CallawaySabres Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I was watching Montreal last night and they took PLENTY of runs at Toskala. Heck, I would not even wait until he is run....make a statement at Gomez right off the bat. No need to take a stupid penalty but make it known early and often that this will not be tolerated this year. Gomez is my new Neil (almost) and I hope he gets slammed tomorrow night...
inkman Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Lindy has mentioned this year's version of the Sabres playing tougher, lets hope it actually happens. Goose, Grier, Montador, Rivet, Kaleta, and whoever else wants to join in better be ready to rumble.
Patty16 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Lindy has mentioned this year's version of the Sabres playing tougher, lets hope it actually happens. Goose, Grier, Montador, Rivet, Kaleta, and whoever else wants to join in better be ready to rumble. I agree. But Goose is a pansy, never understood some peoples love affair with him. He's big and fights once and a blue moon but he is far from a physical presence like the others guys you mentioned.
LabattBlue Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I agree. But Goose is a pansy, never understood some peoples love affair with him. He's big and fights once and a blue moon but he is far from a physical presence like the others guys you mentioned. Gaustad is a case study in guys who forgot what got them to the NHL in the first place. Shame on Lindy and Darcy for handing him a big contract in light of this.
SteamRoller72 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I agree. But Goose is a pansy, never understood some peoples love affair with him. He's big and fights once and a blue moon but he is far from a physical presence like the others guys you mentioned. Goose isn't 2nd line material, for sure, but how is he not physical? Not sure what games you watch when the Sabres are playing, but Goose is very physical along the boards and in the corners shift after shift.
SteamRoller72 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I'm starting to notice most posters on this board are bitter about anyone, anything, any player on the current roster. Yeah, everyone sucks, the whole team is soft. They're all injury prone. They get paid too much money. Get over it..... I'm not "drinking the kool-aid" (which is a 5th grade term that I try not use), but post after post, topic after topic is full force negativity. Sorry most of you hate your wife/life so much and take it out on a Sabres board.
shrader Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Goose isn't 2nd line material, for sure, but how is he not physical? Not sure what games you watch when the Sabres are playing, but Goose is very physical along the boards and in the corners shift after shift. He's not where he should be, but I've never understood why people equate being physical to fighting. I'm sure plenty of people around here would have no problem throwing that physical label on Kaleta, but he doesn't drop the gloves all that often either (we won't count the times where he drops them then immediately turtles).
nfreeman Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I agree. But Goose is a pansy, never understood some peoples love affair with him. He's big and fights once and a blue moon but he is far from a physical presence like the others guys you mentioned. I don't agree at all. Goose isn't 2nd line material, for sure, but how is he not physical? Not sure what games you watch when the Sabres are playing, but Goose is very physical along the boards and in the corners shift after shift. He's also in the middle of the post-whistle scrums and is quick to stand up for teammates. He's not where he should be, but I've never understood why people equate being physical to fighting. I'm sure plenty of people around here would have no problem throwing that physical label on Kaleta, but he doesn't drop the gloves all that often either (we won't count the times where he drops them then immediately turtles). I agree and would just add that I think we'll see Gaustad handle the #3 center position very well this year.
wonderbread Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I was watching Montreal last night and they took PLENTY of runs at Toskala. Heck, I would not even wait until he is run....make a statement at Gomez right off the bat. No need to take a stupid penalty but make it known early and often that this will not be tolerated this year. Gomez is my new Neil (almost) and I hope he gets slammed tomorrow night... Watched it too. Thought the same thing Montreal made it no secret that their game plan was to run VT. I am convinced Gomez ran Miller on purpose last year. He's sneaky dirty. I would love to see Gomez get crushed and not get up. I know i'll get flamed for saying it. He had that same smirk on his face last night as last year. I would like to see it get rubbed off on the glass.
deluca67 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Watched it too. Thought the same thing Montreal made it no secret that their game plan was to run VT. I am convinced Gomez ran Miller on purpose last year. He's sneaky dirty. I would love to see Gomez get crushed and not get up. I know i'll get flamed for saying it. He had that same smirk on his face last night as last year. I would like to see it get rubbed off on the glass. You'll read no flaming from me. The #1 priority Saturday should be to finally take care of the Scott Gomez issue once and for all. If the Sabres have truly changed and are all about accountability? Taking care of unfinished business with Gomez is a great place to start. No excuses about the score of the game or any crap like that. Just take care of business.
