Bmwolf21 Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 C'mon. Do you really need me to quantify what you know to be true with your own eyes. Don't make the mistake of assuming I see what you think I do, or that I reach the same conclusions you do. Other than that, please amuse me.
Bmwolf21 Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Don't make the mistake of assuming I see what you think I do, or that I reach the same conclusions you do. Other than that, please amuse me. Sorry, this probably came across as smartass-y and kind of prickish. If so, I apologize.
SwampD Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Don't make the mistake of assuming I see what you think I do, or that I reach the same conclusions you do. Other than that, please amuse me. How many more times do you need to see the puck jump over Pominville's stick on the PP to realize he shouldn't be at the point on it. How many more times do you need to see this team not get up for a game and then say,"we took them for granted" How many more times do you need to see all of our guys below our dots so that when they do get the puck they have no one to pass it to and 180 feet and all five guys to go through to get to the opposing team's net. How many more times do you need to see the points uncovered. How many more times do you need to see those uncovered points keep the puck in our own zone for an extended amount of time until either there is an icing, a penalty, or a goal is scored. How many more times do you need to see those uncovered points let fly with a slap shot that then gets deflected by an open man to end a game (series,.. season,..) because passing lanes are more important than opposing players. How many more times do you need to see those uncovered points keep the puck in our own zone for an extended amount of time until those uncovered points let fly with a slap shot that injures an exhausted D. How many more times do you need to see a game where no forward gets behind there D. (I think it happened twice in the Ottawa game and I almost filled my pants) I'm sure there are more but I'm tired. These are the same complaints I've had since 05-06. I watched the Sabs/Sens game 5 from '07 today and saw the same flaws in the Sabres' game. I would think that being three seasons removed from that, Ruff would have though of a way to correct these issues. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. But I would like to know, what exactly does Ruff do that get's the most out of the players, that I've heard so much about. I just don't see it.
Bmwolf21 Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 If you don't agree with me, that's fine. But I would like to know, what exactly does Ruff do that get's the most out of the players, that I've heard so much about. I just don't see it. You spent a lot of time focusing on point coverage in the defensive zone. Not sure why, but it seems to be a huge sore spot for you. I'm fine with disagreeing over strategy or line combos, but to extrapolate that out to insinuate that a guy with 440 wins, a COTY, two ECF appearances and one SCF appearance is somehow overrated or a bad coach is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Some of the other things you mentioned - I have to point at least some of the blame at the players. Pominville is a 30-goal scorer, he needs to be on the ice on the PP. He's got to learn how to keep the puck in. On the PK, some of these guys have to fight harder to get the puck out of the zone. Guys can't get up for the game? Can't fight past the D for a loose puck on a dump-in? They're :censored: ing professional hockey players playing against other :censored: ing professional hockey players. How the hell did they get to the pros if they constantly need their coach to get them up for the game or to fight through defensemen? As for Lindy - I see a coach who has been able to constantly adjust his systems and attack to maximize the limited resources on his roster - moving from a defensive-minded team that relied on a HoF goalie to the pond hockey run-and-gun attack that got them back to the ECF. I see a coach who has won nearly 440 regular-season and 52 playoff games, most of which came under the shadow of poor ownership, including bankruptcy and meddling front office types. I see a COTY who, over the last few years, has had a roster full of sausage-grabbing marys who would rather look good and lose than consistently work hard and win. All that being said, do I think they could benefit from a new voice? Perhaps. A new voice might reach some of these finesse players in ways Lindy hasn't. He's not without his faults. He seems hellbent on turning Vanek into a two-way player at the cost of keeping his highest-paid scorer on the bench. Seems it could be a bit like cutting off his nose to spite his face. He tends to mishandle the backups. His powerplays have been inconsistent. He juggles lines too frequently for my taste. But as you said - that's fine, we disagree. You see a coach who hasn't gotten the most out of his talent, I see a coach who has led some very talent-deficient teams to the SCF, the ECF (twice) and a Prez Trophy.
