GAME DISCUSSION THREAD

[darksabre]

Can somebody please explain to me how with 40 seconds left, the goalie pulled and as well as a power play with the faceoff in NJ's end, we don't have either Gaustad or Moore taking the draw? They are the two best faceoff men on the team. Roy got beat twice in the last 40seconds which is crucial here! They basically won both draws and ran the clock out, IN addition if Goose takes it, he can park his big ol Goose in front of Brodeur, screen him and tie up a D, leaving 5 on three in the permeter. What the hell was Lindy thinking?????

 

Agreed. The last person I want out there is Roy. Bad coaching move.

[Stoner]

Can somebody please explain to me how with 40 seconds left, the goalie pulled and as well as a power play with the faceoff in NJ's end, we don't have either Gaustad or Moore taking the draw? They are the two best faceoff men on the team. Roy got beat twice in the last 40seconds which is crucial here! They basically won both draws and ran the clock out, IN addition if Goose takes it, he can park his big ol Goose in front of Brodeur, screen him and tie up a D, leaving 5 on three in the permeter. What the hell was Lindy thinking?????

 

:thumbsup:

 

Moore finished 11-3 on draws. Ruff said after the game he decided to go with his power play unit and that Roy being second in faceoffs on the night influenced the decision.

[carpandean]

Agreed. The last person I want out there is Roy. Bad coaching move.

Really? The last?! I'd have gone with Moore or Gaustad, too, especially since a PP unit has 5 guys and they had 6 on the ice - should have been the top PP unit plus Moore or Gaustad - but Derek would have been my third choice behind those two, since he is the third-best faceoff guy behind them on the team. Were the guy that I put out there tossed from the circle, it would have been Derek going in there, too. Would you rather have Connolly (42.1% on the season), Hecht (43.8%), MacArthur (34.6%), ...

[Stoner]

But I did like Ruff's benching -- or resting, in his words -- of Miller. Miller wasn't at his best and might even have tweaked is ankle on the first goal; there was a very high probability of losing the game anyway; the schedule dicates that Miller could use some rest; the Devils' style suggested they weren't even going to threaten to score anyway, and they really didn't; and changing goalies could spark the Sabres, and maybe it did.

 

Well done sir.

[carpandean]

Interesting fact: Derek Roy was 3-for-4 against Madden before those final two, all in the offensive zone, while Moore was 1-for-4 (Gaustad hadn't faced him, while Connolly and MacArthur were 1-for-1, but in the defensive or neutral zones.) Lindy was definitely playing the odds.

 

That said, I would have used Goose instead of putting out Stafford (the extra guy out there over the #1 PP unit.) His style sends the puck right back and places his big body (on one knee) in front of the opposing center.

 

Edit: scratch that (thus, the strike through), Moore was 3-for-4 against Madden, not 1-for-4.

[Stoner]

Interesting fact: Derek Roy was 3-for-4 against Madden before those final two, all in the offensive zone, while Moore was 1-for-4 (Gaustad hadn't faced him, while Connolly and MacArthur were 1-for-1, but in the defensive or neutral zones.) Lindy was definitely playing the odds.

 

That said, I would have used Goose instead of putting out Stafford (the extra guy out there over the #1 PP unit.) His style sends the puck right back and places his big body (on one knee) in front of the opposing center.

 

Edit: scratch that (thus, the strike through), Moore was 3-for-4 against Madden, not 1-for-4.

 

I'll say it again. I wish the NHL would feed the fanatics among their base and give us a much more detailed look at faceoff stats. For example, what is Roy's career percentage in the offensive zone with the goalie pulled? Who is the Sabres' best in their own zone while nursing a one goal lead in the last five minutes? And so on.

[rickshaw]

Really? The last?! I'd have gone with Moore or Gaustad, too, especially since a PP unit has 5 guys and they had 6 on the ice - should have been the top PP unit plus Moore or Gaustad - but Derek would have been my third choice behind those two, since he is the third-best faceoff guy behind them on the team. Were the guy that I put out there tossed from the circle, it would have been Derek going in there, too. Would you rather have Connolly (42.1% on the season), Hecht (43.8%), MacArthur (34.6%), ...

 

Moore's line was on fire in the 3rd. He should have taken those draws. Poor coaching move.