korab rules Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 You'll read no flaming from me. The #1 priority Saturday should be to finally take care of the Scott Gomez issue once and for all. If the Sabres have truly changed and are all about accountability? Taking care of unfinished business with Gomez is a great place to start. No excuses about the score of the game or any crap like that. Just take care of business. God I would love to see that. Its an 82 game season. Sometimes sending a message is more important than the score. Sending that message early in the first game of the season would give them time to dig out of whatever hole they dig for themselves in that game, and perhaps set a tone that won't require similar actions as the season moves along. Run' em!!!! One of my proudest moments as a Sabres fan was Lindy sticking up for his team and putting his bruisers (and Kaleta) on the ice after Drury was run over.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 God I would love to see that. Its an 82 game season. Sometimes sending a message is more important than the score. Sending that message early in the first game of the season would give them time to dig out of whatever hole they dig for themselves in that game, and perhaps set a tone that won't require similar actions as the season moves along. Run' em!!!! One of my proudest moments as a Sabres fan was Lindy sticking up for his team and putting his bruisers (and Kaleta) on the ice after Drury was run over. It's funny ... while I think Lindy did the right thing there, it obviously was kind of forced and didn't turn out to be any kind of turning point in how they played. I was more impressed at the time that Stafford went right after Neil the way he did, but unfortunately someone has had to be bleeding the last few years before most of the team responds. Even going out and running Gomez tomorrow night is still reacting to a situation started by someone else. I'm not saying they should not do it, just that I'll be happy if they finally start to play with a chip on their shoulder like they did in 2005-06 and have teams back on their heels because they are playing with bit of an edge. I want to see opposing defensemen taking stupid frustration penalties because of the forecheck again ... dictate to them ... act first instead of worying about having the right RE-action. Maybe the first step IS going after Gomez early and having to kill a penalty as a result ... I just hope they bring the intensity every shift, not just when someone pisses them off. Go piss the other guys off first.
Stoner Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 It's funny ... while I think Lindy did the right thing there, it obviously was kind of forced and didn't turn out to be any kind of turning point in how they played. I was more impressed at the time that Stafford went right after Neil the way he did, but unfortunately someone has had to be bleeding the last few years before most of the team responds. Even going out and running Gomez tomorrow night is still reacting to a situation started by someone else. I'm not saying they should not do it, just that I'll be happy if they finally start to play with a chip on their shoulder like they did in 2005-06 and have teams back on their heels because they are playing with bit of an edge. I want to see opposing defensemen taking stupid frustration penalties because of the forecheck again ... dictate to them ... act first instead of worying about having the right RE-action. Maybe the first step IS going after Gomez early and having to kill a penalty as a result ... I just hope they bring the intensity every shift, not just when someone pisses them off. Go piss the other guys off first. I've maintained that the events of that night against Ottawa were in a turning point in the wrong direction. Again, the Sabres had to react to something. While Ottawa showed itself as a team that was willing to do the dirty deeds that are necessary to win. OSP's whiny, Little League Mom letter to the league in the days after the incident really lopped off this team's gravy-makers, IMHO. As for retribution on Gomez, it's the coach's call. He defended the non-response to Miller getting run by Gomez by saying it was more important to win the game. ink, as for Ruff finally deciding his team is going to play with an edge, we heard the exact same thing last year in the early going when the Sabres were mixing a little piss in their vinegar. We also heard Ruff say the Sabres played with more of an edge toward the end of the season. What happened in between? Teams reflect their coach. Ruff's got the scars and the scowl down pat, but at heart he's a real pussycat.
korab rules Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I've maintained that the events of that night against Ottawa were in a turning point in the wrong direction. Again, the Sabres had to react to something. While Ottawa showed itself as a team that was willing to do the dirty deeds that are necessary to win. OSP's whiny, Little League Mom letter to the league in the days after the incident really lopped off this team's gravy-makers, IMHO. As for retribution on Gomez, it's the coach's call. He defended the non-response to Miller getting run by Gomez by saying it was more important to win the game. ink, as for Ruff finally deciding his team is going to play with an edge, we heard the exact same thing last year in the early going when the Sabres were mixing a little piss in their vinegar. We also heard Ruff say the Sabres played with more of an edge toward the end of the season. What happened in between? Teams reflect their coach. Ruff's got the scars and the scowl down pat, but at heart he's a real pussycat. Ruff has more than scars and scowl, he was a pretty rough customer when he played the game. Now its time he coached like he played. Maybe with some of the shiny new toys on his roster he will clear them to play their game. I know, the last 7-8 years of history says different, but maybe he returns to his roots. He certainly didn't have any problem allowing Barnaby, May and Razor to play their game. At his core, I think that the way he wants his team to play the game, but for the last 6-7 years, he hasn't had the pieces to do it. He has slowly been acquiring those pieces.
