Two or less Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 While I think the Sabres offense is still having some trouble finishing the play, I can't completely buy into the idea that the TWO opposing goalies SO FAR could have played a great game. It is the beginning of the season after all, and all of the guys are fresh. So, AT THIS POINT, which is to say very very early in the season, I'd rather consider it a mix of both - lack of finishing against good goal-tending. Personally, I won't start worrying about how they're finishing (or not finishing) plays until after another four or five games - I need a larger sample size to say it's one thing or the other. I'm not going to panic yet either, as i think it had more to do with the team having 4 days off then anything else and the goalies being fresh, but don't tell me we didn't get robbed by goalies last season either where we couldn't score on a number of bums?
... Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 I'm not going to panic yet either, as i think it had more to do with the team having 4 days off then anything else and the goalies being fresh, but don't tell me we didn't get robbed by goalies last season either where we couldn't score on a number of bums? I'm with you - there is a precedence. And the Sabres need to shake that off as well as the rest of the last two seasons. With many other aspects of the game, it's looking positive - just not the scoring.
inkman Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Lines? Intact? Didn't Lindy pull the plug in the third period? I suppose I was referring to the VCR line. There should be a good joke in there, but yes Lindy will probably blow it all up before we can discuss it much further.
nfreeman Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Is Campbell the best example? Yikes. Why not? They have similar games. Who else? Who else? (anyone get the reference?) Very true. I hope they remain patient with him because i do think we have a real talent on our hands. The difference with Campbell is, he was starting to become on the "hot seat" and then Lindy paired Campbell with Teppo and the rest is history. I even remember hearing Campbell in a interview with one of the Canadian stations when he was with San Jose (i wanna say in the playoffs) and they were talking about his game and how well-rounded it has gotten, and Campbell gave tons of credit to Teppo because it was like having a coach skate with him and every time he made a mistake, Teppo had his back. Not sure if Sekera will have that kind of benefit. Interesting. There isn't anyone like Teppo on the roster who could mentor Sekera in that way. Rivet and Monty are vets but their games are too different from Reggie's. Tallinder could have been the one, but his game has fallen too far.
LabattBlue Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Like usual, some of the best game thoughts come from you. Thanks! :)
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 What a concept. Playing smart hockey instead wasting your energy on "retribution". And for the record, smart hockey and physical hockey are not mutually exlusive. For those of us who do not agree with Ned Braden's thoughts on this subject. If the Coyotes would have just taken care of the situation instead of running around the late penalties wouldn't have been a issue. The failure was not in the logic but the execution. The Coyotes may have lost a game early in the season, what hey gained in the knowledge that their teammates will be there to back them up will be more valuable down the road than the two points.
X. Benedict Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 This hit needs to be taken out of the game. Consider the rule-related house of cards you have to build to justify it as legal: 1. He skated a great distance to make the hit, but not great enough under the "distance traveled" provision. 2. He left his feet, but not until the act of hitting. 3. He hit him in the head, but not with an extended elbow. 4. The player hit was not in possession of the puck, but the hit came "immediately" after he lost possession. Until the league gets serious and changes the letter and spirit of the rulebook, this garbage won't go away. Thank you ink for pointing out the obvious: Sabre fans would be going apeshit today if the hit had occurred on Tim Kennedy. ?? Prucha clearly had possession. Possession doesn't mean it's on your tape. That Kaleta could hit him in that situation is indisputable, in my opinion. I can't seem to load the video at the moment, but I thought he had a skate down at contact.
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 ?? Prucha clearly had possession. Possession doesn't mean it's on your tape. That Kaleta could hit him in that situation is indisputable, in my opinion. I can't seem to load the video at the moment, but I thought he had a skate down at contact. I couldn't care less if it was a legal hit or not. Watching the video I'm just glad a Sabre actually took the kill shot when presented to him. A few more of those type of hits by a few different players could really get into the heads of other teams. It was impressive to see the Coyote player go right after Kaleta. Unlike the Sabres who would have check the time remaining and the score of the game before deciding it was too close to act.
The_Swannie_House Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 I couldn't care less if it was a legal hit or not. Watching the video I'm just glad a Sabre actually took the kill shot when presented to him. A few more of those type of hits by a few different players could really get into the heads of other teams. It was impressive to see the Coyote player go right after Kaleta. Unlike the Sabres who would have check the time remaining and the score of the game before deciding it was too close to act. Clearly you are mistaken.....you Buffalo fans have blinders!
SwampD Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 For those of us who do not agree with Ned Braden's thoughts on this subject. If the Coyotes would have just taken care of the situation instead of running around the late penalties wouldn't have been a issue. The failure was not in the logic but the execution. The Coyotes may have lost a game early in the season, what hey gained in the knowledge that their teammates will be there to back them up will be more valuable down the road than the two points. Because you didn't see the game you don't know that they did try and take care of it. There was a big, meaningless, ass shining meeting where they tried to show Kaleta just how darn angry they were with him for what he did to their poor player, and dog gone it, they were going to make him pay...they still lost. That crap is the mating call of the loser. Play a physical game and put a beat down on them between the whistles, not after. The Sabres are doing that so far and I'll take 3 of 4 points all year long. I just feel so sorry for you that you'll never be happy.
