SwampD Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 No, this: and they showed the replay about 6-7 times and every time they showed it they became more adamant that he was not pushed. They still only scored one goal. They can't allow a bad call like that deflate them so much that they play like crap for the rest of the game and it's Lindy's job to keep them up. I saw this happen in another game yesterday as well. They stopped making the smart play to try and win it with the home run play. They needed to stick with the game plan they had in the 1st. As soon as that goal was scored they went to pieces.
billsrcursed Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 They still only scored one goal. They can't allow a bad call like that deflate them so much that they play like crap for the rest of the game and it's Lindy's job to keep them up. I saw this happen in another game yesterday as well. They stopped making the smart play to try and win it with the home run play. They needed to stick with the game plan they had in the 1st. As soon as that goal was scored they went to pieces. This is an excellent point. We can argue all day about the goal (which it shouldn't have been) but the bottom line here is that the Sabres allowed that play to change their approach. Unacceptable. They should have stuck to the first period game plan.
Stoner Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 No, this: and they showed the replay about 6-7 times and every time they showed it they became more adamant that he was not pushed. If you think the Canadien initiated contact with Miller, I don't know what to tell ya. Ink blot test.
SDS Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 If you think the Canadien initiated contact with Miller, I don't know what to tell ya. Ink blot test. I think he lost his footing and fell into Miller, so yes - he initiated the contact. I don't believe he was pushed.
LabattBlue Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 I think he lost his footing and fell into Miller, so yes - he initiated the contact. I don't believe he was pushed. I agree.
Stoner Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 I think he lost his footing and fell into Miller, so yes - he initiated the contact. I don't believe he was pushed. I see a big white fluffy puppy dog sniffing a petunia.
Stoner Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 I wouldn't say sloppy or uninspired. This look is by design. In other words, it is the new normal. I think that the wide-open hockey days of 2006 are gone. This team is going to Dump, chase, grind out points. Not my favorite style, but I really think this opener is going to be typical of the product over much of the NHL. More's the pity. X. I think you said once you live in the southern tier. Or at least you mentioned Allegany and Bradford. Did you notice the explosion of Sabre merchandise in 06 and 07? I did. And this has never been a huge Sabre hotbed. Was it just a winning team? I don't think so. The Sabres have won before (say, 1999) and I didn't see much of an uptick in interest. It was the hockey! I feel like Charlton Heston at the end of the original Planet of the Apes. You blew it up! You maniacs!
carpandean Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 The call could have gone either way, as Rej did make contact. It was a judgment call as to how much that had to do with Moen going down. Given where the ref was, I'm sure it looked even worse than it was, so I can't fault him too much for calling it a goal. It sucks that the tying goal came like that, especially when the final goal was fluky (great hands by Gionta, though.) However, as pointed out already, neither of those prevented the Sabres from scoring two or more goal and getting two points (OK, the game winner did, in theory, prevent them from scoring another goal in what was left in OT, but you get my point.) I loved what I saw in the first period (and from them physically all game), but they changed their game plan after that and got sloppy. I hope that they look back at what worked and what didn't, because there was some of each in there. I wouldn't say that it was the same Sabres as last year, especially physically, but I would say that they still have some remaining issues to correct.
Eleven Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 More's the pity. X. I think you said once you live in the southern tier. Or at least you mentioned Allegany and Bradford. Did you notice the explosion of Sabre merchandise in 06 and 07? I did. And this has never been a huge Sabre hotbed. Was it just a winning team? I don't think so. The Sabres have won before (say, 1999) and I didn't see much of an uptick in interest. It was the hockey! I feel like Charlton Heston at the end of the original Planet of the Apes. You blew it up! You maniacs! Excellent point. The hockey was better right after the lockout, and I'd bet that fans everywhere embraced it. Except Flyers fans.
