Corp000085 Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 7:00pm The death watch is now in full swing with this team. Whether you want to see an overhaul of the roster or an overhaul of the hockey department, or a little bit of both, now the fun begins. Rather than hope for points to secure the 8 seed, we can dissect the roster and see exactly who needs to go. Of course, now that I said this, the sabres will put a major hurting on the rangers and the teams ahead of us will lose. Whatever works! GO SABERS!
Kristian Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 7:00pm The death watch is now in full swing with this team. Whether you want to see an overhaul of the roster or an overhaul of the hockey department, or a little bit of both, now the fun begins. Rather than hope for points to secure the 8 seed, we can dissect the roster and see exactly who needs to go. Of course, now that I said this, the sabres will put a major hurting on the rangers and the teams ahead of us will lose. Whatever works! GO SABERS! Yup, just to get us all sucked in again.
Corp000085 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Report Posted March 21, 2009 Yup, just to get us all sucked in again. It could happen... I've seen crazier things with this team.
Chief Enabler Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 7:00pm The death watch is now in full swing with this team. Whether you want to see an overhaul of the roster or an overhaul of the hockey department, or a little bit of both, now the fun begins. Rather than hope for points to secure the 8 seed, we can dissect the roster and see exactly who needs to go. Of course, now that I said this, the sabres will put a major hurting on the rangers and the teams ahead of us will lose. Whatever works! GO SABERS! My attitude now tells me its yard sale time. Lets see Kennedy, Enroth, Weber and Kostka(who I liked in Portland from what I saw). :chris: Dump Jochen, Teppo (bye), Hank, and why not; lets see Gerbe again. Poms wont happen, but it seems his attitude is worse than ours.
SwampD Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Last night's game was a fun and entertaining match. But we were, in the end, bested by a better team. All I hope for is that tonight's game brings us as entertaining a scrum. Still trying to figure out how they called Knuble's goal a goal.
SabreInFla Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Yup, just to get us all sucked in again. Even if that happened, which it won't, we are done for the year. The hill is too big to climb, and the teams ahead of us have more talent and are playing like they want to win. I'll be checking the score after the game instead of wasting my saturday night watching it. Never thought the time would come this year where I stopped watching the games.
Stoner Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Last night's game was a fun and entertaining match. But we were, in the end, bested by a better team. All I hope for is that tonight's game brings us as entertaining a scrum. Still trying to figure out how they called Knuble's goal a goal. Ref called it a goal and replay was inconclusive. Take off your Sabre hat and make the call.
sabresnutinphoenix Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 "It's going to be tough," Buffalo captain Craig Rivet said. "We're here to battle and we're going to do everything we can. We're not going to quit." Craig, I believe you guys have quit!!!!
Kristian Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 "It's going to be tough," Buffalo captain Craig Rivet said. "We're here to battle and we're going to do everything we can. We're not going to quit." Craig, I believe you guys have quit!!!! Couldn't agree more, and that includes Cpt. Wonderful.
SwampD Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Ref called it a goal and replay was inconclusive. Take off your Sabre hat and make the call. Right on cue. EDIT:let me elaborate. PA, you need to take off your Old Grumpy Bastard hat. I could see the Refs saying that Knuble never touched it and it was Pominville that put it in. But they gave the goal to Knuble. You can see the puck change direction above the net. It was not inconclusive. I could see your point if they gave the goal to whoever shot it originally, but they gave the goal to Knuble. Doesn't make sense but I'm sure you'll tell me why I'm wrong.
Saudi Arabia Rob Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Even if that happened, which it won't, we are done for the year. The hill is too big to climb, and the teams ahead of us have more talent and are playing like they want to win. I'll be checking the score after the game instead of wasting my saturday night watching it. Never thought the time would come this year where I stopped watching the games. Can't agree with you more. I've been watching most every game on Center Ice since 1999, but since the last two collapses I'm not even putting it on in the background anymore. It's almost like the Bills, the front office lets top line talent/leadership/grit go for "value" players and we get a team which doesn't have any inner fire. I think Rivet is a good guy and probably a good captain, but the fact he was made captain this past summer just walking in the door shows one all the other "leaders" on the team had no desire to step into the void. With all that said, they play teams ahead of them the rest of the way, so it is conceivable they could go on a run. However, with Miller out I don't think they have a chance. Lalime is OK, but Miller certainly helped cover up the defensive errors they've been making all year.