 

Connolly. Props for leveling Parise for his Gomez hit on Miller behind the net.

 

As for Roy....well.........

 

Saturday was also the latest example of a missed scoring chance impacting the game. Sabres center Derek Roy was alone in front with 1:52 to play, but his tap-in attempt failed.

 

"I missed the post by a couple inches," Roy said. "It's definitely frustrating. You've got to make those plays. You've got to score those big goals for your team. I let the team down."

 

Yep. You sure did.

[Kristian]

I'll take full responsibility for this : I watched the Bruins - Rags game yesterday, and I have to admit I actually got sucked back in there for a sec, following the Rags loss.

 

Only appropriate for the team to knee me in the package and remind me why they are where they are.

 

Apologies to everyone, I promise it won't happen again this season.

[cdexchange]

F*ck.

[sabresnutinphoenix]

Moore's line was on fire in the 3rd. He should have taken those draws. Poor coaching move.

 

Connolly. Props for leveling Parise for his Gomez hit on Miller behind the net.

 

As for Roy....well.........

 

Saturday was also the latest example of a missed scoring chance impacting the game. Sabres center Derek Roy was alone in front with 1:52 to play, but his tap-in attempt failed.

 

"I missed the post by a couple inches," Roy said. "It's definitely frustrating. You've got to make those plays. You've got to score those big goals for your team. I let the team down."

 

Yep. You sure did.

 

 

Roy,Pomminstein, and Tallinder for LeCavalier...

[carpandean]

Saturday was also the latest example of a missed scoring chance impacting the game. Sabres center Derek Roy was alone in front with 1:52 to play, but his tap-in attempt failed.

"I missed the post by a couple inches," Roy said. "It's definitely frustrating. You've got to make those plays. You've got to score those big goals for your team. I let the team down."

Yep. You sure did.

Man, you guys are tough. It was not a gimme tap-in. Brodeur got his pad across very quickly, before the puck got there, covering the bottom of the net. From two feet away, Derek got the elevation needed, but in doing so got the blade turned enough that it went just past the pipe. Brodeur took away the "easy" goal and forced a much tougher shot in a split second.

 

The faceoffs? Yeah, those weren't great, but we all agree that someone else should have been taking them.

 

You want something to point your finger at, here it is:

"If we would have worked like we did in the third, it would have been a different game, that's for sure," MacArthur said. "It's too bad. We had a really good opportunity there to gain some ground on the Rangers. It's tough to let that one slip away."

[Stoner]

Carp, referencing Clarke's comments and the general vibe that the Sabres didn't "show up," here's what Brodeur had to say: ?These guys were desperate. They were fighting for their lives and they came out and threw everything at us."

 

I just can't accept the idea that the Sabres' work ethic was bad, they weren't motivated to play, didn't want to win, etc. John Vogl barked up that tree. The lazy sports writers always do that. There are a lot of hockey reasons the Devils took that game away from the Sabres, not the least of which was Ryan Miller allowing two more "softies" top shelf from near the blue line.

 

BTW, Brodeur did have some interesting things to say about Roy's chance. I agree with you though. It was hardly a gimmie putt and the net wasn't "yawning" as Mike Harrington wrote. I was, however, after reading the Snooze this morning. Rim shot!

[tom webster]

Carp, referencing Clarke's comments and the general vibe that the Sabres didn't "show up," here's what Brodeur had to say: ?These guys were desperate. They were fighting for their lives and they came out and threw everything at us."

 

I just can't accept the idea that the Sabres' work ethic was bad, they weren't motivated to play, didn't want to win, etc. John Vogl barked up that tree. The lazy sports writers always do that. There are a lot of hockey reasons the Devils took that game away from the Sabres, not the least of which was Ryan Miller allowing two more "softies" top shelf from near the blue line.

BTW, Brodeur did have some interesting things to say about Roy's chance. I agree with you though. It was hardly a gimmie putt and the net wasn't "yawning" as Mike Harrington wrote. I was, however, after reading the Snooze this morning. Rim shot!

 

While poor TV production made it difficult to decide what happened on the first goal, that second goal was deflected twice before it rang in off the crossbar so I don't know how that is on Miller.