nfreeman Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 My game thoughts: - Sabres played a very strong 1st period, then sat back a bit too much in the 2nd and 3rd. The relentlessness on the forecheck dried up. It was the kind of game the Sabres need to be able to put away if they want to have a good season. Their failure to do so allowed the Habs to stay in position to steal a win, which is exactly what happened. - They had numerous PP opportunities to expand the lead that they frittered away with sloppy passing. That seemed to let the air out of the balloon. - They didn't get what they needed -- an extra couple of goals to put the game away -- out of Pommer, Vanek and Roy. Roy in particular was careless with the puck several times on the PP. - team toughness and feistiness seemed much improved. No free shots at Miller and no backing down in the post-whistle scrums. - Myers was our best defensemen for long stretches of the game. If he keeps playing that well I can't see them sending him back to Kelowna. - Sekera also looked good -- very confident skating and handling the puck. I think he needs to be on the top PP unit. - I don't know what Bucky was seeing, but I agree with those who said Tallinder was pretty shaky. He didn't seem crisp or confident at all with the puck. I see him taking Max's place this year as overpaid frequent healthy scratch. - interesting that Myers & kennedy played on the 1st PK. - 4th line was very effective. Kaleta was hitting everyone. - I really liked Grier's game. - after the 1st period, the 2nd line seemed pretty ineffective. They are nifty but seemed to get pushed around. I'd be fine with Stafford taking Mac's spot on that line for the next game. I like Kennedy but didn't see as much out of him last night as I was hoping for. - My bottom line is that toughness is improved and defensive play is pretty sound. However, without more contributions from their scorers -- Vanek, Roy and Pommer especially, plus whoever else is on the 2nd line -- they aren't going to get enough wins.
Stoner Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 The call could have gone either way, as Rej did make contact. It was a judgment call as to how much that had to do with Moen going down. Given where the ref was, I'm sure it looked even worse than it was, so I can't fault him too much for calling it a goal. It sucks that the tying goal came like that, especially when the final goal was fluky (great hands by Gionta, though.) However, as pointed out already, neither of those prevented the Sabres from scoring two or more goal and getting two points (OK, the game winner did, in theory, prevent them from scoring another goal in what was left in OT, but you get my point.) I loved what I saw in the first period (and from them physically all game), but they changed their game plan after that and got sloppy. I hope that they look back at what worked and what didn't, because there was some of each in there. I wouldn't say that it was the same Sabres as last year, especially physically, but I would say that they still have some remaining issues to correct. How would you define the physicality? I saw Myers step into a few guys in the Buffalo zone, but the defense as a whole didn't look any more physical than last year. Was it just the number of scrums after whistles? It wasn't really that physical a game.
SwampD Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 About the PP. I'm not sure I'm as big a fan of 1-2-2 approach as I thought (with Rivet in the middle at the blue line). It seems like they were really trying to make it to work, but they just ended up with less ice to work with. Give me the 2-2-1 (with a big ol' tripod set up right in the goalies way) any day. It's almost like they are admitting that they don't have that big physical player to take the beating in front of the net to make it work and have to score on the PP with finesse instead. I personally think that both Vanek and Staff can be that guy.
X. Benedict Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 More's the pity. X. I think you said once you live in the southern tier. Or at least you mentioned Allegany and Bradford. Did you notice the explosion of Sabre merchandise in 06 and 07? I did. And this has never been a huge Sabre hotbed. Was it just a winning team? I don't think so. The Sabres have won before (say, 1999) and I didn't see much of an uptick in interest. It was the hockey! I feel like Charlton Heston at the end of the original Planet of the Apes. You blew it up! You maniacs! These games are going to be decided by special teams and shootouts. We aren't going to see much wide-open 5x5 hockey. Which is a shame. The product was more fun in 2006 - - - but this is how it is going to be IMO. Montreal had 17 shots and won a 1-1 regulation tie in OT. That game doesn't happen 3 years ago. Fans (at least those in Buffalo) were asking for a tougher, more physical, tighter checking game and that's just what they are going to get. It is a tougher game to sell to the masses. There is going to be a lot of flinging into the corners rather than crisp entry passes and transition offense game we got used to. Sad in a way. The middle has been given back to the defense. Montreal is two games into the season and already looks like a MASH unit.
Eleven Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 These games are going to be decided by special teams and shootouts. We aren't going to see much wide-open 5x5 hockey. Which is a shame. The product was more fun in 2006 - - - but this is how it is going to be IMO. Montreal had 17 shots and won a 1-1 regulation tie in OT. That game doesn't happen 3 years ago. Fans (at least those in Buffalo) were asking for a tougher, more physical, tighter checking game and that's just what they are going to get. It is a tougher game to sell to the masses. There is going to be a lot of flinging into the corners rather than crisp entry passes and transition offense game we got used to. Sad in a way. The middle has been given back to the defense. Montreal is two games into the season and already looks like a MASH unit. Not all of us were. And a lot of that is reactive, anyway, because the league changed, so the team had to as well.
