darksabre Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Nothing like watching Max overskating the puck. Let's see if he keeps this habit up. I watched some of the Atlanta game tonight and he looked like the same old garbage. Should be fun to watch him ruin things for the other team this time.
FogBat Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 I watched some of the Atlanta game tonight and he looked like the same old garbage. Should be fun to watch him ruin things for the other team this time. :lol: :thumbsup: Next thing we know, Myers will be saying, "Thanks, Max! Biscuit in your net."
Corp000085 Posted October 17, 2009 Author Report Posted October 17, 2009 I only caught the 2nd and 3rd period after it was 4-2. From what I saw, it was a decent effort. My only negative (and remember, I only saw half the game) was the terrible Connolly giveaway that lead to the 3rd Islanders goal. That's the kind of crap that cost us the playoffs last year. However, did see that he scored a goal earlier in the game. Nice to see Kaleta hit the net. A few more goals, and he'll be a 20 goal scoring puss that won't hit. Glad to see Miller pop up after that hit, but anything that tweaks the back is a bad bad thing. Hopefully it won't linger.
nucci Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Game thoughts... - I said I wanted to see an exciting game, not a sloppily played one(the Sabres in their own end). - I expected Lindy to rip them a new a-hole during intermissions, but they came out for the 2nd and 3rd periods playing a lot like the previous period. - Two games in person for me, two wins! Break out the champagne! - Despite a goal and an assist, I continue to be unimpressed with Connolly. - MacArthur and Hecht were the best forwards by a country mile. - If the Islanders had received some decent goaltending, they might have won the game. - Kaleta had a great check in the 3rd, but that was about in in terms of physical play. Don't forget your roots young man. - I thought Lydman really struggled with the puck. - The Sabres blueliners need to remember that there is more to the game than worrying about how quickly they can jump up into the play. - Pominville with a rocket. Good to see the population grow. - I wonder if there was ever a Sabres game where both of the opposition goalies were former Sabres? - I thought if you get off a shot on goal, there is no penalty shot called? - I thought Paille put forth a good effort. - All this being said, the Sabres scored 6 goals, beat a team they should and are still undefeated in regulation. I thought that is the rule also. Looks like the refs enjoy calling penalty shots.
carpandean Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 - I thought if you get off a shot on goal, there is no penalty shot called? I thought that is the rule also. Looks like the refs enjoy calling penalty shots. I don't have a replay to look at, but if I remember correctly, he was taken down and managed to get himself up on his knees enough to kind-a-sort-a tap the puck in the directly of Rollie. Not sure I would have called that a real shot.
North Buffalo Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Announcers on MSG+ stink. Looked the Sabres were back to their old ways of taking a period off, not getting the puck out and back checking enough. That one line of the Isles gave them fits and out thustled them to the puck consistently. Ruff should hold another training camp session about hustle? The goals were nice, but they won't win games like this against a better team and goaltender.
novascotiaguy Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Announcers on MSG+ stink. Looked the Sabres were back to their old ways of taking a period off, not getting the puck out and back checking enough. That one line of the Isles gave them fits and out thustled them to the puck consistently. Ruff should hold another training camp session about hustle? The goals were nice, but they won't win games like this against a better team and goaltender. It was only one game there not going to be on there game ever night. Last year they would have found a way to loose that game, tonight they got the 2 points. The real test is tonight the second night of a back to back.
North Buffalo Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 It was only one game there not going to be on there game ever night. Last year they would have found a way to loose that game, tonight they got the 2 points. The real test is tonight the second night of a back to back. Agreed, but still it better not become a trend. P.S. sorry about the spelling errors, before my first cup of coffee, my two year old gets up early!
billsrcursed Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Roby made a great point last night, this team would have lost this game last year. Goose looked genuinely pissed off after Miller got ran. I hope this trend rubs off on others, because I saw Hank standing idle when Miller got flopped on later in the game (and seemed to have gotten hurt on the play). I don't expect Hank to drop'em, but for Christ's sake, hit him with your stick, push him, kick him, say something bad about his mother, something!!! Kaleta is what I thought he was, reminds me of someone else who used to sport the 36, just watch his goal celebrations. I enjoy every second he's on the ice (fanboy, I know). Pommers looks to be coming around nicely, hope he can keep it up. Nice grind to a finish. Not pretty, but again, these games were losses last year. It's a good sign.
deluca67 Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Yeah but it seems like he's wrong about the deterrent effect of hammering someone who runs your goalie. The beatdown just seemed to embolden the Islanders. It takes more than one outburst to undo a reputation built over years. The Sabres have to respond every time not just when the score and clock are in their favor.
Calvin Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 my first game at the arena this season.. loved the energy in the place, this is good, have to make it real hard for teams to come here and hope to win sloppy sloppy sloppy! the 2nd and 3rd period really felt like we had gotten away from the new system.. almost looked like since the goals came kinda easy they abandoned the new hard work first mentality. if they can go out and romp around like they did and still win, that's gonna start developing some bad habits - i am looking for Ruff to correct this mindset fast! Go Sabres!!
nucci Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Announcers on MSG+ stink. Looked the Sabres were back to their old ways of taking a period off, not getting the puck out and back checking enough. That one line of the Isles gave them fits and out thustled them to the puck consistently. Ruff should hold another training camp session about hustle? The goals were nice, but they won't win games like this against a better team and goaltender. We thought this team would suck this year. Now the wins are not good enough? 6 goals in consecutive games...Just enjoy the moment...