Assquatch Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Teams reflect their coach. Ruff's got the scars and the scowl down pat, but at heart he's a real pussycat. Lindy Meow Now there would be a statement jersey.
Two or less Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I was watching Montreal last night and they took PLENTY of runs at Toskala. Heck, I would not even wait until he is run....make a statement at Gomez right off the bat. No need to take a stupid penalty but make it known early and often that this will not be tolerated this year. Gomez is my new Neil (almost) and I hope he gets slammed tomorrow night... Good post. I was actually impressed by Montreal. First, their offense clicked. I don't know if it's one of those early season, big game, all the juices are flowing type thing or if their for real. But they looked good. And you're right, Toronto is hyped as this big bad team, and Montreal took it to them and tested them time after time. They ran Toskala many times like you said. Sabres better be ready when they play Montreal. No doubt they will make runs at Miller.
Stoner Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Ruff has more than scars and scowl, he was a pretty rough customer when he played the game. Now its time he coached like he played. Maybe with some of the shiny new toys on his roster he will clear them to play their game. I know, the last 7-8 years of history says different, but maybe he returns to his roots. He certainly didn't have any problem allowing Barnaby, May and Razor to play their game. At his core, I think that the way he wants his team to play the game, but for the last 6-7 years, he hasn't had the pieces to do it. He has slowly been acquiring those pieces. I think my reference to the scars implied that he was a tough customer. I'd say the one scar has to be from Billy Smith. I wonder if another one is from the cup of beer that hit his face after the Sabres were eliminated in Philly in 2000. Anyway, this kind of goes to the heart of the Ruff debate. If Ruff wants to coach a certain way, and needs certain horses to do it, why is he still the coach here? Why would he allow himself to eventually be the face of what was very close to the softest team in hockey the last two seasons? He's had opportunities to get out, after 06-07 for sure. I don't think Ruff would ever say he doesn't have the pieces to win. Does he honestly play no role in the players who become Sabres, either through trade, draft or free agency? I call BS. What are we going to hear if the Sabres STILL aren't rough riders in 09-10? Ruff didn't have the manly men to do it -- we have to wait for Foligno and Kassian to arrive?! Ruff doesn't know what he wants his team to be. Witness the personality disorders of last season. He gets the OHL hitter of the year in Dan Paille and has coached him into mush. He recently said he's asking Patrick Kaleta to tone it down. I'm rambling now.
nfreeman Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I think my reference to the scars implied that he was a tough customer. I'd say the one scar has to be from Billy Smith. I wonder if another one is from the cup of beer that hit his face after the Sabres were eliminated in Philly in 2000. Anyway, this kind of goes to the heart of the Ruff debate. If Ruff wants to coach a certain way, and needs certain horses to do it, why is he still the coach here? Why would he allow himself to eventually be the face of what was very close to the softest team in hockey the last two seasons? He's had opportunities to get out, after 06-07 for sure. I don't think Ruff would ever say he doesn't have the pieces to win. Does he honestly play no role in the players who become Sabres, either through trade, draft or free agency? I call BS. What are we going to hear if the Sabres STILL aren't rough riders in 09-10? Ruff didn't have the manly men to do it -- we have to wait for Foligno and Kassian to arrive?! Ruff doesn't know what he wants his team to be. Witness the personality disorders of last season. He gets the OHL hitter of the year in Dan Paille and has coached him into mush. He recently said he's asking Patrick Kaleta to tone it down. I'm rambling now. Are you going to pretend that: 1. Lindy hasn't coached two very different types of teams into 4 final 4s? 2. Lindy didn't have the rug pulled out from under him by his bosses after the most recent final 4 in 06-07? 3. Lindy's bosses haven't failed to bring in more than one good player from outside the organization (and that assumes you count Rivet as a good player)? 4. Paille's "best bodychecker" designation didn't take place when he was 18, and checking a bunch of 17- and 18-year-olds? There's an adjective I'm thinking of...it relates to certain types of angles...what is it again?
