spndnchz Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 It's all my fault. I got his jersey for Christmas. :death:
gregkash Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 getting a point with adam mair on your line should count as 20 points.
spndnchz Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 http://www.ashtonsco...38-010642889fe6 ROFLMAO :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:
Eleven Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 http://www.ashtonsco...38-010642889fe6 ROFLMAO :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: Wow.
LabattBlue Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 http://www.ashtonsco...38-010642889fe6 ROFLMAO :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: The Sausage Grabbing Mary's have hit the big time! :lol:
BuffalOhio Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 All players goes through slumps. Sitting him won't solve anything. Our best option is he plays, scores and gets hot. It's common sense. Tonight he was playing with Thomas Vanek and ADAM MAIR. COME ON! How many top lines would Mair play on in the league? That line was doomed from the start. Oh wait, give credit for Roy for scoring the ONLY GOAL OF THE GAME. The Mair goal was 100% Derek Roy. I'm not pleased with his play either, but your post was stupid. Sorry. I thought Paetsch and Sekera had more to do with that goal than Roy did. Great play by those two, great pass by Paetscher.
Two or less Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 "Unreasonable" applies to the rose colored glasses claiming that Roy is playing fine, and statements that he is hardly the problem. I was venting frustration in benching him, and quite surprised that some people were adamant that he was playing good hockey; after all, he contributed on the only goal! I was unaware that he was injured, so I apologize for my lack of knowing all the facts, but that adds even more fuel to the fire. Vanek was injured and he was benched because Lindy did not want someone give partial effort. That's all Roy has been giving. When Roy's contract was negotiated, I don't think it was too bad. I am not basing that on fact, but generalizations that contracts go up over time, and so if someone can pull the figures and show his contract was half compared to top line centers when it was signed, I would accept being wrong. As poor as I think Roy has been playing, do you really think his next contract is for the same $$$, or do you think he gets a hefty pay raise? I think you made some very valid points, and I like your observations. I think Roy has some value, and whereas he will not be an even swap for a top line center, he lessens the blow of what else you need to ship. I agree on almost your entire post, except for the benching, which is what I would like to see. Ruff does not want to change the lineup when the team is winning, which I am fine with. When the team is losing, and players are not producing, it seems like everyone has to answer to Ruff with a benching. Vanek, Stafford, Hecht, Lydman, Sekera, Butler, Macarthur, Mair, Kennedy, and Kaleta have all been benched, and perhaps not called out, but maybe not inserted into the lineup immediately when coming back from an injury. Why is Roy exempt from this treatment? I don't agree with this at all. I don't think you can bench a guy for no producing offensivly. Is it Roy's job to score? Sure it is. But, it's most of our forwards jobs to score. Roy is one of the best contracts in hockey, which is why he is no hard to trade because if we did trade him, we would never get fair value in return for him. Roy is one of the best back-checkers on this team. He plays a pretty good two way game. Mike Robitaille has talked about Roy's hustle and efforts more then any other player this season on the shootout. Ruff always plays players who work hard. If you don't work hard and still can't score, you can bet that Roy will be sitting. Vanek was lazy and got benched. As did Stafford. Roy is creating. It's just not going in for him right now. As Darcy said recently to Pierre LeBrun, people always talk "trade" about adding a scorer. But in reality, no matter who they get in a trade, will be as good if our top players cought fire. I believe that is true. As long as Roy is playing hard, he will end his slump. It's just a matter of time.
Two or less Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 You can disagree all you like, but there is no reason to start throwing insults like "stupid" around. You've been here long enough to know better. Sorry dad.
carpandean Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 As poor as I think Roy has been playing, do you really think his next contract is for the same $$$, or do you think he gets a hefty pay raise? I guess we'll find out ... in 2013!
R_Dudley Posted January 28, 2010 Report Posted January 28, 2010 http://www.ashtonsco...38-010642889fe6 ROFLMAO :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: That's wild, HTH did you find that? I wonder if that company even knows who is in that picture. I do have to say the script for the commercial and they way they use it implies a lot about the impressions given.
billsrcursed Posted January 29, 2010 Report Posted January 29, 2010 I don't agree with this at all. I don't think you can bench a guy for no producing offensivly. Is it Roy's job to score? Sure it is. But, it's most of our forwards jobs to score. Roy is one of the best contracts in hockey, which is why he is no hard to trade because if we did trade him, we would never get fair value in return for him. Roy is one of the best back-checkers on this team. He plays a pretty good two way game. Mike Robitaille has talked about Roy's hustle and efforts more then any other player this season on the shootout. Ruff always plays players who work hard. If you don't work hard and still can't score, you can bet that Roy will be sitting. Vanek was lazy and got benched. As did Stafford. Roy is creating. It's just not going in for him right now. As Darcy said recently to Pierre LeBrun, people always talk "trade" about adding a scorer. But in reality, no matter who they get in a trade, will be as good if our top players cought fire. I believe that is true. As long as Roy is playing hard, he will end his slump. It's just a matter of time. The bolded above is a great point. Ruff doesn't bench guys because the puck doesn't go into the net. Guys get benched for lack of hustle. I stand by what I said earlier; in terms of being benched, Roy is nowhere NEAR the top of that list. I'd like a true #1 putting 35-45 goals away too, but that's not the make-up of our team. Listen to some of the away feeds (if possible) and they all say the same thing; we get scoring from all 4 lines, and that's what makes us "dangerous". Trading Roy plus whoever for a true #1 doesn't fit what they're trying to do. My opinion, of course...