Stoner Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 It takes more than one outburst to undo a reputation built over years. The Sabres have to respond every time not just when the score and clock are in their favor. Ryan said he got a "WWF" knee to the back later in the game. He was down and out after it and appeared to be injured. Just lost his wind. What did you think of the Sabres' response?
Stoner Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 I don't have a replay to look at, but if I remember correctly, he was taken down and managed to get himself up on his knees enough to kind-a-sort-a tap the puck in the directly of Rollie. Not sure I would have called that a real shot. What's a real shot? Here's the penalty shot rule. MacArthur's situation could be considered the classic situation where a penalty shot is awarded even after a shot on goal. (iii) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded); On a side note, I find it odd that the rules allow a spino-rama on a penalty shot despite the requirement that the puck be kept in continuous motion toward the opponent's goal.
Eleven Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 What's a real shot? Here's the penalty shot rule. MacArthur's situation could be considered the classic situation where a penalty shot is awarded even after a shot on goal. (iii) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded); On a side note, I find it odd that the rules allow a spino-rama on a penalty shot despite the requirement that the puck be kept in continuous motion toward the opponent's goal. I think the puck does move towards the goal in the "spinorama." (I hate that name.) I was thinking about this when reading the thread about the kid who pulled a "Michigan." (Don't like that name, either.) It's not moving as fast as the player is moving at a certain point; the puck is sort of orbiting the player, but still moving towards the net.
Stoner Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 I think the puck does move towards the goal in the "spinorama." (I hate that name.) I was thinking about this when reading the thread about the kid who pulled a "Michigan." (Don't like that name, either.) It's not moving as fast as the player is moving at a certain point; the puck is sort of orbiting the player, but still moving towards the net. I thought about that too. But the rule says the puck must remain in continuous motion toward the goal. Kind of a mind-bender. Is carp up yet? This is a job for Mensa Man. I'll also accept a reply from Teppo. Oh, that was bad. I apologize.
spndnchz Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 I thought about that too. But the rule says the puck must remain in continuous motion toward the goal. Kind of a mind-bender. Is carp up yet? This is a job for Mensa Man. I'll also accept a reply from Teppo. Oh, that was bad. I apologize. Just stickhandling makes the puck go away from the net for a second or two at a time, surely there is leeway.
Stoner Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Just stickhandling makes the puck go away from the net for a second or two at a time, surely there is leeway. Good point. So why write the rule like that? Imagine a new fan trying to understand the game by taking the rules at face value. Maybe say the player has to remain in continuous motion toward the goal?
Mbossy Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Last night: Hecht looked good, seems to be best with Grier. Myers needs some work to stop letting opposing players from getting past him along the boards. The General looked good, but like Kennedy gets manhandled a bit along the boards. (FWIW, Roby said Mac put on 10lbs of muscle over the break). Pommers and Connolly coming through. These are the guys we need stepping up. Connolly's giveaway at the end needs to stop. Goose vs Jackman. Who-ah. My wife was actually worried for Jackman seeing those roundhouse uppercuts coming from Goose and she usually is the one yelling "kill him". Lydman was giving away pucks all night. Blind clearing passes, passes up the boards when clearly an Isle was going to step up and pick it off. Noticed some late game line changes, I'd assume to give the guys who played best more ice time.
Stoner Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Joke around all you like, but it's going to be time to come across with a real post about good coaching pretty soon -- hopefully in about 22 hours. You want me to eat crow after five games, when my criticisms of Ruff are based on 12 YEARS? Nice try. I might throw him a bone here and there (I'd be willing to say "so far so good" right now), but I'll reserve any mea culpas for after the season. Actually, Ruff's comment before the Islander game about "not taking them lightly" infuriated me. I have no idea why a coach would ever say that, not in a situation where one team can actually take another team lightly and certainly not in a situation where the Sabres have no business even thinking about taking someone lightly. Sure enough, it looked for a lot of last night like one team taking another lightly. I fear Ruff and the Sabres coming back to level like they did last season. Last night felt like a baby step in that direction. Anyone else notice Roy and Connolly making the "pretty" play in the offensive zone last night? Bad habits man.
SwampD Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 I thought about that too. But the rule says the puck must remain in continuous motion toward the goal. Kind of a mind-bender. Is carp up yet? This is a job for Mensa Man. I'll also accept a reply from Teppo. Oh, that was bad. I apologize. I always though it was towards the goal line not the goal?
wjag Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Last night they whistled an icing on a PK. Did they actually enforce it? I was distracted and didn't see the outcome..
nucci Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Last night they whistled an icing on a PK. Did they actually enforce it? I was distracted and didn't see the outcome.. They faced off at center ice.
Stoner Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 I always though it was towards the goal line not the goal? What's the difference? (Not trying to sound snarky.)
SwampD Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 What's the difference? (Not trying to sound snarky.) Like Chz said, By deeking you can be moving away from the goal but still towards the goal line. As long as the puck is moving forward you are good, but you can't get the goalie to bite on one side, then move the puck backwards (away from the goal line) to get around him to put it in. EDIT: just checked. The rule is actually written that way. It says towards the goal line not just goal.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.