korab rules Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 I think my reference to the scars implied that he was a tough customer. I'd say the one scar has to be from Billy Smith. I wonder if another one is from the cup of beer that hit his face after the Sabres were eliminated in Philly in 2000. Anyway, this kind of goes to the heart of the Ruff debate. If Ruff wants to coach a certain way, and needs certain horses to do it, why is he still the coach here? Why would he allow himself to eventually be the face of what was very close to the softest team in hockey the last two seasons? He's had opportunities to get out, after 06-07 for sure. I don't think Ruff would ever say he doesn't have the pieces to win. Does he honestly play no role in the players who become Sabres, either through trade, draft or free agency? I call BS. What are we going to hear if the Sabres STILL aren't rough riders in 09-10? Ruff didn't have the manly men to do it -- we have to wait for Foligno and Kassian to arrive?! Ruff doesn't know what he wants his team to be. Witness the personality disorders of last season. He gets the OHL hitter of the year in Dan Paille and has coached him into mush. He recently said he's asking Patrick Kaleta to tone it down. I'm rambling now. Fair critique. Who knows how much say he has in who ends up on his squad. Maybe he's waiting for his kids to graduate from HS before moving on. IMO, and its just that, he just has to want to coach a team of bad . The fact that he went to the Stanley Cup with one of the most defensive teams ever to play the game (granted, with one of the best goalies ever at prime of his career) and also coached a high flying offense to within 20 minutes of a second stanley cup appearance (where they would have smoked Edmonton) Tells me 1. that he is highly versatile as a coach, able to adapt his systems to the players he is given, and 2. that he has next to no say in the players this team acquires. Why would he choose to go in a completely different direction after the success he enjoyed early in his career coaching the type of game he was known for as a player.
rbochan Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Every time you , Mike Grier kills a penalty.
inkman Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Paille's "best bodychecker" designation didn't take place when he was 18, and checking a bunch of 17- and 18-year-olds? Does this mean he's scared to check grown men or just not good enough to line em up?
korab rules Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Does this mean he's scared to check grown men or just not good enough to line em up? I think it means he's lost the will to check grown men.
Stoner Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Are you going to pretend that: 1. Lindy hasn't coached two very different types of teams into 4 final 4s? 2. Lindy didn't have the rug pulled out from under him by his bosses after the most recent final 4 in 06-07? 3. Lindy's bosses haven't failed to bring in more than one good player from outside the organization (and that assumes you count Rivet as a good player)? 4. Paille's "best bodychecker" designation didn't take place when he was 18, and checking a bunch of 17- and 18-year-olds? There's an adjective I'm thinking of...it relates to certain types of angles...what is it again? Your response is the very definition of that adjective. The key question, really, is why a team with Craig Rivet, Adam Mair, Paul Gaustad, Patrick Kaleta, Dan Paille, Nathan Paetsch and Andrew Peters (OK, threw that one in there for comedic effect), was so goddamned soft. Not the toughest lineup, but tough enough to make a statement here and there. The Sabres started out last season wanting to make those statements, and did so in early games, like on Long Island when Rivet went flying in to cover for Mair. It pretty much disappeared as the season went along. Are you going to pretend that's not coaching? Ruff's still here because he's comfortable. As Regier and Quinn are. And probably because he's not nearly as confident in his abilities as many of the fans are.
nfreeman Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Does this mean he's scared to check grown men or just not good enough to line em up? I guess the latter -- I don't think anyone who steps onto that ice can be called scared. I just think it's much easier to check smaller, slower, less talented and less experienced opponents than it is to check NHL players. But I also think a player has to play with passion, determination and confidence and I don't see any of that from Paille. Paille won that award in the -03-04 season. It's now 6 years later. He's had 2 full NHL seasons. I've watched almost all of his games, and I've seen him throw fewer good checks in those 2 years than Kaleta throws in a week. I just don't see how anyone can reasonably say that Lindy's coaching is responsible for him morphing from some amazing checking machine into a nonfactor.
CallawaySabres Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Posted October 2, 2009 How about they start off by skating on to the ice to something other than the soundtrack of Snow White.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.