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Because you didn't see the game you don't know that they did try and take care of it. There was a big, meaningless, ass shining meeting where they tried to show Kaleta just how darn angry they were with him for what he did to their poor player, and dog gone it, they were going to make him pay...they still lost. That crap is the mating call of the loser. Play a physical game and put a beat down on them between the whistles, not after. The Sabres are doing that so far and I'll take 3 of 4 points all year long. I just feel so sorry for you that you'll never be happy. We'll see who's unhappy when the Sabres lose a Connolly, Miller or maybe a Vanek for a long stretch because of a cheap shot. A team's reputation spreads quickly throughout the league. That's why Regier spent the off-season trying to shed the "team-pu$$y" tag. It's why they signed Grier, Montador and the group of fourth liners currently playing in Portland. Only time will tell if they did enough to get the Core of this team's second testi to drop so they can play like they have a pair.
Stoner Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 ?? Prucha clearly had possession. Possession doesn't mean it's on your tape. That Kaleta could hit him in that situation is indisputable, in my opinion. I can't seem to load the video at the moment, but I thought he had a skate down at contact. I wasn't disputing that he had technical possession of the puck and could legally be hit. My point was how convoluted the rules have to read to allow a hit like that. Actual vs. technical possession of the puck, etc. You can skate, depending on the whim of the refs, 50 feet, hit someone without the puck in the head, bringing your elbow up and leaving your skates in the process -- and it's fine. --- Rule 56.1 Interference The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession. --- But possession isn't lost until someone else, not including the goalie, touches the puck, which could be 150 feet and five seconds later.
X. Benedict Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 I wasn't disputing that he had technical possession of the puck and could legally be hit. My point was how convoluted the rules have to read to allow a hit like that. Actual vs. technical possession of the puck, etc. You can skate, depending on the whim of the refs, 50 feet, hit someone without the puck in the head, bringing your elbow up and leaving your skates in the process -- and it's fine. --- Rule 56.1 Interference The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession. --- But possession isn't lost until someone else, not including the goalie, touches the puck, which could be 150 feet and five seconds later. Okay...I think I follow your logic. I think making that hit - separating the player from the puck in that situation is well within the spirit of the game. Especially when the player with the puck is playing the puck up ice and the forechecker is going in the opposite direction. Whether or not he left his skates is another matter. Prucha saw the play coming and turned up ice - bad move for a vet. player.
Stoner Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Okay...I think I follow your logic. I think making that hit - separating the player from the puck in that situation is well within the spirit of the game. Especially when the player with the puck is playing the puck up ice and the forechecker is going in the opposite direction. Whether or not he left his skates is another matter. Prucha saw the play coming and turned up ice - bad move for a vet. player. Of course separating someone from the puck is in the spirit of the game. But how about when the sole purpose of the play is to injure someone who's vulnerable? Both Kaleta and Miller pointed out how Prucha had his head down, and you have to take the opportunity that's presented. Can't look up the quotes b/c my Internet is being hinky. Whatever fans feel about that statement (probably that I should be watching figure skating instead), I'd hope we could all agree that head shots need to be taken out of the game. I doubt there is agreement on that either. It has to be a tough game to try to explain to non-fans. Pat Kaleta runs all over hitting people long after "immediate" loss of possession. It's as if the refs long ago decided to go rogue.
SwampD Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 We'll see who's unhappy when the Sabres lose a Connolly, Miller or maybe a Vanek for a long stretch because of a cheap shot. A team's reputation spreads quickly throughout the league. That's why Regier spent the off-season trying to shed the "team-pu$$y" tag. It's why they signed Grier, Montador and the group of fourth liners currently playing in Portland. Only time will tell if they did enough to get the Core of this team's second testi to drop so they can play like they have a pair. I wasn't disputing that he had technical possession of the puck and could legally be hit. My point was how convoluted the rules have to read to allow a hit like that. Actual vs. technical possession of the puck, etc. You can skate, depending on the whim of the refs, 50 feet, hit someone without the puck in the head, bringing your elbow up and leaving your skates in the process -- and it's fine. --- Rule 56.1 Interference The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession. --- But possession isn't lost until someone else, not including the goalie, touches the puck, which could be 150 feet and five seconds later. Now I'm just confused. Where was there a cheap shot. Are we really saying that Kaleta should not have made that hit? How angry would we all have been if Prucha broke free with the puck, went end to end and scored? Kaleta had the opportunity to knock him off the puck and he took it. He just happens to be very good at that. And now we're saying that he shouldn't do it because one of our guys might get hurt in the future? This is hockey. They've been playing their entire lives. They know what they've gotten themselves into. Like I've said before, I'd rather see a hit like that to show we are tough than a bunch of pointless facewashing after the whistle. All that does is waste my time. If you want that then watch WWE.