As for Roy, the fact remains that until he proves otherwise, he continues to come up short ( no pun intended) when they need him most. Until he buries one he will be the guy who flourishes when the pressure is off only to dissapear when the pressure re-appears.

[SwampD]

Carp, referencing Clarke's comments and the general vibe that the Sabres didn't "show up," here's what Brodeur had to say: ?These guys were desperate. They were fighting for their lives and they came out and threw everything at us."

 

I just can't accept the idea that the Sabres' work ethic was bad, they weren't motivated to play, didn't want to win, etc. John Vogl barked up that tree. The lazy sports writers always do that. There are a lot of hockey reasons the Devils took that game away from the Sabres, not the least of which was Ryan Miller allowing two more "softies" top shelf from near the blue line.

 

BTW, Brodeur did have some interesting things to say about Roy's chance. I agree with you though. It was hardly a gimmie putt and the net wasn't "yawning" as Mike Harrington wrote. I was, however, after reading the Snooze this morning. Rim shot!

One more reason why Ruff should have our wingers watching the points instead of floating in no-man's land, completely useless. But this has never been the case and apparently never will be even though we see these types of goals ad nauseam.

[LabattBlue]

- 40 minutes of lackluster hockey.

 

-Tallinder with a horrible limp wrist attempt(what else is new) to clear the puck which led to the 2nd goal.

 

-Lindy having Roy take two key faceoffs(he lost them both) with the game on the line.

 

-Stafford coasting at the NJ player on the play at the end of the game where the NJ defender got the delay of game penalty. This is so typical of this team and why they need a roster shakeup in the off-season.

 

-When is Vanek going to score on something other than a tip in or garbage goal rebound. He could be so much more.

 

-Miller should have spent the 3rd period watching Brodeur. Does he really need to go down early and stay down on nearly every play.

 

-I found the Michigan St.-UConn game much more interesting than the first two periods of what should have been a game where the Sabres let it all hang out.

 

-They get my hopes up with a thrilling game in Washington and then lay another egg. I hate this team, the coaches, the front office and the owner. <insert fu smiley> :angry:

[Stoner]

One more reason why Ruff should have our wingers watching the points instead of floating in no-man's land, completely useless. But this has never been the case and apparently never will be even though we see these types of goals ad nauseam.

 

I was just going to post that the Sabres HAVE to lead the league the last several years in long-range goals against. While it's easy to absolve the goalie (Ryan said after the game he had to make a couple more saves) and throw up your hands and say "no one could have stopped that," the shots are getting through, and getting tipped, for a reason, and the top of the net is almost always available for a reason. Why does Miller go down on point shots?

[tom webster]

I was just going to post that the Sabres HAVE to lead the league the last several years in long-range goals against. While it's easy to absolve the goalie (Ryan said after the game he had to make a couple more saves) and throw up your hands and say "no one could have stopped that," the shots are getting through, and getting tipped, for a reason, and the top of the net is almost always available for a reason. Why does Miller go down on point shots?

 

While in general I hate anecdotal comments derived from the fact that we all watch 70 to 80 Sabres games and probably less then 10 of any other particular team, I do admit that it seems they give up a lot of those goals. How much , however, is it Miller being down to early and how much is it lazy forward coverage and how much is a weak d core that lets the opposition get in position to make those tips?

Like Miller said, its ultimately on him but on that second goal for instance, it would be nice if Tallinder makes up for a weak clearing pass by knocking somebody down and giving Miller a clear view of the shot.

[Stoner]

While in general I hate anecdotal comments derived from the fact that we all watch 70 to 80 Sabres games and probably less then 10 of any other particular team, I do admit that it seems they give up a lot of those goals. How much , however, is it Miller being down to early and how much is it lazy forward coverage and how much is a weak d core that lets the opposition get in position to make those tips?

Like Miller said, its ultimately on him but on that second goal for instance, it would be nice if Tallinder makes up for a weak clearing pass by knocking somebody down and giving Miller a clear view of the shot.

 

Or how much is from Ruff's system (Swamp's theory)? It just seems like the opposition has twice as many players setting screens and tipping shots.

[tom webster]

Or how much is from Ruff's system (Swamp's theory)? It just seems like the opposition has twice as many players setting screens and tipping shots.

