SwampD Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Would Miller be out if the team would have responded earlier against the Sens? The point isn't to change what has already happened. The point is to prevent it in the future. Teams know the Sabres crease and their goalies are fair game. Teams are free to skate through the Sabres crease and their goalie. That won't change until they decide to do something other than cry to the refs. Yes, he would be.
deluca67 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Again, that sounds good, but do you really think that someone fighting Ruutu last week would have scared an NHL player away from going after Miller this week? Are these guys really that easily intimidated? I agree teams are too free to skakte through the crease, but like I said, the answer is being stronger in front of the net and keeping them out of there to begin with, not punching them after the fact. That's why you don't go after Ruutu, you run the Sens goalie. When teams are going after your better players you don't respond against their meat-heads. You go after their better players. Against the Sens you forget about Ruutu and run at Spezza and Alfie. Against the Rangers you take runs at Gomez, Drury and Lundvist. The message has to be that if teams are going to try and take the Sabres better players out that they are putting their own better players in danger and the Sabres will gladly take a penalty and a suspension if need be.
deluca67 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Yes, he would be. I greatly doubt it. If Gomez thought for a second he was putting his own goalie at risk he wouldn't have run Miller. I doubt Gomez would be skating so freely around the goalie if he were playing the Ducks or Sharks.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 That's why you don't go after Ruutu, you run the Sens goalie. When teams are going after your better players you don't respond against their meat-heads. You go after their better players. Against the Sens you forget about Ruutu and run at Spezza and Alfie. Against the Rangers you take runs at Gomez, Drury and Lundvist. The message has to be that if teams are going to try and take the Sabres better players out that they are putting their own better players in danger and the Sabres will gladly take a penalty and a suspension if need be. I guess. Somehow I just don't see Gomez pulling up in that split second because he suddenly remembered that someone ran Spezza last week.
nucci Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Right or wrong, you protect your goalie and go after anyone who hits them. It probably will not prevent it from happening again but it is the unwritten rule of hockey. STAY AWAY FROM OUR GOALIE!!. Simple as that. If anyone on this board ever played hockey, what did you do when the opposition hit the goalie? You can argue all you want but you fight back if someone hits the goalie!! How can some of you not understand that?
nfreeman Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 That's why you don't go after Ruutu, you run the Sens goalie. When teams are going after your better players you don't respond against their meat-heads. You go after their better players. Against the Sens you forget about Ruutu and run at Spezza and Alfie. Against the Rangers you take runs at Gomez, Drury and Lundvist. The message has to be that if teams are going to try and take the Sabres better players out that they are putting their own better players in danger and the Sabres will gladly take a penalty and a suspension if need be. Well, while I generally agree that there should've been some payback for Gomez' hit on Miller (and really, the right answer was for Tallinder to have immediately jumped on Gomez and pummelled him, since we were up 3-0 and Tallinder was about 1 foot away when it happened), I don't think running Lundy was the answer. I don't think this happens much anymore. (And I'd be interested if anyone could point out a recent example.) Gomez is the Rangers' best forward in addition to being the perp, so nailing him would've accomplished the goal. Bottom line is that quite a few of the Sabres would've responded in that way had they been on the ice at the time, and others wouldn't, because they aren't that type of player. I think most of the teams in the NHL are similarly constructed. But it really would've been nice to see Tallinder do something out of character and jump on Gomez.
carpandean Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Bottom line is that quite a few of the Sabres would've responded in that way had they been on the ice at the time, and others wouldn't, because they aren't that type of player. I think most of the teams in the NHL are similarly constructed. But it really would've been nice to see Tallinder do something out of character and jump on Gomez. Yeah, our PK group was Tallinder, Lydman, Pommer and Roy. It would have been a different story if it had been Rivet, Butler, Gaustad and Kaleta (four very capable PKers.) Really, though, as you said and I stated early, the guy to respond was Tallinder (for some reason I swore it was Lydman, but video review has proven me wrong.) He was the one who saw what happened and was right there with Gomez. He had to make a judgment call based on what he saw and, to some extent, the type of player that he is. Rivet would have jumped him; Tallinder did not.
