ntjacks79 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 If not overly-emotional, perhaps you're typing from a padded cell with your toes? :doh: BTW, I honestly believe that last nights game proves my point. Maybe it's that they show up 1 in 4 periods, not 1 in 4 games. That 3rd period was a Stanley Cup winner wearing blue and gold. But where were they in period 1 the last 3 games?
nfreeman Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 I guess this means you don't like my trade proposal. ;-). I am down on the top two lines. I admit it. Watching those lines makes me as mad as watching the game in Standard Def because HD is blacked out. ;-). Give me the 70's style of the Boston Bruins any day over this bunch - maybe a little less talented but very hard-working. Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito's team was less talented than this Sabres team? Also, it would be insane to trade anything for Drury at his current contract.
ntjacks79 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito's team was less talented than this Sabres team? Also, it would be insane to trade anything for Drury at his current contract. Fair comment. I was actually thinking more of Bruins 75-79. Excellent team with limited talent. I still would do it for Drury, despite the $. Again, just my opinion on what he would mean.
Taro T Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Fair comment. I was actually thinking more of Bruins 75-79. Excellent team with limited talent. I still would do it for Drury, despite the $. Again, just my opinion on what he would mean. That '77-'78 B's team had 11 20 goal scorers. Guys like Cashman, Middleton, Ratelle, Park, and Cheevers were not talent deficient (much as I disliked them all).
X. Benedict Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 That '77-'78 B's team had 11 20 goal scorers. Guys like Cashman, Middleton, Ratelle, Park, and Cheevers were not talent deficient (much as I disliked them all). I hated those guys.
ntjacks79 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 That '77-'78 B's team had 11 20 goal scorers. Guys like Cashman, Middleton, Ratelle, Park, and Cheevers were not talent deficient (much as I disliked them all). I wasn't saying "talent absent"... I was saying they had less talent then, oh let's say the Montreal Canadiens, in that era - but they won and maintained consistent excellence through work ethic. The current Sabres could be much like them - but they are minus the work ethic at the moment.
Taro T Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 I wasn't saying "talent absent"... I was saying they had less talent then, oh let's say the Montreal Canadiens, in that era - but they won and maintained consistent excellence through work ethic. The current Sabres could be much like them - but they are minus the work ethic at the moment. You are saying the Bruins of the late '70's were "excellent ... with limited talent" because they had less talent than the Habs? NOBODY came close to the Habs in those days. In '76 they lost 12 games (including playoffs) in the ENTIRE season. In '77 they totalled 10 L's, in '78 13 L's, and in '79 when they were showing signs of ALMOST being mortal, they lost a whopping 21 games. They only lost 10 playoff games in 4 years. Boston handed them 5 of those losses. (And if Grapes didn't send the entire squad out on a line change towards the end of the game on May 10, 1979 the Habs still would have had only 10 playoff losses those 4 years; but they would have had 5 fewer W's.) Even in '75 the Habs tied the Sabres and Phlyers for most points in the RS. Nobody had remotely the talent that Moe-ray-all had. They could put out Dryden, Robinson, Savard, Lafleur, Shutt, and Lemaire on the ice to start and still had Lapointe, Gainey, Jarvis, Tremblay, Cournoyer, Mahovlich, Risebrough, Lambert, Bouchard, and Houle on the bench. Boston was very competitive talent-wise with the other 3 "also-rans" of that era: Buffalo, Filly, and at the end of the decade the Isles. Any team that can ice 11 20 goal scorers has some talent, and they had Cheevers backing it up. I would not define that as "limited talent" but absolutely agree that nobody had close to the depth that the Habs had. I'd say the '80's version of the B's fit come closer to fitting your mold of "excellent ... with limited talent" than the '70's version did. But even those squads had Bourque and Neely, neither of which were ever in fear of being the last kid picked for a pond hockey game (or even the 2nd kid picked).
