Playing well for three periods?

[Stoner]

The comment may answer some questions about why his teams have been so maddeninly inconsistent over the years:

 

“That might’ve been our best first period of the year,” Sabres coach Lindy Ruff said (after the Sabres beat the Flames at home). “It really was. You can’t sustain that for three periods. There’s no chance."

 

Of course you're not going to sustain that level of play for three periods all the time. The players are not machines. But you CAN'T? NO CHANCE?

 

Why the hell not?

[nobody]

Not enough talent?

[Stoner]

Not enough talent?

 

I don't think so. I bet most people liked the first period (after 1:04) not because it was a dazzling display of talent but because the team buzzed around, got pucks on goal, forechecked like crazy, finished checks, scrapped for the puck, scrummed after whistle, etc. Not sure how much talent that takes. That looked like a well-coached team that was ready to play, physically and mentally. The second was another story.

[Eleven]

 

Of course you're not going to sustain that level of play for three periods all the time. The players are not machines. But you CAN'T? NO CHANCE?

 

Why the hell not?

 

Because, like you said, "of course you're not going to sustain that level of play for three periods all the time. The players are not machines." You and Ruff are saying the same thing.

[Stoner]

Because, like you said, "of course you're not going to sustain that level of play for three periods all the time. The players are not machines." You and Ruff are saying the same thing.

 

No, we're not. I'm adding the necessary caveat -- you can't do it all the time. Ruff's saying you can't do it. For three periods. The difference is pretty huge.

 

I'm just the messenger. That's what Ruff said. The "read too much into a comment" crowd will be along, but what they always seem to be saying, to me anyway, is that you can't take what this guy says seriously.

[gregkash]

No, we're not. I'm adding the necessary caveat -- you can't do it all the time. Ruff's saying you can't do it. For three periods. The difference is pretty huge.

 

I'm just the messenger. That's what Ruff said. The "read too much into a comment" crowd will be along, but what they always seem to be saying, to me anyway, is that you can't take what this guy says seriously.

 

Seems pretty realistic to me. The Flames are one of the top teams in the NHL, they have one of the best defenses and one of the best goaltenders. Dominating a team like that for one period is impressive, and pretty impossible for a complete game. Do you really think the Sabres were gonna outshoot the flames, 18-6 each period? for a game total of 54-18? come on.

[...]

The comment may answer some questions about why his teams have been so maddeninly inconsistent over the years:

 

“That might’ve been our best first period of the year,” Sabres coach Lindy Ruff said (after the Sabres beat the Flames at home). “It really was. You can’t sustain that for three periods. There’s no chance."

 

Of course you're not going to sustain that level of play for three periods all the time. The players are not machines. But you CAN'T? NO CHANCE?

 

Why the hell not?

 

 

You're going to have to explain how a group of men CAN sustain the level of play they exhibited during the first last night over three periods.

[Stoner]

The "reading too much into" crowd slept in. In their place, the "Low Expectationers."

 

I don't have to explain #%^$#! to anyone.

[gregkash]

The "reading too much into" crowd slept in. In their place, the "Low Expectationers."

 

I don't have to explain #%^$#! to anyone.

 

actually, if you want a point to be valid, you do.

[Stoner]

actually, if you want a point to be valid, you do.

 

OK, OK.

 

NHL teams can play hard, and get results, for three periods. It happens. We're not familiar with it in Lindy Ruff's Buffalo, but it happens.

[carpandean]

NHL teams can play hard, and get results, for three periods. It happens. We're not familiar with it in Lindy Ruff's Buffalo, but it happens.

It's not a question of whether you can play hard or get results for three periods; it's whether you can dominate (in every way but the scoreboard, anyway) a top-tier team for three periods. Calgary has a say in it, too. Even if the Sabres were to work just as hard all three periods, the Flames will adjust, "pick up their game" and other wise try to shift the momentum back their way. You know, all of the things that we say the Sabres must do after they have a bad period. Maybe I'm in the "reading too much into it" group, but I just call it like I see it.

 

Note: this is not to say that they did everything that they could have in second. They took some penalties and the energy wasn't quite at the same level. However, I would wager that even if they hadn't taken the penalties and had kept their energy level up, it still wouldn't have looked like the first.

[Alaska Darin]

The comment may answer some questions about why his teams have been so maddeninly inconsistent over the years:

 

“That might’ve been our best first period of the year,” Sabres coach Lindy Ruff said (after the Sabres beat the Flames at home). “It really was. You can’t sustain that for three periods. There’s no chance."