SwampD Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 You spent a lot of time focusing on point coverage in the defensive zone. Not sure why, but it seems to be a huge sore spot for you. I'm fine with disagreeing over strategy or line combos, but to extrapolate that out to insinuate that a guy with 440 wins, a COTY, two ECF appearances and one SCF appearance is somehow overrated or a bad coach is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Some of the other things you mentioned - I have to point at least some of the blame at the players. Pominville is a 30-goal scorer, he needs to be on the ice on the PP. He's got to learn how to keep the puck in. On the PK, some of these guys have to fight harder to get the puck out of the zone. Guys can't get up for the game? Can't fight past the D for a loose puck on a dump-in? They're :censored: ing professional hockey players playing against other :censored: ing professional hockey players. How the hell did they get to the pros if they constantly need their coach to get them up for the game or to fight through defensemen? As for Lindy - I see a coach who has been able to constantly adjust his systems and attack to maximize the limited resources on his roster - moving from a defensive-minded team that relied on a HoF goalie to the pond hockey run-and-gun attack that got them back to the ECF. I see a coach who has won nearly 440 regular-season and 52 playoff games, most of which came under the shadow of poor ownership, including bankruptcy and meddling front office types. I see a COTY who, over the last few years, has had a roster full of sausage-grabbing marys who would rather look good and lose than consistently work hard and win. All that being said, do I think they could benefit from a new voice? Perhaps. A new voice might reach some of these finesse players in ways Lindy hasn't. He's not without his faults. He seems hellbent on turning Vanek into a two-way player at the cost of keeping his highest-paid scorer on the bench. Seems it could be a bit like cutting off his nose to spite his face. He tends to mishandle the backups. His powerplays have been inconsistent. He juggles lines too frequently for my taste. But as you said - that's fine, we disagree. You see a coach who hasn't gotten the most out of his talent, I see a coach who has led some very talent-deficient teams to the SCF, the ECF (twice) and a Prez Trophy. You had me until this last line. I just don't see how one team with an all world goalie and another with three #1 lines can be considered talent-deficient. I feel he did not get the most out of them. And say what you want about injuries, but Laviolette outcoached Ruff in that series. I may have a problem with you saying he has changed his system as well. I see the same system I have seen for twelve years. The players and rules have changed, but it sure looks like the same system to me. And yes, I have a real problem with play in our defensive zone in that system. I think it is the reason we lost to Carolina in the ECFs. I think it is the reason why so many D men were injured that season. I think it is the reason why we haven't been to the playoffs in 5 of seven seasons (we got away with it in '05-07 just buy the amount of scoring talent we had). And I think it is why we are struggling now.
VansTheMans Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Both of you make pretty good points. Which makes it even more painful. There's no clear cut solution. :wallbash:
SwampD Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 I just need to add that I will never get tired of hearing the phrase "sausage-grabbing marys",.. ever.
Bmwolf21 Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 You had me until this last line. I just don't see how one team with an all world goalie and another with three #1 lines can be considered talent-deficient. I feel he did not get the most out of them. And say what you want about injuries, but Laviolette outcoached Ruff in that series. I may have a problem with you saying he has changed his system as well. I see the same system I have seen for twelve years. The players and rules have changed, but it sure looks like the same system to me. And yes, I have a real problem with play in our defensive zone in that system. I think it is the reason we lost to Carolina in the ECFs. I think it is the reason why so many D men were injured that season. I think it is the reason why we haven't been to the playoffs in 5 of seven seasons (we got away with it in '05-07 just buy the amount of scoring talent we had). And I think it is why we are struggling now. If you're seeing the same system over the last 12 years then I'm not sure what to say. I can see distinct changes in the style, tempo and philosophy throughout. They played somewhat defensive, puck-possession style hockey when they played in front of Hasek and when we had three good scoring lines (disagree that we had three bona fide no.1 lines - we had a 1, 1B, and another line good enough to be a 2 because it was matched against other 3's) Lindy was smart enough to realize he had three good scoring lines and changed his system to maximize their talents. As for Lindy's system causing the defensive injuries? I think that's a stretch. Kalinin broke his ankle, I believe while blocking a shot. McKee had a staph infection caused by dirty equipment and an cut that wasn't dressed/cleaned. Tallinder broke his arm in a seemingly harmless collision along that wall. Numminen was 38 at the time and pulled his groin muscle. All blamed on Lindy's defensive zone system? Part of