ntjacks79 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 You are saying the Bruins of the late '70's were "excellent ... with limited talent" because they had less talent than the Habs? NOBODY came close to the Habs in those days. In '76 they lost 12 games (including playoffs) in the ENTIRE season. In '77 they totalled 10 L's, in '78 13 L's, and in '79 when they were showing signs of ALMOST being mortal, they lost a whopping 21 games. They only lost 10 playoff games in 4 years. Boston handed them 5 of those losses. (And if Grapes didn't send the entire squad out on a line change towards the end of the game on May 10, 1979 the Habs still would have had only 10 playoff losses those 4 years; but they would have had 5 fewer W's.) Even in '75 the Habs tied the Sabres and Phlyers for most points in the RS. Nobody had remotely the talent that Moe-ray-all had. They could put out Dryden, Robinson, Savard, Lafleur, Shutt, and Lemaire on the ice to start and still had Lapointe, Gainey, Jarvis, Tremblay, Cournoyer, Mahovlich, Risebrough, Lambert, Bouchard, and Houle on the bench. Boston was very competitive talent-wise with the other 3 "also-rans" of that era: Buffalo, Filly, and at the end of the decade the Isles. Any team that can ice 11 20 goal scorers has some talent, and they had Cheevers backing it up. I would not define that as "limited talent" but absolutely agree that nobody had close to the depth that the Habs had. I'd say the '80's version of the B's fit come closer to fitting your mold of "excellent ... with limited talent" than the '70's version did. But even those squads had Bourque and Neely, neither of which were ever in fear of being the last kid picked for a pond hockey game (or even the 2nd kid picked). You're presenting a lot of good data. No dispute. All I was saying was the the Bruins of the late 70's especially, and I agree the early 80's as well with guys like Steve Kasper, etc., were greater than the sum of their parts - because of work ethic. The 09-10 Sabres are less than the sum of their parts - because of work ethic... and would be FAR less than the sum of their parts if not for Mr. Ryan Miller.
Taro T Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 You're presenting a lot of good data. No dispute. All I was saying was the the Bruins of the late 70's especially, and I agree the early 80's as well with guys like Steve Kasper, etc., were greater than the sum of their parts - because of work ethic. The 09-10 Sabres are less than the sum of their parts - because of work ethic... and would be FAR less than the sum of their parts if not for Mr. Ryan Miller. Sorry for getting you so far off tangent w/ the B's and Habs of the '70's. Getting back to point, I'm not certain that it is work ethic that's the issue w/ the Sabres' top 6. While I believe Vanek does have All-star quality talent (although it hasn't been on display this season) and Connolly can be a magician w/ the puck; I just don't see the others in the top 6 as having true #1 line talent. Roy and Pominville strike me as being extremely strong 2nd liners but not really 1st liners. Stafford should be able to be the nasty power forward that would complement the rest of a 1st line or 2nd line at worst; but he just doesn't have the nasty temperment required to do that. I don't know that it is in his nature to be that player for more than a couple of games at a crack. (Hope I'm wrong about that one.) And I'm not convinced that MacArthur is true top 2 either (although his youth and current goal total suggest that I'm just slow to believe in him). Connolly's inability to win a faceoff to save his life tends to put him at the low end of 1st line talent in my book as well. Which leaves the Sabres w/ a lot of 2nd line talent to try to fill a #1 line and a #2. I thought this team would be good enough to make the playoffs, but would be ~ a 7th slot and a run of injuries could work the same magic it worked for them last year. This team has been exceeding my expectations to date, primarily on Miller's play and improved play by the D (probably a cross between Myers and effort) and strong play by the 3rd and 4th lines (read effort). While Vanek's goal total is less than I'd like to see at this point, I don't put the problem on effort. Connolly I expect to be a ppg player, maybe his issue is effort. Roy and Pominville are ~70 