 

Of course you're not going to sustain that level of play for three periods all the time. The players are not machines. But you CAN'T? NO CHANCE?

 

Why the hell not?

Really? So you think a good NHL team is going to outshoot another good NHL team by a better than 4-1 margin over 60 minutes? Nice analysis. :lol:

 

The margin between winning and losing at the professional level is as thin as a razor sliced onion. It's amazing to me how few people get that.

[notwoz]

The "reading too much into" crowd slept in. In their place, the "Low Expectationers."

 

I don't have to explain #%^$#! to anyone.

That's certainly an interesting way to engage others on the board in an enlightened and robust dialogue.

[JJFIVEOH]

OK, OK.

 

NHL teams can play hard, and get results, for three periods. It happens. We're not familiar with it in Lindy Ruff's Buffalo, but it happens.

 

Yet we have one of the best records in the league.................. what does that say about these other NHL teams? Maybe they're not as consistent as you think.

[SwampD]

Yet we have one of the best records in the league.................. what does that say about these other NHL teams? Maybe they're not as consistent as you think.

OR,.. maybe there isn't a lack of talent, like so many think.

[Stoner]

Really? So you think a good NHL team is going to outshoot another good NHL team by a better than 4-1 margin over 60 minutes? Nice analysis. :lol:

 

The margin between winning and losing at the professional level is as thin as a razor sliced onion. It's amazing to me how few people get that.

 

I'm not as focused on the shot margin as you are. That's really not what stuck out about the period, as I wrote earlier. And I don't think Ruff is referring to that in his quote, either. Best first period of the year? I bet the Sabres have outshot opponents similary in the first -- Florida comes to mind, where the Sabres led at least 3-0 after one. Yet Lindy thinks last night was the best. No, this was about more than shots. I just don't understand why Lindy thinks there's "no chance" his team can perform like that for 60 minutes.

 

I'm just the messenger!

[Alaska Darin]

I just don't understand why Lindy thinks there's "no chance" his team can perform like that for 60 minutes.

Because he lives in reality.

[Stoner]

Because he lives in reality.

 

I think that's pretty spot on. Lindy's a poor-mouther. Always has been. Remember against the Rangers in the playoffs, after a game early in the series, he said that the Sabres might not score more than a couple of goals the rest of the way on Lundqvist? He's frequently "realistic" before second of back to back games on the road, and before third games in four nights. "We're in tough." What I worry about is the self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

People with these dark, doomy sides often drag people down with them. Emotional vampires.

 

Why's everybody looking at me?

[Alaska Darin]

What I worry about is the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Read that again.

People with these dark, doomy sides often drag people down with them. Emotional vampires.

Now read that again. Try and appreciate the irony.

Why's everybody looking at me?

Because you're being ridiculous. It's no different than getting a player into the zone. When you're in it, you can do no wrong. The problem is getting there and then staying there. The Sabres had virtually everyone in the zone for that first period. Not only is that rare, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to do consistently. The Sabres weren't playing "well" in that first period. They were playing almost perfectly.

 

Of course, we can't enjoy that for what it was. We have to nitpick why they aren't perfect every shift of every period of every game - but it's Lindy Ruff who can't face reality.

 

I think a lot of you need to spend a season or two watching every game by some other team. Perhaps then you'll be able to appreciate how ridiculous you sound.

[Eleven]

Read that again.

 

Now read that again. Try and appreciate the irony.

 

Because you're being ridiculous. It's no different than getting a player into the zone. When you're in it, you can do no wrong. The problem is getting there and then staying there. The Sabres had virtually everyone in the zone for that first period. Not only is that rare, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to do consistently. The Sabres weren't playing "well" in that first period. They were playing almost perfectly.

 

Of course, we can't enjoy that for what it was. We have to nitpick why they aren't perfect every shift of every period of every game - but it's Lindy Ruff who can't face reality.

 

I think a lot of you need to spend a season or two watching every game by some other team. Perhaps then you'll be able to appreciate how ridiculous you sound.

 

 

 

And I have a new signature.

[tom webster]

The comment may answer some questions about why his teams have been so maddeninly inconsistent over the years:

 

“That might’ve been our best first period of the year,” Sabres coach Lindy Ruff said (after the Sabres beat the Flames at home). “It really was. You can’t sustain that for three periods. There’s no chance."