the reason the defensive zone play is bad is they've had bad defensive defensemen for a while. They've focused on drafting small, quick, finesse players, and haven't had the gritty, defensively responsible players we need in our own end. It's starting to change, with Myers and the acquisition of Rivet, but there are still a lot of soft, finesse players throughout the d-corps. Again, we disagree, and this is as far as I'll go with this. You'll never get me to agree that he does not get the most out of his players (and I think that concept is rather fluid in and of itself - there are always going to be players you can't reach, for whatever reason, be it personality, style, whatever) and I get the feeling that even if he gets this group of soft (mentally and physically) underachieving players into the playoffs and goes deep, you won't change your mind. I just need to add that I will never get tired of hearing the phrase "sausage-grabbing marys",.. ever. :thumbsup:
TheChimp Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Lindy, and with him Darcy Regier, were a full TWO YEARS behind the rest of us when we saw, as early as the 2006-2007 season, that the referees were already starting to allow the same clutching and grabbing they did before the lockout, and the bigger guys were all starting to do more cardio and catch up in terms of speed, and the Sabres' two big advantages that helped propel them to the ECF started to slowly erode. They not only waited two extra seasons to start talking the talk of needing to get some bigger, tougher guys into the fold, but their finesse players were retained at HUGE salaries, one after the other, with nobody making sure that they would be able to adapt to a meaner, tougher league than the one they inherited in 2005. The defense was almost entirely neglected, too, and that's never smart. Lindy needs to shoulder his portion of the blame for not being able to make his now-rich players accountable. He never benches guys he promises to bench. He picks VERY strange times to sit guys out of full periods of hockey, and he seems kinda immature when you see who he calls out in the press and who he leaves untouched. And THIS season, he comes out and says that he's been too hard on his guys and he's gonna be more easygoing, when what they REALLY need (almost all of them) is a good asskicking. That said, I'd rather see some of these primadonna assfaces leave than Lindy. Nothing upsets me more than watching millionaires act like petulant, selfish babies night after miserable night.
JJFIVEOH Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 We have NO superior talent on this team. The "Vanek/Superstar" myth created by the unwarranted contract extension a couple years back has, I think, finally vanished, as it should have. At least I've finally woken up to his glaring deficiencies that will forever keep him from achieving that status. Roy, Connolly, Pominville, Stafford, MacArthur, these guys are all above average players, with Connolly probably possessing the most all-around talent among them, but NONE of them are true Top Line talent, and I think we're all seeing that. And the rest of the team is already comfortable with their 3rd and 4th Line status. Our defensive veterans are getting schooled by the rookies and sophomores. Except for Sekera, who isn't schooling anyone except Lindy, apparently. The problem on this team is accountability. NO Captain is going to be effective if he starts yelling at guys like Roy, Pominville, Connolly, Vanek, etc. if Lindy doesn't back him up with benchings and whatnot. But Lindy went even softer this year, instead of harder on them, so that's a real problem, IMO. This is a team of boys, with a few men interspersed within the ranks, but those men are not being given the tools to lead the rest of them effectively, and that needs to be addressed ASAP by Darcy Regier. This is what I think makes the team good. They have several above average players while some teams rely on one or two superstars. There is no way for any team to have a handful of above average players as well as a couple of superstars. Money and salary cap won't allow it. Now, what happens to those teams with only a couple of superstars when one of them gets injured? BFLO can get away with a couple of injuries and still not put them at a huge disadvantage. It also helps when some guys are in a slump, the others pick up the slack as is evident by our balanced scoring. I don't think there needs to be any changes. They're going through a minor slump as will every team in the league once or twice over. They started off strong and then teams caught on to would made the Sabres so successful right out of the hole. Ruff's always been good at compensating for situations like this. As far as accountability, yeah there might be a problem there. But, the two vets they brought in this year are new to the team. Even Grier because he doesn't have many ex-teammates around. Let them do their job, it won't happen overnight. Remember just a week or two ago when everybody was jumping for joy? Well, it's only been a couple of games. Look at where some of the teams are in the standings that should be much higher. It's not like they have been awful for three games straight. Besides the Panthers game, they haven't put in 60 minutes of poor hockey in the last week or two. Of course 20 good minutes is not enough, but it's not like they have sucked all game/every game for the past two weeks. The NHL wanted parity and they got it. Don't expect many teams to totally dominate the league, and that includes BFLO.