point players (maybe realistically Pominville is only a 60 pointer) IMHO and I don't know that Stafford is any more than a 60 pointer with his temperment. So really, except for Vanek (and Roy who's about where I'd expect him to be) they all are about 1 5-8 game hot streak from being on pace for where I'd expect them to be. I don't know how to explain the horrible period / great period dichotomy they display. I'd expect that is a huge source for your "work ethic" complaints and your belief that they don't play up to where they should. It could be the opposite, that the great period they have is actually the team playing over their heads. I really haven't gotten to watch nearly as many games this year as I normally would; so I can't really say if they're underperforming or overperforming, but I'm leaning towards them playing above their talent level (especially when Grier is in the lineup providing the motivation and drive that some of them seem to lack on their own). I don't think that they have a poor work ethic, I just don't think they have the temperment to make themselves go through a wall on their own. But they do have the temperment that if someone is goading them on, they can do it. Which is probably how Rivet managed to get them out of the gate so fast last year before he got hurt, and how Drury was so integral to the success of this team before he moved elsewhere, these guys aren't leaders but CAN be lead. Actually, probably what the team needs isn't a Kovalchuk or a Staal, it's a 2nd liner with a mean / motivational streak to him; someone that can play on the top 2 lines and reinforce the message that Grier brings. Someone that can bring that external motivation to a bunch of guys that don't appear to have the ability to get there on their own. Sorry, it's late and I'm rambling now.
billsrcursed Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 ^^ Wow. Nice post. I agree with all of it.
darksabre Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 I just want to say, completely separate from the discussion in this thread, that I am glad that you are back and posting more often Taro. :beer:
nfreeman Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Actually, probably what the team needs isn't a Kovalchuk or a Staal, it's a 2nd liner with a mean / motivational streak to him; someone that can play on the top 2 lines and reinforce the message that Grier brings. Someone that can bring that external motivation to a bunch of guys that don't appear to have the ability to get there on their own. Perfect. I'd take Brenden Morrow or Ryan Smyth on this team for $5MM in a heartbeat before I took Kovy for $10MM.
Kristian Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Perfect. I'd take Brenden Morrow or Ryan Smyth on this team for $5MM in a heartbeat before I took Kovy for $10MM. +1
wjag Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Perfect. I'd take Brenden Morrow or Ryan Smyth on this team for $5MM in a heartbeat before I took Kovy for $10MM. 5 teams in four years, idk, seems like a nomad to me.
Calvin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 +1 Make that +2. Look at what Smyth did for Kopitar's game, and when he got injured Kopy went downhill real quick. A lot of the success that Roy, Pommer and Stafford had was when they were on the 2nd or 3rd lines of this team - adding Smyth on the top line will boost Vanek's performance, and moving Stafford to the Grier & Kennedy line should do wonders for his work ethic - Grier will NOT allow him to slack off on his line!
R_Dudley Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Sorry for getting you so far off tangent w/ the B's and Habs of the '70's. Actually, probably what the team needs isn't a Kovalchuk or a Staal, it's a 2nd liner with a mean / motivational streak to him; someone that can play on the top 2 lines and reinforce the message that Grier brings. Someone that can bring that external motivation to a bunch of guys that don't appear to have the ability to get there on their own. Sorry, it's late and I'm rambling now. +1, excellant post and thanks for the walk down memory lane with those 70's Montreal teams. Pretty good stuff for a rambling man.
Calvin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 5 teams in four years, idk, seems like a nomad to me. They don't call him Captain Canada for nothing y'know!