X. Benedict Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Of course separating someone from the puck is in the spirit of the game. But how about when the sole purpose of the play is to injure someone who's vulnerable? Both Kaleta and Miller pointed out how Prucha had his head down, and you have to take the opportunity that's presented. Can't look up the quotes b/c my Internet is being hinky. Whatever fans feel about that statement (probably that I should be watching figure skating instead), I'd hope we could all agree that head shots need to be taken out of the game. I doubt there is agreement on that either. It has to be a tough game to try to explain to non-fans. Pat Kaleta runs all over hitting people long after "immediate" loss of possession. It's as if the refs long ago decided to go rogue. I don't know. I've looked at that clip quite a few times now. That looks like a clean hit to me. My criteria for dirty would be any of the following.... -hit from behind -leaving both skates before contact -leading with an elbow -or late That's a good hit. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it. But I don't think you can take that hit out of the game. If Kaleta side steps that...it's 3 on 2 going toward Miller.
Stoner Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 I don't know. I've looked at that clip quite a few times now. That looks like a clean hit to me. My criteria for dirty would be any of the following.... -hit from behind -leaving both skates before contact -leading with an elbow -or late That's a good hit. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it. But I don't think you can take that hit out of the game. If Kaleta side steps that...it's 3 on 2 going toward Miller. It's clean only because it's not dirty, as defined in the rules and in The Code. By the standards of people who don't want to witness someone suffer a head injury or die, it's pretty filthy. I can hear the voices. "So how would you regulate such hits, Mr. Simmons?" For one, I'd tighten up the definition of charging. These guys are too big, too strong and too fast to let them go halfway across the ice and fly into someone. I'd also call charging on anyone who, like Kaleta, leaves his skates at any time while delivering a hit. (Actually, given how the rule reads, I don't see how that wasn't charging.) The big thing would be a major penalty/game misconduct/automatic suspension for any contact with the head, in any way. And, yes, naturally that means fighting has to be banned. None of that takes good, clean hitting out of the game.
SwampD Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 It's clean only because it's not dirty, as defined in the rules and in The Code. By the standards of people who don't want to witness someone suffer a head injury or die, it's pretty filthy. I can hear the voices. "So how would you regulate such hits, Mr. Simmons?" For one, I'd tighten up the definition of charging. These guys are too big, too strong and too fast to let them go halfway across the ice and fly into someone. I'd also call charging on anyone who, like Kaleta, leaves his skates at any time while delivering a hit. (Actually, given how the rule reads, I don't see how that wasn't charging.) The big thing would be a major penalty/game misconduct/automatic suspension for any contact with the head, in any way. And, yes, naturally that means fighting has to be banned. None of that takes good, clean hitting out of the game. Why not just say no more helmets and no more pads, there is no need for them because there is now no more hitting allowed. That would sure protect the players. Oh, and no slapshots. They are just too fast and could hurt someone.
inkman Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Clearly you are mistaken.....you Buffalo fans have blinders! This could get interesting
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Why not just say no more helmets and no more pads, there is no need for them because there is now no more hitting allowed. That would sure protect the players. Oh, and no slapshots. They are just too fast and could hurt someone. How about restrictions on the equipment the players are using? This is the NHL. Why are players allowed to wear NFL size pads?
inkman Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 How? Depends on how funny the schtick is. Sparingly, timely and witty could amuse me for a while.
shrader Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 How about restrictions on the equipment the players are using? This is the NHL. Why are players allowed to wear NFL size pads? The PA would never let it happen. There's always the claim that the armor is actually protection and not a weapon.
wjag Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 This seems relevant to the discussion of late going on in here.. From today's NHL.com front page, I found this: Pat Quinn, head coach of the Edmonton Oilers, has been fined $10,000 for inappropriate public comments made following Thursday night's game against the Calgary Flames, the NHL announced Friday. "Mr. Quinn's comments were inappropriate and without justification," said NHL Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell. The money goes to the NHL Foundation. Quinn's comments concerned an incident between the Oilers' Sheldon Souray and the Flames' Jarome Iginla that took place 18 seconds into the second period when Souray crashed into the boards after being tripped by Iginla, who spilled on top of the Oiler defenseman. Souray was assisted off the ice and did not return. Quinn was angry about the incident and commented in his post-game press conference. "I don't understand the players of today," Quinn said. "If that had happened in the old days he would have got hit over the head with a stick right after. It was a pretty dirty play in my opinion. He poked his feet out and then piled on top of him. Somehow they never deal with that ... and they won't let the vigilante stuff happen to deal with it. It's disappointing." Iginla said there was no intent to injury on his part. "I wasn't going for the puck, I was just trying to hold him and ride him into the boards like they do 100 times," Iginla said. "I didn't mean to do that at all. I felt bad that he went in, but I went in pretty hard too and was a little dazed. It was freaky play and I definitely didn't mean to do that. He's an honest player and I didn't mean to hit him from behind."
Stoner Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 This could get interesting You're gullible enough to think spndnchz is a chick, but there's no way you think that's Mike Schopp.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.