Stoner Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 Vanek, Miller, and Spacek are out. Buffalo didn't seem to play w/ a lot of energy in the second and third periods. Yes, the refing sucked, but the Sabres missed a few great scoring opportunities. No excuses. The question now is whether or not the players will give it all they got or simply roll over. I think it's going to be tough for the Sabres to play 110% effort hockey w/ their most important players out. Buffalo is now out of a playoff spot. Do they want to get back into a playoff spot or do they want an early vacation? That is the question. I'm sure the locker room is rather quiet right now... Spacek is out? Who said? Sabres need odd man rush practice. And Connolly needs to stop trying to impress whoever he thinks he's impressing. His game has slipped after that burst of adrenaline upon returning. The propensity of this team to drop like flies (nice cliche, sorry) and get pinned in their own zone is absolutely uncanny. Unbelievable.
SabresFan526 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 I know it's disheartening when you don't get the two points, but really, there's no need to give up hope so quickly. Even after the firing of Renney, Torts still hasn't won a game and the Rangers continue to self-destruct. Montreal's season is unraveling. You can't rely on the rest of the teams to fall apart, I know, but really, all the Sabres have to do is keep pace with the Eastern Conference until Miller and Vanek get back. It's going to be a tight race and there are 6 teams fighting for only four spots. So, if we play the probability game, the Sabres still have a good shot. Also, with regard to Spacek, they said it was an upper body injury, not a lower body or knee/leg injury. My guess is that may miss a game or two, but not a lot of time. And, while this team is definitely injured, they do not lack depth on the blueline right now, so they'll be okay. It's discouraging to lose, but keep the hope, I think the Sabres will get back in this thing. It's not time to sell, yet.
Stoner Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 - Kaleta showed why he should never be in the press box again. His LEGAL hit on BrindAmour was a thing of beauty. It was charging. It's not always called, but he pushed the envelope a bit too much. Charging:Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner.
rclcryan Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 Give us offensive talent. I'm so glad Lalime did as well as he did. Yeah we didn't win, but that HAD to be a morale booster for him. GG Lalime... THe Forwards need to work at it...
LabattBlue Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 It was charging. It's not always called, but he pushed the envelope a bit too much. Charging:Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. He wasn't even striding when he was 15 ft. away from him. Bad call.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 It was charging. It's not always called, but he pushed the envelope a bit too much. Charging:Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. What's the distance traveled? Five, ten, twenty feet? Number of strides? Whole definition has always seemed very vague to me.
JujuFish Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 The officiating in this game was absolutely terrible. It's especially frustrating because Lalime brought his A game.
ThePebble19 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 I just wish that our "skill" players would play with HALF of the heart that our bottom two lines play with. All they want to do is dipsy doodle around people, and make one last pass. Shoot the friggin puck, get the rebound and hammer that sucker home.
rclcryan Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 What's the distance traveled? Five, ten, twenty feet? Number of strides? Whole definition has always seemed vary vague to me. Kinda a Elasticity Clause almost...
carpandean Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 Hey Lindy, Tim Connolly was 1 for 3 in SO's this year (now 1 for 4) and 1 for 6 over the last two years, while Derek Roy is 4 for 7 this year including 3 for 4 on the road!!!! Why the :censored: wasn't Derek in the SO?! Also, now everyone can shut the :censored: up about ending this win one, lose one :censored: because ... guess what? ... we just lost two in a row! :censored: you! :censored: you! You're cool. :censored: you! I'm out!! Props to anyone who gets that final reference.
Stoner Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 He wasn't even striding when he was 15 ft. away from him. Bad call. I don't think that's an issue. "Distance traveled."
ThePebble19 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 Hey Lindy, Tim Connolly was 1 for 3 in SO's this year (now 1 for 4) and 1 for 6 over the last two years, while Derek Roy is 4 for 7 this year including 3 for 4 on the road!!!! Why the :censored: wasn't Derek in the SO?! Also, now everyone can shut the :censored: up about ending this win one, lose one :censored: because ... guess what? ... we just lost two in a row! :censored: you! :censored: you! You're cool! :censored: you! I'm out!! Props to anyone who gets that final quote. I got it. I laughed. Doctor says I need a backeotomy.
Stoner Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 What's the distance traveled? Five, ten, twenty feet? Number of strides? Whole definition has always seemed vary vague to me. Of course it's vague. This is the NHL rule book we're talking about. But Kaleta traveled almost half the width of the ice to deliver that hit. It has to qualify.