Grinder42 Posted January 29, 2010 Report Posted January 29, 2010 I for one don't see what your all referring too. I have watched everygame and some twice. The one guy I think is a bum is Vanek without question. Roy, he atleast seems to be upset when he plays poorly. Vanek, he makes excuses. Roy, is becomming the leader of this franchise along with miller. He will never be the playmaker that Connolly is as you say.( he makes his share of poor choices too and is not any better on Faceoffs) I was glad to see ruff put MacCarthur in the press box...he has been horrible all year! Sure he has scored goals but been responsible more than he has scored. The thing is, I listened to everyone bash Max last year saying the same things. If we keep removing the skilled players form this franchise who have the ability to play the powerplay were going to be dead last in that area....which usually means bottom of the NHL. Roy will play better and maybe Ruff shuld put Connolly out there with Pominville or Vanek or both...However...putting Connolly and Vanek on the ice at the same time might be a huge advantage too another team with a good checking line. I think the abres had a bad run out west....were a bit exposed...and maybe we need a change....but guys like Ellis,Mair, Sekera,Paesch,Vanek...alll are ahead of roy. My top three players this year Myers,Miller,Grier I wouldlove to see the Sabres shake things up, doubt they will.....Vanek is a bust for what he gets paid.Talk about a guy who needs to shoot and shoot....it is him.One comment left.....Lindy, if your out there reading this and I am sure you are (LOL) why in the world do all the sabres on a 3 on 2 form a straight line accross the ice and attack the net form the same depth....ever hear of the next teir to cash in on the rebound or a drop pass. I see it done against us all too often but never by us. And if you are reading...thanks for sending the message to Montador and Lydman...those guys are the reason we had a porr road trip...Our Defense is soo crucial to our transition game and we need thse guys to play like they're capable.....top defense players. Go Sabres....let's beat the Bruins! I hope to see physical play and some solid effort=WIN! I know I don't post much on this board (despite visiting it everyday), but I have to agree with SabresFaninRochester. Roy is turnover prone and Connolly is way better. To be honest, I have been waiting for someone to bring this up for a long time. I would like to see him traded for a smarter center.
LabattBlue Posted January 29, 2010 Report Posted January 29, 2010 I for one don't see what your all referring too. I have watched everygame and some twice. The one guy I think is a bum is Vanek without question. Roy, he atleast seems to be upset when he plays poorly. Vanek, he makes excuses. Roy, is becomming the leader of this franchise along with miller. You state, Roy seems to be upset when he plays poorly? Should I feel better about his play because of this? Also, what makes you believe Roy is becoming a team leader? I have no proof, but if I had to guess, I'd say he is about as far away as you can get from being a team leader.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted January 29, 2010 Report Posted January 29, 2010 Vanek, he makes excuses. Can you find me a quote where Vanek as ever made an excuse? He was playing through an injury until Lindy forced him to sit, he never brought it up before Lindy did. He's having a bad year and needs to put the puck in the net, you are 100 percent right. But if anything he is too hard on himself. To say he doesn't get upset and makes excuses is just wrong.
themaze2332 Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 Can you find me a quote where Vanek as ever made an excuse? He was playing through an injury until Lindy forced him to sit, he never brought it up before Lindy did. He's having a bad year and needs to put the puck in the net, you are 100 percent right. But if anything he is too hard on himself. To say he doesn't get upset and makes excuses is just wrong. I cannot imagine that EVERYone looks past all of Roy's glaring mistakes. Despite a message board mention "good deal" to have him, I just want to pose a few questions.... 1) On the PP, he is captain giveaway...how does that benefit the team? I know when he is out there, I do NOT get excited because 9 times out of 10, roy tries to FORCE a play that is not there and the opposing team clears it. 2) He passes at all of the wrong times to "pass the buck." It is easier for him to blame someone else than himself. His skill is VERY limited. 3) FACE-OFFS. He does not win very many. How come no one cares?? 4) He is SO the next Max, only WORSE. why does everyone wear rose-colored glasses? critique his play...then send me some results... "
Sabretip Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 I wouldn't trade him now, but it should be considered in the offseason. Let's see how the FAB 5 perform in the playoffs. They are 3 years older since the last time they were involved in the playoffs, lets see the maturity that I was hearing about before the season began. The "Fab Five", as you dub them (and who I assume is Roy, Vanek, Pominville, Gaustad and Miller from the '04-'05 Amerks squad), will have been together for 5 years this spring. I don't know what kind of window Regier and Ruff are giving those players as the "core" of the team but it has to be pretty soon. Miller's turning 30 this year and the other four will all be 26 or older by training camp next fall (Pominville & Gaustad will be 28, Roy 27 & Vanek 26). IMO, they have this year and next to prove themselves once and for all or it's time that they move on to another organization and the Sabres rethink who else they want to add to Myers and Miller as the "new" core.