 

I pretty much think Swamp's theory is bunk.

[SwampD]

I pretty much think Swamp's theory is bunk.

When is the last time one of our point shots made it past the feet of the opposition?[/hyperbole, but you know what I mean] Their wingers play out farther and challenge the points.

 

Go back and look at how we lost games in both ECF's if you need more proof. Both season ending goals were scored by uncontested shots from the point, because our wingers were in too deep. It's too much of a pattern to not be coaching.

[tom webster]

When is the last time one of our point shots made it past the feet of the opposition?[/hyperbole, but you know what I mean] Their wingers play out farther and challenge the points.

 

Go back and look at how we lost games in both ECF's if you need more proof. Both season ending goals were scored by uncontested shots from the point, because our wingers were in too deep. It's too much of a pattern to not be coaching.

 

I don't see other team's forwards coming out any further. Everyone is collapsing into the "paint" which is why one of the more drastic rule changes bantered about is adopting a kind of NBA 3 point violation. The difference is that in the offensive zone, our forwards do a poor job of fighting for position and while in the defensive zone they do a poor job of staying in the shooting lanes.

[SwampD]

I don't see other team's forwards coming out any further. Everyone is collapsing into the "paint" which is why one of the more drastic rule changes bantered about is adopting a kind of NBA 3 point violation. The difference is that in the offensive zone, our forwards do a poor job of fighting for position and while in the defensive zone they do a poor job of staying in the shooting lanes.

This is just not true. They do a great job of getting in the shooting lanes. The only problem is they are too deep and end up tipping it in a way that Miller can't find. Why do they let them get a shot off at all. In my opinion, Defense should be basically man to man. If you put a body on a body, then it doesn't matter if someone is in the shooting lane because the shooter can't get a shot off because the defender is all over him.

[tom webster]

This is just not true. They do a great job of getting in the shooting lanes. The only problem is they are too deep and end up tipping it in a way that Miller can't find. Why do they let them get a shot off at all. In my opinion, Defense should be basically man to man. If you put a body on a body, then it doesn't matter if someone is in the shooting lane because the shooter can't get a shot off because the defender is all over him.

 

 

So they do a great job of getting in the lanes but end up tipping the puck rather then blocking it? How much farther back do you think they are playing?

As for your defense should be man to man axiom, that has been proven wrong in every major sport. Every sport where coaching is involved has evolved to some sort of zone defense. If I have the puck play man to man and let my best player beat you.

[nfreeman]

While poor TV production made it difficult to decide what happened on the first goal, that second goal was deflected twice before it rang in off the crossbar so I don't know how that is on Miller.

As for Roy, the fact remains that until he proves otherwise, he continues to come up short ( no pun intended) when they need him most. Until he buries one he will be the guy who flourishes when the pressure is off only to dissapear when the pressure re-appears.

Miller was a bit slow getting up on the 1st goal, although he may have been knocked down just before. The 2nd one was a crazy tip.

 

Correct on Roy, as I've been complaining about lately as well.

 

-Tallinder with a horrible limp wrist attempt(what else is new) to clear the puck which led to the 2nd goal.

 

-They get my hopes up with a thrilling game in Washington and then lay another egg. I hate this team, the coaches, the front office and the owner. <insert fu smiley> :angry:

QFT

[SwampD]

So they do a great job of getting in the lanes but end up tipping the puck rather then blocking it? How much farther back do you think they are playing?

As for your defense should be man to man axiom, that has been proven wrong in every major sport. Every sport where coaching is involved has evolved to some sort of zone defense. If I have the puck play man to man and let my best player beat you.

Proven huh? Steelers play man-to-man. Pretty sure the Giants did too. That's just the last 2 Super Bowl winners. I don't feel like going back any further.

 

I'm not saying they should never peel off and help out. But hockey is different in that, more than any other sport, you HAVE to have the other teammates to win. Passing is everything. It's not like basketball where one guy makes all the moves and the other four just watch and hopefully get a rebound. That's what everyone here has been complaining about Roy and Max for forever. More goals are scored with great passing opening up a scoring chance than one guy deking his way through an entire defense and scoring.

 

If all five guys are just going to flock to the puck on D then we might as well be watching a bunch of drunks playing broomball.