 

Of course you're not going to sustain that level of play for three periods all the time. The players are not machines. But you CAN'T? NO CHANCE?

 

Why the hell not?

 

 

Have you ever imagined what it would be like to have every word you said analyzed and re-analyzed and then taken out of context in order to prove someone else's agenda?

[Stoner]

Read that again.

 

Now read that again. Try and appreciate the irony.

 

Because you're being ridiculous. It's no different than getting a player into the zone. When you're in it, you can do no wrong. The problem is getting there and then staying there. The Sabres had virtually everyone in the zone for that first period. Not only is that rare, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to do consistently. The Sabres weren't playing "well" in that first period. They were playing almost perfectly.

 

Of course, we can't enjoy that for what it was. We have to nitpick why they aren't perfect every shift of every period of every game - but it's Lindy Ruff who can't face reality.

 

I think a lot of you need to spend a season or two watching every game by some other team. Perhaps then you'll be able to appreciate how ridiculous you sound.

 

New Wing Nut here. Yeah, you're right. Winning Cups sucks. I have it so much better as a Sabre fan. Better just accept the mediocrity and enjoy my pudding.

 

I swear, sometimes it feels like Buffalo sports fans get exactly what they deserve.

[Stoner]

Have you ever imagined what it would be like to have every word you said analyzed and re-analyzed and then taken out of context in order to prove someone else's agenda?

 

How is the quote taken out of context? If it proves my "agenda," what's the problem? The analyzed and re-analyzed comment is part of being a professional coach.

 

If anyone's been paying attention these last 12 years, Ruff's teams have been so inconsistent, from game to game, and even from period to period, as to make a lot of us crazy. The templates are several: roar out of the gate, especially at home, then hang on; go through the motions, often on the road, for 40 minutes, then play like crazy in the third to catch up; and so on.

 

Here's a clue into Ruff's thinking, and perhaps an explanation, for all of it. He doesn't think hockey teams can perform at a very high level for 60 minutes. What did he tell the team after 20 minutes? "Good job guys, but we're not gonna dominate that team the rest of the night. They're too good, too big and too strong."

 

What's the problem here? Easier to make me the story, I guess, than to comment on what Ruff said.

[JJFIVEOH]

I know I'm a noob on here so maybe my opinion doesn't mean as much. (I understand, I've seen the way noobs are treated on other forums, lol.) But I have browsed through here well before I signed up and have seen how critical some people can get about our team. I think they have been playing awfully well. Some say that Miller is the only reason that we're doing so well, which may be true to a point, but our defense has done a great job of clearing rebounds, giving Miller clear view of the shots and forced opposing teams to take shots that every goaltended should stop. Like Miller said last night, he's surrounded by players that are backing him up. They are also doing a great job of spreading the wealth around like we used to be good at during the Drury/Briere days. Just look at the stats, our leading scorer has 5 goals, yet we have 9 players with no less than 3. That was a major problem we had last year. They came out flying last night which IMO was impossible to duplicate for 3 periods, especially against a good team.

 

On another note, that game was fun to watch. I really wish the NHL would decrease the amount of division games so every team could get a chance to see some inter-conference games.

[tom webster]

How is the quote taken out of context? If it proves my "agenda," what's the problem? The analyzed and re-analyzed comment is part of being a professional coach.

 

If anyone's been paying attention these last 12 years, Ruff's teams have been so inconsistent, from game to game, and even from period to period, as to make a lot of us crazy. The templates are several: roar out of the gate, especially at home, then hang on; go through the motions, often on the road, for 40 minutes, then play like crazy in the third to catch up; and so on.

 

Here's a clue into Ruff's thinking, and perhaps an explanation, for all of it. He doesn't think hockey teams can perform at a very high level for 60 minutes. What did he tell the team after 20 minutes? "Good job guys, but we're not gonna dominate that team the rest of the night. They're too good, too big and too strong."

 

What's the problem here? Easier to make me the story, I guess, than to comment on what Ruff said.

 

I put little stock into interviews, press conferences, etc. To me its results and what the peers have to say. I have never felt that this team came up short because of inept coaching. Was he part of the failure? Of course. Was he the cause? I don't believe so.

Is Ruff perfect, of course not. Should a change have been made at some point? Depends who you are putting in his place. Are there things I wish he would do different? Sure.

You, however, picking apart quotes, reading into his words or the words of disgruntled players, just sound too muck like the boy who cried wolf.