static70 Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 Someone remind me again why we would ever consider sitting or trading Roy? He is in the top 3 for points on the team. Sitting, no. Trading, only if Brad Richards came back in return :thumbsup:
LabattBlue Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 The "Fab Five", as you dub them (and who I assume is Roy, Vanek, Pominville, Gaustad and Miller from the '04-'05 Amerks squad) Your offensive core...Roy, Connolly, Vanek, Pominville & Stafford
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 I cannot imagine that EVERYone looks past all of Roy's glaring mistakes. Despite a message board mention "good deal" to have him, I just want to pose a few questions.... 1) On the PP, he is captain giveaway...how does that benefit the team? I know when he is out there, I do NOT get excited because 9 times out of 10, roy tries to FORCE a play that is not there and the opposing team clears it. 2) He passes at all of the wrong times to "pass the buck." It is easier for him to blame someone else than himself. His skill is VERY limited. 3) FACE-OFFS. He does not win very many. How come no one cares?? 4) He is SO the next Max, only WORSE. why does everyone wear rose-colored glasses? critique his play...then send me some results... Not sure what this has to do with my post about Vanek, but I will bite since I just can't help myself. 1. He has been bad on the PP of late. He has to be better ... but he has been better in the past. It's a bad streath that fortunately has not killed the team. As I have said several times on this thread, don't just yell "TRADE HIM!" without offering a realistic alternative. If you really think this team would be better if he was off the team with nothing in return, you are wrong. 2. So you think that as Roy crosses the blue line, he thinks, "I can't shoot, I might miss and be blamed, let me pass it so someone else gets blamed." Really? This is how a pro athlete thinks? Not to mention that it is obviously not working because Ruff keeps calling him out in the media and having meetings with him, so he is getting plenty of blame. I have no idea what this has to do with his skill being limited. 3. Roy is at 49% on faceoffs ... second best on the team among centers ... also better than guys such as Getzlaf, Horcoff, Plekanec, Jordan Staal, Eric Staal ... in other words, he is about average. He has had a bad year overall but faceoffs are not really his problem. 4. Roy is not nearly as bad as Max. If nothing else he is a very good penalty killer (which you ignore completely) ... I agree he has too many turnovers, but he is on pace for about 20 fewer giveaways than last season ... and has only five more than Max despite playing center and having the puck a lot more ... so really the issue is he needs to be more productive, something no one has disputed. If he had 60 points right now, no one would be complaining about his turnovers. He needs to produce as he has in the past. I don't think it's rose-colored glasses so much as trying not to overreact. Again, if they could move Roy in a deal and get someone more like Patrick Sharp ... bigger guy, better on draws, still good production ... but there are not many of those guys out there, and most of them cost more. But again, show me a realistic alternative.
Derrico Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 Ok, I've read all the Roy and Vanek bashing so far this year. The team is doing well so I can't complain too much but man, where the heck is all the Staford bashing. The guy has been near invisible over the past month plus and he seems to be fanning on shots pretty well everytime he touches the puck. If there is a guy I wouldn't mind seeing in the press box for a few games it'd be Drew.
static70 Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 Ok, I've read all the Roy and Vanek bashing so far this year. The team is doing well so I can't complain too much but man, where the heck is all the Staford bashing. The guy has been near invisible over the past month plus and he seems to be fanning on shots pretty well everytime he touches the puck. If there is a guy I wouldn't mind seeing in the press box for a few games it'd be Drew. Lindy has kept him tucked away so we can deal him to Edmonton for Penner ;)
inkman Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 where the heck is all the Staford bashing. If I were to hazard a guess, I believe the expectations for Roy and Vanek are sooo much higher than Drew. We still don't really know what we have in Stafford where as Derek and Thomas are supposed known commodities.
Derrico Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 If I were to hazard a guess, I believe the expectations for Roy and Vanek are sooo much higher than Drew. We still don't really know what we have in Stafford where as Derek and Thomas are supposed known commodities. That may be so, but my God we have alot invested in this guy. We took him what? 13th overall, in the double entry draft right after the lockout. Theoretically, he should have went 6th or 7th overall in any other draft. The guy is also taking a cap hit around 3 million. I expect alot more out of him.
LabattBlue Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 That may be so, but my God we have alot invested in this guy. We took him what? 13th overall, in the double entry draft right after the lockout. Theoretically, he should have went 6th or 7th overall in any other draft. The guy is also taking a cap hit around 3 million. I expect alot more out of him. What do you mean by double entry draft? :blink:
spndnchz Posted February 3, 2010 Report Posted February 3, 2010 What do you mean by double entry draft? :blink: Paging Dr. Inkman, pink courtesy phone....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.