Stoner Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Sorry, this probably came across as smartass-y and kind of prickish. If so, I apologize. HEY. I never got an apology like this. PA does the WTF wave.
SwampD Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 If you're seeing the same system over the last 12 years then I'm not sure what to say. I can see distinct changes in the style, tempo and philosophy throughout. They played somewhat defensive, puck-possession style hockey when they played in front of Hasek and when we had three good scoring lines (disagree that we had three bona fide no.1 lines - we had a 1, 1B, and another line good enough to be a 2 because it was matched against other 3's) Lindy was smart enough to realize he had three good scoring lines and changed his system to maximize their talents. As for Lindy's system causing the defensive injuries? I think that's a stretch. Kalinin broke his ankle, I believe while blocking a shot. McKee had a staph infection caused by dirty equipment and an cut that wasn't dressed/cleaned. Tallinder broke his arm in a seemingly harmless collision along that wall. Numminen was 38 at the time and pulled his groin muscle. All blamed on Lindy's defensive zone system? Part of the reason the defensive zone play is bad is they've had bad defensive defensemen for a while. They've focused on drafting small, quick, finesse players, and haven't had the gritty, defensively responsible players we need in our own end. It's starting to change, with Myers and the acquisition of Rivet, but there are still a lot of soft, finesse players throughout the d-corps. Again, we disagree, and this is as far as I'll go with this. You'll never get me to agree that he does not get the most out of his players (and I think that concept is rather fluid in and of itself - there are always going to be players you can't reach, for whatever reason, be it personality, style, whatever) and I get the feeling that even if he gets this group of soft (mentally and physically) underachieving players into the playoffs and goes deep, you won't change your mind. :thumbsup: I still think Lindy's system that is designed to skate the puck out instead of passing the puck out, keeps the play in our own zone way too long. Over the long run, this wears the defense down, increasing there chances of being injured. Even in 05-07, the time spent in our own zone was much higher than in the offensive zone. The only difference was when they did get a break out, they took advantage of it (until the playoffs).
Stoner Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 This is what I think makes the team good. They have several above average players while some teams rely on one or two superstars. There is no way for any team to have a handful of above average players as well as a couple of superstars. Money and salary cap won't allow it. Now, what happens to those teams with only a couple of superstars when one of them gets injured? BFLO can get away with a couple of injuries and still not put them at a huge disadvantage. It also helps when some guys are in a slump, the others pick up the slack as is evident by our balanced scoring. I don't think there needs to be any changes. They're going through a minor slump as will every team in the league once or twice over. They started off strong and then teams caught on to would made the Sabres so successful right out of the hole. Ruff's always been good at compensating for situations like this. As far as accountability, yeah there might be a problem there. But, the two vets they brought in this year are new to the team. Even Grier because he doesn't have many ex-teammates around. Let them do their job, it won't happen overnight. Remember just a week or two ago when everybody was jumping for joy? Well, it's only been a couple of games. Look at where some of the teams are in the standings that should be much higher. It's not like they have been awful for three games straight. Besides the Panthers game, they haven't put in 60 minutes of poor hockey in the last week or two. Of course 20 good minutes is not enough, but it's not like they have sucked all game/every game for the past two weeks. The NHL wanted parity and they got it. Don't expect many teams to totally dominate the league, and that includes BFLO. OK, fair enough. But if that's true, then there are no excuses left. You have an elite coach, so in a league where very little separates the teams, coaching should be the difference. Go win a Cup Lindy. But if there's parity and the Sabres can't break the top half of that league and win a round or two, there's a huge problem here. Besides the usual suspects New Jersey, Colorado and Detroit... CAROLINA, ANAHEIM, TAMPA BAY AND PITTSBURGH WON CUPS IN THIS DECADE. What's the problem here? The organization's stated public goal is to win a Cup. Parity. One of the best coaches in the league. An elite goalie. Go do it already.