Kristian Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Well, while I generally agree that there should've been some payback for Gomez' hit on Miller (and really, the right answer was for Tallinder to have immediately jumped on Gomez and pummelled him, since we were up 3-0 and Tallinder was about 1 foot away when it happened), I don't think running Lundy was the answer. I don't think this happens much anymore. (And I'd be interested if anyone could point out a recent example.) Gomez is the Rangers' best forward in addition to being the perp, so nailing him would've accomplished the goal. Bottom line is that quite a few of the Sabres would've responded in that way had they been on the ice at the time, and others wouldn't, because they aren't that type of player. I think most of the teams in the NHL are similarly constructed. But it really would've been nice to see Tallinder do something out of character and jump on Gomez. But Lundy is their most important player, so while I would've liked to see someone going after Gomez, the appropriate answer when someone runs your goalie, is to put a goon out on the next shift and tell the guy opposite him - "I'm going to put your goalie through the end boards buddy, you just watch me.". Then see if the Rags don't end up doing something stupid to prevent it. There are more ways to get even than the most obvious ones. If they don't bite, take runs at their skill guys instead, or trip over their goalie by "accident". The Sabres would never do such a thing though, so I guess it's time we let it go.
Stoner Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 I guess. Somehow I just don't see Gomez pulling up in that split second because he suddenly remembered that someone ran Spezza last week. The funny thing is that Gomez appeared to be pulling up. He was definitely throwing some snow. It's not like he drilled Miller into the boards at full speed. It really looks like Gomez was losing his balance -- look how far he was crouched down, almost falling backwards -- and the contact was impossible to avoid. Still, I agree with others that when your goalie is hit, you have to respond, whether it makes any strategic sense or not in terms of preventing it in the future. It has to be a pack mentality.
wonderbread Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 The funny thing is that Gomez appeared to be pulling up. He was definitely throwing some snow. It's not like he drilled Miller into the boards at full speed. It really looks like Gomez was losing his balance -- look how far he was crouched down, almost falling backwards -- and the contact was impossible to avoid. Still, I agree with others that when your goalie is hit, you have to respond, whether it makes any strategic sense or not in terms of preventing it in the future. It has to be a pack mentality. agreed. Regardless if it was intentional or not some sort of retribution should have occurred. It pains me to see this team as a whole shirk away from that.
deluca67 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 I guess. Somehow I just don't see Gomez pulling up in that split second because he suddenly remembered that someone ran Spezza last week. You don't see Gomez running goalies every game. The reason he had the ballz this time was because it was the Sabres. That's the problems the Sabres are facing. The Neils and Ruutus of the league will always do their thing. When you have the rep of being a uber-soft team suddenly every player feels they can take their shots at the Sabres.
RayFinkle Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 The one thing that bothered me was Lindy stated in the post game presser that you need to be smart about retaliation. He stated in a close game, you don't want to do anything that can hurt the team. We were up by a 3-0 margin at the time. How big a lead do you need to answer the bell? I am honestly disappointed in Rivet more than any other Sabre currently. Early in the season, he played hard and seemed to have that fire in his belly when it came to crap like this. Instead of this rubbing off on the team, which it should as captain, the sabres have rubbed off on him. He is just another guy back there now. Smart with the puck, solid D-man, but looks the other way when stuff like this happens.
nucci Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 The one thing that bothered me was Lindy stated in the post game presser that you need to be smart about retaliation. He stated in a close game, you don't want to do anything that can hurt the team. We were up by a 3-0 margin at the time. How big a lead do you need to answer the bell? I am honestly disappointed in Rivet more than any other Sabre currently. Early in the season, he played hard and seemed to have that fire in his belly when it came to crap like this. Instead of this rubbing off on the team, which it should as captain, the sabres have rubbed off on him. He is just another guy back there now. Smart with the puck, solid D-man, but looks the other way when stuff like this happens. Ruff is just saying that to stay out of trouble with the league. A player does not need to be told to protect your teammates. You are taught that as a kid. Most of us remember how Ruff played and how he went after Billy Smith as a rookie after Smith high-sticked him. I'm sure he was pissed no one went after Gomez.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 How could that possibly be prevented? If a team wants to deal with the penalty (the impact of which would be lessened by the retaliation everyone craves), the suspension (not likely) or the beatdown (oooh, that's scary), in exchange for disrupting or possibly injuring the other team's goalie, if it makes sense strategically, they're going to do it. No way to stop it. If that's the case, why not run goalies every game? Why not come in to every game with the mentality that with most teams, it makes sense strategically to knock out the opponent's goalie? Again, that sounds good, but do you really think that someone fighting Ruutu last week would have scared an NHL player away from going after Miller this week? Are these guys really that easily intimidated? I agree teams are too free to skakte through the crease, but like I said, the answer is being stronger in front of the net and keeping them out of there to begin with, not punching them after the fact. Apparently the Sabres are. I greatly doubt it. If Gomez thought for a second he was putting his own goalie at risk he wouldn't have run Miller. I doubt Gomez would be skating so freely around the goalie if he were playing the Ducks or Sharks. Bingo.