SwampD Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 These games are going to be decided by special teams and shootouts. We aren't going to see much wide-open 5x5 hockey. Which is a shame. The product was more fun in 2006 - - - but this is how it is going to be IMO. Montreal had 17 shots and won a 1-1 regulation tie in OT. That game doesn't happen 3 years ago. Fans (at least those in Buffalo) were asking for a tougher, more physical, tighter checking game and that's just what they are going to get. It is a tougher game to sell to the masses. There is going to be a lot of flinging into the corners rather than crisp entry passes and transition offense game we got used to. Sad in a way. The middle has been given back to the defense. Montreal is two games into the season and already looks like a MASH unit. I think it's all just a plot by the Canadian Department of Employment. They realized too many jobs were going to more skilled euro-players and they wanted to bring them back home. "They took 'r jobs!"
... Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 About the PP. I'm not sure I'm as big a fan of 1-2-2 approach as I thought (with Rivet in the middle at the blue line). It seems like they were really trying to make it to work, but they just ended up with less ice to work with. Give me the 2-2-1 (with a big ol' tripod set up right in the goalies way) any day. It's almost like they are admitting that they don't have that big physical player to take the beating in front of the net to make it work and have to score on the PP with finesse instead. I personally think that both Vanek and Staff can be that guy. I was looking for this on the PP but I really didn't see it like I did for the preseason games. Either they were stymied trying to set it up or they really didn't try it at all.
Mbossy Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Anyone see that big goose egg on the side of Kennedy's face in the post-game interview? Ouch. http://sabres.nhl.tv/team/console.jsp?catid=-5&id=47927
wjag Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 My take on last night's game from my vantage point behind the away goalie. 1.) The whole game was played in the other end except the winning goal. grrr... 2.) Vanek was invisible. 3.) Sabres dominate SOG and hold Montreal to one SOG in 3rd and STILL lose the game. 4.) Winning goal was a designed play. Saw it perfectly. It was shot wide of net off board and the bounce was tapped in. 5.) Like Myers. He skates pretty good for a big guy. 6.) Kennedy was pushed around A LOT in this game. He doesn't look big enough. 7.) Kaleta was Kaleta. 8.) The Sabres WASTED that last PP with 7 minutes left. THAT was where the game was lost. It was 2 full minutes of disorganization. 9.) Price earned the first star. All in all, nice experience back in HSBC.
Eleven Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 My take on last night's game from my vantage point behind the away goalie. 1.) The whole game was played in the other end except the winning goal. grrr... ??
wjag Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 ?? Yeah your right. I meant where the away team shoots twice... I saw a lot of Miller's back.
VansTheMans Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 I wouldn't say sloppy or uninspired. This look is by design. In other words, it is the new normal. I think that the wide-open hockey days of 2006 are gone. This team is going to Dump, chase, grind out points. Not my favorite style, but I really think this opener is going to be typical of the product over much of the NHL. I have no problem with dumping, chasing and grinding. I have a problem when a team goes about doing it in a half-hearted, uninspired manner. I rewatched the game this afternoon on MSG, and couldn't help but agree with Rob Ray. They constantly made poor dumping decisions, usually dumping it right into the hands of a Montreal dman. If you're going to adopt the dump and chase method, do it right. I'm not sure if the problem lies with the players or the coaching; either way, the Sabres were very poor in their execution of the dump and chase style of play. Beyond that, the Sabres just didn't seem fully awake. They weren't fully alert or aware of what was going on around them. There were far too many moments where pucks were to be had, but the players were either unaware or too lazy. Final thought: Roy had an atrocious game, and the first line was completely invisible.
korab rules Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 4.) Winning goal was a designed play. Saw it perfectly. It was shot wide of net off board and the bounce was tapped in. Gomez' shot bounced of Rivet's shin pad before hitting the boards and bouncing out front to Gionta 2 feet off the ice. Wish the Sabres could draw up plays like that!
inkman Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 It wasn't really that physical a game. Agreed. With all the hub-bub during the offseason about being tougher, I thought they fell well short against a not so tough (well, minus Laraque) Montreal team. They never seemed to initiate the scrums or the contact. It was always being brought to them. Maybe the team is too full of "nice" guys. Kaleta certainly can be an a#$^$#!e, as well as Mair and Rivet but the rest of the guys seem too complacent out on the ice. Hit someone, butt end 'em, spear 'em, hit them in the boys, face wash after every whistle. Act like you hate the other team.
spndnchz Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 I think many of u would have a different opinion of the team if they had won.
korab rules Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 I think many of u would have a different opinion of the team if they had won. +1 - they did a lot of things well. They just need to finish a couple more chances. If they play like that every night, they win a lot more than they lose.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.