LabattBlue Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 I don't think that's an issue. "Distance traveled." Don't you normally have to be skating from point a to point b in order to hit someone? :doh:
Stoner Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 Hey Lindy, Tim Connolly was 1 for 3 in SO's this year (now 1 for 4) and 1 for 6 over the last two years, while Derek Roy is 4 for 7 this year including 3 for 4 on the road!!!! Why the :censored: wasn't Derek in the SO?! Also, now everyone can shut the :censored: up about ending this win one, lose one :censored: because ... guess what? ... we just lost two in a row! :censored: you! :censored: you! You're cool. :censored: you! I'm out!! Props to anyone who gets that final reference. There's always lots of ammo to be used against Ruff. This is another one. I applaud you for pointing it out. I imagine right now the townspeople of Buffalo are lighting their torches and heading to your house.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 Of course it's vague. This is the NHL rule book we're talking about. But Kaleta traveled almost half the width of the ice to deliver that hit. It has to qualify. I'm not arguing the hit - I just got home from work and didn't see it. Just wondering about the vagueness of the standard, and how it's yet another subjective call. Didn't the standard used to be something about number of strides - more than two was charging?
Stoner Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 Don't you normally have to be skating from point a to point b in order to hit someone? :doh: You're not skating if you're not "striding"?
SabresFan526 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 I'm not arguing the hit - I just got home from work and didn't see it. Just wondering about the vagueness of the standard, and how it's yet another subjective call. Didn't the standard used to be something about number of strides - more than two was charging? I believe that it used to be 3 or more strides was considered charging. However, I have seen numerous hits where players took way more than 3 strides to make a hit, so I don't know if that is still the standard. As far as I'm concerned, Kaleta's hit was completely legal as he did not leave his feet and did not travel all that far. He traveled about a quarter of the width of the ice as he was halfway between the boards and center ice to hit Brind'amour. That was a ludicrous call. The officiating was horrible as the Sabres only had one PP when there was a lot of interference and hooking that the Canes got away with.
deluca67 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 The officiating in this game was absolutely terrible. It's especially frustrating because Lalime brought his A game. It must be easy to bring the "A game" when you face 13 shots over the first 40 minutes. Getting beat on the short side from a shot of that distance? I guess if Lalime could make that save he would be a starter. Sucks though, they needed him to make that save. The Sabres did a great job for the second straight game keeping the shots down, at least up until the third period. 35 shots over five periods is pretty damn good. They deserve to have gained more than one point out of the four.
carpandean Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 They deserve to have gained more than one point out of the four. Then maybe they should find a way to score more than three goals in 125 minutes of hockey.
deluca67 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 You're not skating if you're not "striding"? It was charging. It was also unnecessary. Kaleta took a feel good shot and he got nailed for the penalty. If you want Kaleta to hit you have to live with those penalties. I was more upset about the Lydman cross check penalty. Lydman must be a strong SOB because that Canes player acted like he got hit by a semi. Also, Is it just me or does Lydman take more penalties for shooting the puck over the glass than most teams do?
carpandean Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 I got it. I laughed.Doctor says I need a backeotomy. Nice. :thumbsup:
SabresFan526 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 It must be easy to bring the "A game" when you face 13 shots over the first 40 minutes. Getting beat on the short side from a shot of that distance? I guess if Lalime could make that save he would be a starter. Sucks though, they needed him to make that save. The Sabres did a great job for the second straight game keeping the shots down, at least up until the third period. 35 shots over five periods is pretty damn good. They deserve to have gained more than one point out of the four. Are you referring to Jokinen in the shootout or Babchuk's goal in the third? I'm pretty sure Lalime was screened on Babchuk's goal and did not see the puck. Chad Larose was standing right in front of Lalime and the defenseman did not clear Larose out of the way in order to allow Lalime to see the puck. That's a difficult save for any goalie to make when they are screened and cannot see the shot, including for Miller.
darksabre Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 It must be easy to bring the "A game" when you face 13 shots over the first 40 minutes. Getting beat on the short side from a shot of that distance? I guess if Lalime could make that save he would be a starter. Sucks though, they needed him to make that save. The Sabres did a great job for the second straight game keeping the shots down, at least up until the third period. 35 shots over five periods is pretty damn good. They deserve to have gained more than one point out of the four. No they don't. Not until they start scoring some damn goals. (I'm looking at you Hecht, Pomminstein, Stafford and Roy.)
deluca67 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Posted February 27, 2009 Then maybe they should find a way to score more than three goals in 125 minutes of hockey. Or 1 in 125 minutes against the Canes. This is who the Sabres are. They go through a drought like this and then score 10 against the Leafs and posters will point to the total amount of goals and proclaim the Sabres as offensively talented. In tough games against better opponents this team has trouble scoring.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.