ntjacks79 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Sorry for getting you so far off tangent w/ the B's and Habs of the '70's. Getting back to point, I'm not certain that it is work ethic that's the issue w/ the Sabres' top 6. While I believe Vanek does have All-star quality talent (although it hasn't been on display this season) and Connolly can be a magician w/ the puck; I just don't see the others in the top 6 as having true #1 line talent. Roy and Pominville strike me as being extremely strong 2nd liners but not really 1st liners. Stafford should be able to be the nasty power forward that would complement the rest of a 1st line or 2nd line at worst; but he just doesn't have the nasty temperment required to do that. I don't know that it is in his nature to be that player for more than a couple of games at a crack. (Hope I'm wrong about that one.) And I'm not convinced that MacArthur is true top 2 either (although his youth and current goal total suggest that I'm just slow to believe in him). Connolly's inability to win a faceoff to save his life tends to put him at the low end of 1st line talent in my book as well. Which leaves the Sabres w/ a lot of 2nd line talent to try to fill a #1 line and a #2. I thought this team would be good enough to make the playoffs, but would be ~ a 7th slot and a run of injuries could work the same magic it worked for them last year. This team has been exceeding my expectations to date, primarily on Miller's play and improved play by the D (probably a cross between Myers and effort) and strong play by the 3rd and 4th lines (read effort). While Vanek's goal total is less than I'd like to see at this point, I don't put the problem on effort. Connolly I expect to be a ppg player, maybe his issue is effort. Roy and Pominville are ~70 point players (maybe realistically Pominville is only a 60 pointer) IMHO and I don't know that Stafford is any more than a 60 pointer with his temperment. So really, except for Vanek (and Roy who's about where I'd expect him to be) they all are about 1 5-8 game hot streak from being on pace for where I'd expect them to be. I don't know how to explain the horrible period / great period dichotomy they display. I'd expect that is a huge source for your "work ethic" complaints and your belief that they don't play up to where they should. It could be the opposite, that the great period they have is actually the team playing over their heads. I really haven't gotten to watch nearly as many games this year as I normally would; so I can't really say if they're underperforming or overperforming, but I'm leaning towards them playing above their talent level (especially when Grier is in the lineup providing the motivation and drive that some of them seem to lack on their own). I don't think that they have a poor work ethic, I just don't think they have the temperment to make themselves go through a wall on their own. But they do have the temperment that if someone is goading them on, they can do it. Which is probably how Rivet managed to get them out of the gate so fast last year before he got hurt, and how Drury was so integral to the success of this team before he moved elsewhere, these guys aren't leaders but CAN be lead. Actually, probably what the team needs isn't a Kovalchuk or a Staal, it's a 2nd liner with a mean / motivational streak to him; someone that can play on the top 2 lines and reinforce the message that Grier brings. Someone that can bring that external motivation to a bunch of guys that don't appear to have the ability to get there on their own. Sorry, it's late and I'm rambling now. I am humbled by your analysis. ;-). Seriously, very well said. I know something is "wrong" with the top-two lines. Since I've seen many of them be solid performers in past years, I am just assuming that work ethic is the issue. But it's clearly possible that when they look solid, they ARE playing over their heads. Maybe this is the Bill Parcells syndrome - you are what you are. Either way, what bothers me is that there seems to be this "our goal is the Stanley Cup" line being thrown around by Sabres management - but they have to be seeing what is discussed here... it's either lack of work ethic or lack of talent. That won't get it done if those are your "top 6". On the other hand, who wouldn't kill to have guys like Goose, Kennedy, Grier, Kaleta, Mair, Ellis populating your 3rd and 4th lines? Bottom line though, moves need to be made if this organization really means that the Stanley Cup is the goal (within the budget of course ;-) ).
Taro T Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 ... Either way, what bothers me is that there seems to be this "our goal is the Stanley Cup" line being thrown around by Sabres management - but they have to be seeing what is discussed here... it's either lack of work ethic or lack of talent. That won't get it done if those are your "top 6". On the other hand, who wouldn't kill to have guys like Goose, Kennedy, Grier, Kaleta, Mair, Ellis populating your 3rd and 4th lines? Bottom line though, moves need to be made if this organization really means that the Stanley Cup is the goal (within the budget of course ;-) ). It would appear that at least 1 move would be in order. Morrow would look very good in B&G.
korab rules Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Perfect. I'd take Brenden Morrow or Ryan Smyth on this team for $5MM in a heartbeat before I took Kovy for $10MM. This - he is a stud. The SGM's in the locker room would cower in fear of him.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.