a little at time..." So, part of this has to be that Lindy is angry that his team has been warned - like we have all been saying for a while now - to grow a pair and protect Miller. Now they had to learn their lesson the hard way; much the same way a stubborn child has to learn the lessons the parents are trying to teach them the hard way. Where I'm going is that, perhaps - maybe - the Sabres have learned a hard lesson here. We will obviously find out in short order if they have, but if we make it to the playoffs only the most foolish of the fools will not remember what happened last night and WHY it happened. Let's hope that they have. I'm sure Miller himself (along with Lalime) will be quick to remind "the boys" to keep him safe. Let's hope so. I highly doubt it, but there's always hope that something positive may come of this. Heck, for all we know, Lalime could pull a Marty Biron and win 15 straight :thumbsup:
deluca67 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Let's hope so. I highly doubt it, but there's always hope that something positive may come of this. Heck, for all we know, Lalime could pull a Marty Biron and win 15 straight :thumbsup: We will see Tuesday. The Ducks have some big forwards that will be all over Lalime. Hopefully the Sabres feel sufficiently embarrassed enough to do something when the Ducks take their runs at Lalime.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 I'm having a little trouble with the logic that connects responding to your goalie getting run (ie team toughness) with your goalie not getting run in the future. Just for fun, what five teams are the toughest in the league? Do their goalies ever get run? I don't think it's as black and white as "tough team = no one ever runs their goalies/players" or "we're one of the five toughest teams in the league, so no one messes with us." I think it's more about making other teams think twice about what they do, knowing that they will have to answer for it. But off the top of my head I can't imagine the Red Wings, the Ducks, the Sharks, the Preds or the Flames standing by and watching their franchise goalie get knocked out of the game, "accidental" hit or not. I look at it like this - reputation is one of the most important things in the league. If you have a rep as a tough team, are guys going to mess with you as much as they would a "soft" team? Some might, but most won't want to wake the sleeping dog. If you get a rep as soft, will other teams will try to run roughshod over you and constantly try to intimidate you? Probably. What exactly do you mean by same old Sabres? Miller wasn't really 'run' as so many are saying. Miller came out to play the puck and unfortunately fell awkwardly. When was the last time a player on the Sabres got run and injured? I remember the Drury incident, and it didn't exactly help his injury. Look guys/girls, I'm just as ticked off today that Miller is hurt. But running over Gomez after the fact just doesn't seem like the appropriate thing in my eyes. Miller came out to play the puck first, and got a hit a little bit, the play didn't look that ugly, it was just unfortunate the way Miller fell. So what is the appropriate response? Take it and say "aw shucks, that sucks but nothing you can do about it now, hopefully the refs will protect our guys." Ask the person who penned the article not the poster Thank you. But to respond to the question - teams have been bumping, crashing and running our goalies since the lockout, and it's been very rare that we've responded.
deluca67 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Ask the person who penned the article not the poster I am more than happy to answer his question. Start of the third period, being shut out by a team that is about to tie your team in points. If you don't think Gomez intended to run into Miller then you are blind to the facts. Even Ruff admits it was intentional. Gomez may not have intended to injure Miller but he sure as hell intended to run him to start a ruckus and get his team going. And you can bet the farm Gomez knew the Sabres wouldn't do a thing about it and never will. That my friend is the "same old Sabres".
Kristian Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 But to respond to the question - teams have been bumping, crashing and running our goalies since the lockout, and it's been very rare that we've responded. Actually, I remember the Caps running Hasek in 1998 getting under his skin in the process. The Stars also did a nice job of it in 1999, and the Cryers ran him non-stop in 2000. As I recall, teammates would usually come to Hasek's aid too, only that didn't stop other teams from going at him. These are the situations I remember the best, seeing as they were playoff games. I do however remember Biron charging down guys, beating on them with his glove seeing as nobody would come to his aid either. These teams only have one thing in common - Lindy Ruff. Two things, if you count Darcy which I don't. So as fuming as Ruff might've been last night, his goalies being run, and more often than not left to fend for themselves is certainly not news to him. Not saying he's the problem, but he sure isn't part of the solution either. IMHO opinion, the best way to deal with your goalie getting run, is to run theirs. Last night it was Gomez, but honestly - Had it been Douche Neil or Darcy F*****, then who cares if you send those losers a message? The one getting the message should be the whole bench, and that's done by going after their goalie. It sucks, but when other teams do it to you, what real choice do you have in the end, but to stoop to that level? *edit In case it's the Sens, you go after Heatley. Simply because he looks agonizingly stupid, usually kills us, and that the Sens have no goaltending anyway.
Derrico Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 I am more than happy to answer his question. Start of the third period, being shut out by a team that is about to tie your team in points. If you don't think Gomez intended to run into Miller then you are blind to the facts. Even Ruff admits it was intentional. Gomez may not have intended to injure Miller but he sure as hell intended to run him to start a ruckus and get his team going. And you can bet the farm Gomez knew the Sabres wouldn't do a thing about it and never will. That my friend is the "same old Sabres". I'm already getting tired of this talk but.... you consider since Lindy Ruff, the coach of the team losing his goaltender, said that it was intentional than it was?? Maybe if Tom Renney came out and said it was than it'd say you have a point. Anyways, I remember that Drury event last year, was that "the same old Sabres?" In fact, under your logic, not responding was NOT the same old Sabres as they have stood up for each other and faught when necessary in the past. Not only the Drury incident, I remember I think Ovechkin hitting Briere from behind and the Sabres tried to jump him.
stenbaro Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 They should make goalies fair game outside of the crease..Then you wont have these injuries they will stay in the nets and play will be more interesting..I would love to have seen someone take a run at Barrasso..It didnt happen because he would take their legs out when they went near the crease..
Stoner Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 I am more than happy to answer his question. Start of the third period, being shut out by a team that is about to tie your team in points. If you don't think Gomez intended to run into Miller then you are blind to the facts. Even Ruff admits it was intentional. Gomez may not have intended to injure Miller but he sure as hell intended to run him to start a ruckus and get his team going. And you can bet the farm Gomez knew the Sabres wouldn't do a thing about it and never will. That my friend is the "same old Sabres". So he intended to start a ruckus against a team that he knew wouldn't start a ruckus?
deluca67 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 They should make goalies fair game outside of the crease..Then you wont have these injuries they will stay in the nets and play will be more interesting..I would love to have seen someone take a run at Barrasso..It didnt happen because he would take their legs out when they went near the crease.. Sabres vs RedWings. Barrasso vs Probert. That was a game.
wjag Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 I've watched a fair amount of hockey these last few years. I can't recall a single instance where a team, any team, has seriously gone after another team for running a goalie. They have the usual dust-up, but nothing on the scale of what some suggest here or what we used to see in the earlier days of the NHL. Are you all just wishing for a style of play that is non-existent in the modern day NHL? Folks cite the Flames, Wings, Ducks, etc.. But is this more myth than reality? Players are making more money than ever. Is it really in their best interests to throw down in this day and age? The Rays, Schonefelds, etc are long gone from the game.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.