wonderbread Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Check the link in the snooze. Harrington update
Two or less Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Right or wrong, you protect your goalie and go after anyone who hits them. It probably will not prevent it from happening again but it is the unwritten rule of hockey. STAY AWAY FROM OUR GOALIE!!. Simple as that. If anyone on this board ever played hockey, what did you do when the opposition hit the goalie? You can argue all you want but you fight back if someone hits the goalie!! How can some of you not understand that? Come on, you believe that? It took NYR seconds to put up a goal on the PP. Doing something stupid and costing us the game would have been the dumb thing. This isn't the ECHL. It's the NHL. Millions of dollars on the line and thousands and thousands of people hoping and praying this team makes the playoffs. Comparing what YOU do in your beer league hockey makes no sense at all. Once the teams came out, NYR scored. At that point, the #1 priority is to protect the goal and get the win.
nucci Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Come on, you believe that? It took NYR seconds to put up a goal on the PP. Doing something stupid and costing us the game would have been the dumb thing. This isn't the ECHL. It's the NHL. Millions of dollars on the line and thousands and thousands of people hoping and praying this team makes the playoffs. Comparing what YOU do in your beer league hockey makes no sense at all. Once the teams came out, NYR scored. At that point, the #1 priority is to protect the goal and get the win. Yes, I believe that and so do most teams around the league. Watch other games besides the Sabres and you will see what I mean. The Sabres were up 3-0 when it happened and sometimes pride and respect take precedence over 2 points. Do you really believe this team will make the playoffs without Miller?
R_Dudley Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Some fuel for the fire, keep it burning. Just a little puck Daddy. Linky
Kristian Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Come on, you believe that? It took NYR seconds to put up a goal on the PP. Doing something stupid and costing us the game would have been the dumb thing. This isn't the ECHL. It's the NHL. Millions of dollars on the line and thousands and thousands of people hoping and praying this team makes the playoffs. Comparing what YOU do in your beer league hockey makes no sense at all. Once the teams came out, NYR scored. At that point, the #1 priority is to protect the goal and get the win. Well alright then, let's turn it around - If everybody are so smart and careful not to "do something stupid", why aren't we running opposition goalies every night? Don't tell me it's because we find it unsportsmanlike? No - Fact is we're scared to death of what might happen if we did. *Edit As it is we take more goalie interference penalties trying to get out of the opposition goalies way, than the ones where we actually touch him on purpose?
nucci Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Some fuel for the fire, keep it burning. Just a little puck Daddy. Linky Good article.
Two or less Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Yes, I believe that and so do most teams around the league. Watch other games besides the Sabres and you will see what I mean. The Sabres were up 3-0 when it happened and sometimes pride and respect take precedence over 2 points. Do you really believe this team will make the playoffs without Miller? Of course I do. Why wouldn't i think that?
nucci Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Of course I do. Why wouldn't i think that? Well, I hope they do but I don't think they will with Vanek and now Miller out.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Some fuel for the fire, keep it burning. Just a little puck Daddy. Linky Yikes - Fleury missed 36 games with a similar injury (yes, I know, I know - all ankle injuries are different, so-and-so had an injury that kept him out of the lineup for 10 minutes - I get it.) If Ryan misses anywhere near those numbers we're dead in the water. I can delude myself into believing that Lalime can hold the fort a week to two weeks, but more than than and I just can't convince myself that we'll be OK.
Two or less Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Well alright then, let's turn it around - If everybody are so smart and careful not to "do something stupid", why aren't we running opposition goalies every night? Don't tell me it's because we find it unsportsmanlike? No - Fact is we're scared to death of what might happen if we did. *Edit As it is we take more goalie interference penalties trying to get out of the opposition goalies way, than the ones where we actually touch him on purpose? You truly believe that? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kristian Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Yikes - Fleury missed 36 games with a similar injury (yes, I know, I know - all ankle injuries are different, so-and-so had an injury that kept him out of the lineup for 10 minutes - I get it.) If Ryan misses anywhere near those numbers we're dead in the water. I can delude myself into believing that Lalime can hold the fort a week to two weeks, but more than than and I just can't convince myself that we'll be OK. Someone needs to step up, that's for sure. We can all hope Lalime can play lights out, but realistically, if we can just get him to stop 9 out of 10 shots he'll have done his fair share and others will need to finish the job.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.