shrader Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 It is crazy to think that Kovalchuck makes less than Vanek. Yeah, it definitely is crazy to think something, especially when it isn't true. Vanek is making $6.4 million while Kovalchuk is making $7.5 million.
grelit Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 GET RID OF VANEK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Biggest waste of 7+mill a year Easier said than done.
carpandean Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Easier said than done. When people bring up players like Hecht or even Pommer, I'm quick to say the same thing. However, with Vanek, I'm not sure how hard it would be. Montreal took Gomez off of the Rangers' hands. Gomez has a similar cap hit ($7.35 million vs. $7.14 million) and has much higher salaries over the the short-term ($8 million, $8 million, $7.5 million, $5.5 million, $4.5 million vs. $6.4 million, $6.4 million, ...) Compare Gomez's performance since the lockout to Vanek's: Gomez 2005-06: 82GP 33G 51A 81P 2006-07: 72GP 13G 47A 60P 2007-08: 81GP 16G 54A 70P 2008-09: 77GP 16G 42A 58P Vanek 2005-06: 81GP 25G 23A 48P 2006-07: 82GP 43G 41A 84P 2007-08: 82GP 36G 28A 64P 2008-09: 73GP 40G 24A 64P Obviously, Gomez is a playmaking center, while Vanek is a goal-scoring winger. However, both are coveted assets and command big value, especially around July 1. Look at the risk that the Rangers took on glass-boned Gaborik. Teams won't take a chance on "20-goal scorers" like Hecht, but most would jump on the chance to add someone who has averaged a goal every other game (0.502 GPG) over the last three years. I'm not saying that it's the right move and it would probably have to wait until the Summer when teams are trying to fill big gaps, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be that hard to move him. Heck, if Kotalik and Afinogenov continue to put up big points after leaving this team, someone might be willing to give us a lot for a guy that has done so well (production-wise) here, hoping that they get a 50-60 goal scorer out of it. I would say, though, that if they decide to keep Lindy as the coach and Vanek doesn't fit into his plans, then they should entertain offers. The guy has value and if you're not getting it on the ice, get it in trade. If they get rid of Lindy, then it would probably be better to see what he does under that coach.
static70 Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Let's look at FACTS: How are the 2 most recent former Sabres that were always in Lindy's doghouse doing on other teams this season? Max Afinogenov: 19GP 9G 11A 20P Ales Kotalik 22GP 6G 11A 17P Everyone was screaming to run these players out of town as quickly as possible last season and somehow both "worthless" players have resurrected their careers and become very important players on other teams with DIFFERENT COACHES. If "worthless" Max and Kotalik can have these types of bounce-back seasons on others teams with NEW COACHES, could you imagine what an incredible force ultra-skilled VANEK would be on another team with a NEW COACH???? Same goes for Pominville and Connolly. Let's get real people. Don't believe all the media hype and praise of Lindy. Lindy IS the problem and the fastest way to improve the team is to send HIM packing. On top of everything else, Lindy has horribly mishandled ALL our backup goalies season after season and after season and he costs us points every season by doing so. Send Lindy packing, watch how good the team could be. Yes, but its not the coaches that have bumped these players stats. Its the caliber of players they are currently playing with. AKA: Kolvachuck and Gaborik. This team needs to get rid of 2 forwards. One RWer and 1 Center or LWer. The candidates for trade should be as follows: Pomminstein, Connolly, Roy, McArthur You can package them with each other or with others such as: Mair, Paetsch, Sekera, Lydman, Tallinder or prospects and/or picks. We need to get rid of atleast 2 d-men and salary. What are looking to bring in? I would shoot for Kolvachuck. It is not clear he will resign with Atlanta and can be an immediate impact player on multiple levels for line 1. If not Kolvachuck then the talent pool as to whats available drops substantially. Not a whole coming in the 2010 FA period at the end of the season. 1 of 2 choices to make here, go for the blockbuster trade or trade for picks to continue to build from within. But something does need to happen and happen quickly. Miller is not Hasek and the team cannot depend on him to carry the season with the lack of scoring ongoing. He is a great goalie, don't get me wrong, but it is what it is.