Stoner Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Right on cue. EDIT:let me elaborate. PA, you need to take off your Old Grumpy Bastard hat. I could see the Refs saying that Knuble never touched it and it was Pominville that put it in. But they gave the goal to Knuble. You can see the puck change direction above the net. It was not inconclusive. I could see your point if they gave the goal to whoever shot it originally, but they gave the goal to Knuble. Doesn't make sense but I'm sure you'll tell me why I'm wrong. With pleasure. We can start with common sense. "Toronto" is not out to get the Sabres. Or help the Flyers. If it was conclusive, the goal would have been wiped out. (I can hear the snickering and guffawing from here, but that's my starting point. If you really believe the league is "fixed," why the hell are you watching? My mother used to go to bingo despite the fact she claimed "they" were cheating for some of the other players. I asked her why went, since they weren't cheating for her. No answer. Just like I will get no answer here.) You want it to be conclusive, because you're a fan. Hence the Sabre hat comment. I can take off my Sabre hat for a few minutes and be reasonable. It had been called a goal, so they needed to see that the puck was conclusively touched above the bar. It was close, but not definitive. Had it been waived off, that call would have stood too. Need any more help, feel free to ask. PM if you are embarrassed to ask.
bottlecap Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Looks bad for our Sabres. That's what happens when you put together a team with too many fatcats, incumbents and small guys. There's no steam left for a final kick. I want to see some retaliation for the Miller injury. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I want Gomez, Drury or Lundquist to be taken out.
Kristian Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Looks bad for our Sabres. That's what happens when you put together a team with too many fatcats, incumbents and small guys. There's no steam left for a final kick. I want to see some retaliation for the Miller injury. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I want Gomez, Drury or Lundquist to be taken out. What's scary is that we need 14 points in our last 11 games to remain on pace with last season. Can you imagine what OSP might think if we actually managed to get worse than last year?
rickshaw Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Not feeling good about any games. No prediction. All I know is, if we keep up this pace, we're gonna finish behind Toronto and Ottawa. The Sens are only 6 behind with games in hand. Again, it's a shame, because this team could have done damage in the dance. I just looked again at the standings. We win tonight and Montreal loses to Toronto, and we are right there again. And we still play both Fla and Mon again. The Sabres keep you dangling in the wind.
Stoner Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 What's scary is that we need 14 points in our last 11 games to remain on pace with last season. Can you imagine what OSP might think if we actually managed to get worse than last year? I can't imagine. Because I don't think anyone has a good handle on what makes Tom tick. But you'd think a self-made multi-billionaire who started with nothing owns a set.
Chief Enabler Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Looks bad for our Sabres. That's what happens when you put together a team with too many fatcats, incumbents and small guys. There's no steam left for a final kick. I want to see some retaliation for the Miller injury. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I want Gomez, Drury or Lundquist to be taken out. I think this is the only story line for tonight. <_<
SabreInFla Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 I think this is the only story line for tonight. <_< There is a better chance we win the cup this year than any of these pansies taking a run at Gomez or anybody for that matter.
SwampD Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 With pleasure. We can start with common sense. "Toronto" is not out to get the Sabres. Or help the Flyers. If it was conclusive, the goal would have been wiped out. (I can hear the snickering and guffawing from here, but that's my starting point. If you really believe the league is "fixed," why the hell are you watching? My mother used to go to bingo despite the fact she claimed "they" were cheating for some of the other players. I asked her why went, since they weren't cheating for her. No answer. Just like I will get no answer here.) You want it to be conclusive, because you're a fan. Hence the Sabre hat comment. I can take off my Sabre hat for a few minutes and be reasonable. It had been called a goal, so they needed to see that the puck was conclusively touched above the bar. It was close, but not definitive. Had it been waived off, that call would have stood too. Need any more help, feel free to ask. PM if you are embarrassed to ask. I think it's funny that you think you are the only one here that can look at games objectively. You're so wise. I, too, do not believe that Toronto is out to get us, but that doesn't mean that they always get it right either. Let me refresh your memory. Well would you look at that? And look who you were responding to. :lol: Now that the pleasantries are out of the way...I guess my problem is that deductive reasoning has been taken out of the picture. When you look at all of the angles and events of that goal, the only way it could have happened is if Knuble touched the puck above the crossbar. Was there clear video evidence. No. Is there any doubt in my mind that that goal was scored with a high stick? No. Would overturning that goal have changed the outcome of the game...(sigh)...No. But it still should have been overturned. Come to think of it...with a bunch of drunk Canadian farmboys running things...it's probably better that reason was removed from the equation.