Stoner Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 When people bring up players like Hecht or even Pommer, I'm quick to say the same thing. However, with Vanek, I'm not sure how hard it would be. Montreal took Gomez off of the Rangers' hands. Gomez has a similar cap hit ($7.35 million vs. $7.14 million) and has much higher salaries over the the short-term ($8 million, $8 million, $7.5 million, $5.5 million, $4.5 million vs. $6.4 million, $6.4 million, ...) Compare Gomez's performance since the lockout to Vanek's: Gomez 2005-06: 82GP 33G 51A 81P 2006-07: 72GP 13G 47A 60P 2007-08: 81GP 16G 54A 70P 2008-09: 77GP 16G 42A 58P Vanek 2005-06: 81GP 25G 23A 48P 2006-07: 82GP 43G 41A 84P 2007-08: 82GP 36G 28A 64P 2008-09: 73GP 40G 24A 64P Obviously, Gomez is a playmaking center, while Vanek is a goal-scoring winger. However, both are coveted assets and command big value, especially around July 1. Look at the risk that the Rangers took on glass-boned Gaborik. Teams won't take a chance on "20-goal scorers" like Hecht, but most would jump on the chance to add someone who has averaged a goal every other game (0.502 GPG) over the last three years. I'm not saying that it's the right move and it would probably have to wait until the Summer when teams are trying to fill big gaps, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be that hard to move him. Heck, if Kotalik and Afinogenov continue to put up big points after leaving this team, someone might be willing to give us a lot for a guy that has done so well (production-wise) here, hoping that they get a 50-60 goal scorer out of it. I would say, though, that if they decide to keep Lindy as the coach and Vanek doesn't fit into his plans, then they should entertain offers. The guy has value and if you're not getting it on the ice, get it in trade. If they get rid of Lindy, then it would probably be better to see what he does under that coach. Very nice. It's also important to look at Vanek's production in the context of suppressed ice time. As I figured out recently, last season Vanek scored goals more "efficiently" than Alex Ovechkin.
static70 Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 You spent a lot of time focusing on point coverage in the defensive zone. Not sure why, but it seems to be a huge sore spot for you. I'm fine with disagreeing over strategy or line combos, but to extrapolate that out to insinuate that a guy with 440 wins, a COTY, two ECF appearances and one SCF appearance is somehow overrated or a bad coach is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Some of the other things you mentioned - I have to point at least some of the blame at the players. Pominville is a 30-goal scorer, he needs to be on the ice on the PP. He's got to learn how to keep the puck in. On the PK, some of these guys have to fight harder to get the puck out of the zone. Guys can't get up for the game? Can't fight past the D for a loose puck on a dump-in? They're :censored: ing professional hockey players playing against other :censored: ing professional hockey players. How the hell did they get to the pros if they constantly need their coach to get them up for the game or to fight through defensemen? As for Lindy - I see a coach who has been able to constantly adjust his systems and attack to maximize the limited resources on his roster - moving from a defensive-minded team that relied on a HoF goalie to the pond hockey run-and-gun attack that got them back to the ECF. I see a coach who has won nearly 440 regular-season and 52 playoff games, most of which came under the shadow of poor ownership, including bankruptcy and meddling front office types. I see a COTY who, over the last few years, has had a roster full of sausage-grabbing marys who would rather look good and lose than consistently work hard and win. All that being said, do I think they could benefit from a new voice? Perhaps. A new voice might reach some of these finesse players in ways Lindy hasn't. He's not without his faults. He seems hellbent on turning Vanek into a two-way player at the cost of keeping his highest-paid scorer on the bench. Seems it could be a bit like cutting off his nose to spite his face. He tends to mishandle the backups. His powerplays have been inconsistent. He juggles lines too frequently for my taste. But as you said - that's fine, we disagree. You see a coach who hasn't gotten the most out of his talent, I see a coach who has led some very talent-deficient teams to the SCF, the ECF (twice) and a Prez Trophy. I don't see a coach that has coached "talent-deficient" teams to the SCF or ECF. Facts are facts, Hasek led the charge in 98-99 season. Thats talent. Although one of only 2 or 3 on the team that had any, but he was a phenom in net. And come on now, the Drury-Briere team was talent packed specifically due to these 2 players. That talent is now gone and it shows pathetically. The inability to score or capatilize on scoring chances is a direct reflection of the talent on the team now. No, another couple of key components are still missing. I am not saying get rid of all of them, but 2 players on the top 2 scoring lines needs to go.
Stoner Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 I don't see a coach that has coached "talent-deficient" teams to the SCF or ECF. Facts are facts, Hasek led the charge in 98-99 season. Thats talent. Although one of only 2 or 3 on the team that had any, but he was a phenom in net. And come on now, the Drury-Briere team was talent packed specifically due to these 2 players. That talent is now gone and it shows pathetically. The inability to score or capatilize on scoring chances is a direct reflection of the talent on the team now. No, another couple of key components are still missing. I am not saying get rid of all of them, but 2 players on the top 2 scoring lines needs to go. Well said. When it comes right down to it, for Ruff to have earned the reputation he currently enjoys, there'd have to be Cups in 99 and 06 or 07 when he had the talent to do it, and playoff appearances the last two years.
JJFIVEOH Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 OK, fair enough. But if that's true, then there are no excuses left. You have an elite coach, so in a league where very little separates the teams, coaching should be the difference. Go win a Cup Lindy. But if there's parity and the Sabres can't break the top half of that league and win a round or two, there's a huge problem here. Besides the usual suspects New Jersey, Colorado and Detroit... CAROLINA, ANAHEIM, TAMPA BAY AND PITTSBURGH WON CUPS IN THIS DECADE. What's the problem here? The organization's stated public goal is to win a Cup. Parity. One of the best coaches in the league. An elite goalie. Go do it already. I know the excuses should be limited at this point. Maybe we'll have a legitimate gripe if they go into a 10 game free fall like they are known for. I think the telling tale to see if Ruff is going somewhere with these guys is the ability to break out of a slump and keep the damage to a minimum. Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Stafford, McArthur........ none of these guys are even in their prime yet. I still don't think the team has the maturity to be a #1 team in the league. But, I do think they have the ability to finish #3-#6 in the conference with next year being better and perhaps be a dominant force in a couple of years. People want results NOW and that's not going to happen without going nuts in the free agency circus. And that only gives you short term success.
Stoner Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 I know the excuses should be limited at this point. Maybe we'll have a legitimate gripe if they go into a 10 game free fall like they are known for. I think the telling tale to see if Ruff is going somewhere with these guys is the ability to break out of a slump and keep the damage to a minimum. Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Stafford, McArthur........ none of these guys are even in their prime yet. I still don't think the team has the maturity to be a #1 team in the league. But, I do think they have the ability to finish #3-#6 in the conference with next year being better and perhaps be a dominant force in a couple of years. People want results NOW and that's not going to happen without going nuts in the free agency circus. And that only gives you short term success. Is your argument that these guys are going to be more mentally mature in two to three years? Or maturity in the physical skill sense?
JJFIVEOH Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 Is your argument that these guys are going to be more mentally mature in two to three years? Or maturity in the physical skill sense? I think they are mature in a physical skill sense, they just aren't using it right. We've all seen what they can do when they are on their game. Maybe it's just me, but I think that the best way to build a successful long term team you need to keep everybody together and let them learn. They have the talent, they just need to learn to use it better. Most these kids aren't even drinking age when they start playing in the big leagues. Coaching can only do so much, time is the biggest factor. I think they will only get better. I'll bet this slide they are on does not last very long.