Chief Enabler Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 There is a better chance we win the cup this year than any of these pansies taking a run at Gomez or anybody for that matter. Why you gotta say that? :thumbdown: No fun. I guess we will have to sit through 60 minutes of the Sean Avery show then.
carpandean Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Meh, whatever. I always hope that they'll win. I don't think that they have enough to get back in it, but at least a win can't hurt their chances. Don't get sucked in by Avery; do get a little payback on Gomez; do make it a good game. I agree with SwampD. Other than the losing part, last night's game was pretty entertaining, but the better team won. I hope that they do that again tonight, because I'm less certain that the Rangers are actually better. I expect Tellqvist, because back-to-backs haven't been good for either of our starting goaltenders this season.
bob_sauve28 Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 With pleasure. We can start with common sense. "Toronto" is not out to get the Sabres. Or help the Flyers. If it was conclusive, the goal would have been wiped out. (I can hear the snickering and guffawing from here, but that's my starting point. If you really believe the league is "fixed," why the hell are you watching? My mother used to go to bingo despite the fact she claimed "they" were cheating for some of the other players. I asked her why went, since they weren't cheating for her. No answer. Just like I will get no answer here.) You want it to be conclusive, because you're a fan. Hence the Sabre hat comment. I can take off my Sabre hat for a few minutes and be reasonable. It had been called a goal, so they needed to see that the puck was conclusively touched above the bar. It was close, but not definitive. Had it been waived off, that call would have stood too. Need any more help, feel free to ask. PM if you are embarrassed to ask. I thought he hit it with a high stick but Lalime then touched it before it went in, so it was a good goal. Right? Because the whistle doesn't blow on a high stick.
Stoner Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 I think it's funny that you think you are the only one here that can look at games objectively. You're so wise. I, too, do not believe that Toronto is out to get us, but that doesn't mean that they always get it right either. Let me refresh your memory. Well would you look at that? And look who you were responding to. :lol: Now that the pleasantries are out of the way...I guess my problem is that deductive reasoning has been taken out of the picture. When you look at all of the angles and events of that goal, the only way it could have happened is if Knuble touched the puck above the crossbar. Was there clear video evidence. No. Is there any doubt in my mind that that goal was scored with a high stick? No. Would overturning that goal have changed the outcome of the game...(sigh)...No. But it still should have been overturned. Come to think of it...with a bunch of drunk Canadian farmboys running things...it's probably better that reason was removed from the equation. Without clear visual evidence, what am I looking at that proves the only the way the goal is scored is with a high stick? This is a lousy rule and a situation where video replay is almost useless. The overhead angle doesn't help at all. The lower angle doesn't help much. Unless the league could find a high tech way to "paint" a line on the video four feet off the ice, a la the NFL's first down line, I'd prefer to take this decision away from replay -- of course it can still catch the blatant errors. Or go back to the shoulder height standard.
SabresFan526 Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Without clear visual evidence, what am I looking at that proves the only the way the goal is scored is with a high stick? This is a lousy rule and a situation where video replay is almost useless. The overhead angle doesn't help at all. The lower angle doesn't help much. Unless the league could find a high tech way to "paint" a line on the video four feet off the ice, a la the NFL's first down line, I'd prefer to take this decision away from replay -- of course it can still catch the blatant errors. Or go back to the shoulder height standard. I think what SwampD is saying which I agree with is that if the puck was not hit down by a high stick by Knuble, then Knuble never actually touched the puck. In that case, the goal should be credited to Giroux, not to Knuble. That is one argument. The other argument is that Knuble did touch the puck, but it was not above the crossbar/a highstick. The second argument I find highly unconvincing. Clearly, Knuble's stick is above the crossbar and I think the video replay clearly shows that. Whether he actually touched the puck with the high stick or not, is a completely different matter and I believe that is very much up for debate. So, for me, I can definitely buy the argument that Knuble did not touch the puck and hence it was not hit down with a high stick. However, if that is the argument and the logic that you are pursuing, then the scorekeeper in the arena cannot be giving credit to Knuble for the goal if he did not actually touch the puck, and hence Giroux should have gotten credit for the goal. By giving credit to Knuble you are saying that he definitively touched the puck, and if he did, the video evidence seems overwhelming that when he did touch the puck it would have been with a high stick, and hence a contradictory call. On its premise, I am not against the fact that the goal was called a goal, and even after replay, I am still okay with giving Philly the goal because the evidence is not conclusive as to whether Knuble touched the puck. But, if you are giving credit to Knuble, I think the evidence is overwhelming that his stick was above the crossbar. My whole problem with the goal and the aftermath was not that it was called a goal but that Knuble was given credit for it because if he's getting credit, it shouldn't be a goal and it's a contradictory call by Toronto.
rickshaw Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 I thought he hit it with a high stick but Lalime then touched it before it went in, so it was a good goal. Right? Because the whistle doesn't blow on a high stick. If the guy high sticks it into the net off of Lalime, it shouldn't count as a goal.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.