nfreeman Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 OK, fair enough. But if that's true, then there are no excuses left. You have an elite coach, so in a league where very little separates the teams, coaching should be the difference. Go win a Cup Lindy. But if there's parity and the Sabres can't break the top half of that league and win a round or two, there's a huge problem here. Besides the usual suspects New Jersey, Colorado and Detroit... CAROLINA, ANAHEIM, TAMPA BAY AND PITTSBURGH WON CUPS IN THIS DECADE. What's the problem here? The organization's stated public goal is to win a Cup. Parity. One of the best coaches in the league. An elite goalie. Go do it already. Carolina is skating around with our cup. Also, Staal is better than anyone the Sabres have had post-lockout. Anaheim -- Pronger, Niedermayer, Getzlaf & Perry are all better than anyone the Sabres have had post-lockout. Tampa -- Vinny, St. Louis and Richards are all better than anyone the Sabres have had post-lockout. Pittsburgh -- Crosby and Malkin are better than anyone the Sabres have had post-lockout. My point is simply that when Lindy has had high-quality talent, he has gotten good results. Right now he is getting pretty good, but not great, results out of a team with some good players but plenty of flaws and zero consistent producers out of the top 6 forwards. Vanek and Pommer are being paid to score goals and are simply not doing so. Connolly and Roy are both good players but neither is a #1 center. The elite teams in the league all have much better players in their top 6 than the Sabres do: Washington -- Ovechkin, Semin, Backstrom Pittsburgh -- Crosby & Malkin Philly -- Richards & Carter (not to mention van Riemsdyk and Briere) NJ -- Parise SJ -- Thornton, Heatley, Marleau Chicago -- Kane, Toews Calgary -- Iginla Is there anyone on that list who is not better than any forward on the Sabres? Would anyone here not trade Vanek for anyone on that list? Give Lindy some gourmet groceries, and he'll cook you a great meal. When people bring up players like Hecht or even Pommer, I'm quick to say the same thing. However, with Vanek, I'm not sure how hard it would be. Montreal took Gomez off of the Rangers' hands. Gomez has a similar cap hit ($7.35 million vs. $7.14 million) and has much higher salaries over the the short-term ($8 million, $8 million, $7.5 million, $5.5 million, $4.5 million vs. $6.4 million, $6.4 million, ...) I'm not saying that it's the right move and it would probably have to wait until the Summer when teams are trying to fill big gaps, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be that hard to move him. Heck, if Kotalik and Afinogenov continue to put up big points after leaving this team, someone might be willing to give us a lot for a guy that has done so well (production-wise) here, hoping that they get a 50-60 goal scorer out of it. I would say, though, that if they decide to keep Lindy as the coach and Vanek doesn't fit into his plans, then they should entertain offers. The guy has value and if you're not getting it on the ice, get it in trade. If they get rid of Lindy, then it would probably be better to see what he does under that coach. I agree -- they would have no problem trading Vanek. However, I think they would be foolish to do so. 40-goal scorers just don't come around very often. They need to just keep working with him and figure out how to get the most out of him. He does seem to be playing better in the last few games. Yes, but its not the coaches that have bumped these players stats. Its the caliber of players they are currently playing with. AKA: Kolvachuck and Gaborik. This team needs to get rid of 2 forwards. One RWer and 1 Center or LWer. The candidates for trade should be as follows: Pomminstein, Connolly, Roy, McArthur You can package them with each other or with others such as: Mair, Paetsch, Sekera, Lydman, Tallinder or prospects and/or picks. We need to get rid of atleast 2 d-men and salary. What are looking to bring in? I would shoot for Kolvachuck. It is not clear he will resign with Atlanta and can be an immediate impact player on multiple levels for line 1. If not Kolvachuck then the talent pool as to whats available drops substantially. Not a whole coming in the 2010 FA period at the end of the season. 1 of 2 choices to make here, go for the blockbuster trade or trade for picks to continue to build from within. But something does need to happen and happen quickly. Miller is not Hasek and the team cannot depend on him to carry the season with the lack of scoring ongoing. He is a great goalie, don't get me wrong, but it is what it is. I would love to get Kovalchuk, but there is no way Atlanta is trading him to the Sabres for any of the guys you've named. I also wouldn't give anything of value for him without an agreed contract extension, which is highly unlikely.
Stoner Posted November 23, 2009 Report Posted November 23, 2009 I think they are mature in a physical skill sense, they just aren't using it right. We've all seen what they can do when they are on their game. Maybe it's just me, but I think that the best way to build a successful long term team you need to keep everybody together and let them learn. They have the talent, they just need to learn to use it better. Most these kids aren't even drinking age when they start playing in the big leagues. Coaching can only do so much, time is the biggest factor. I think they will only get better. I'll bet this slide they are on does not last very long. I hope you're right about the slide. I just don't agree that this coach and Core have a couple more years to get back to contender status.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.