static70 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 I could be wrong, but I think this has already happened and that DR has been calling the shots since the summer of 2008 -- ie re-signing Miller, Pommer, Hecht, trading for Rivet, etc. were all his moves. Have you seen anything recently that suggests that Quinn is still involved in hockey decisions? Not trying to argue -- just wondering if I've missed something. Well, with the lack of moves, you are correct, I just assumed, so let me rephrase my post. F**K U DARCY REGIER :thumbsup: There ya go :blink:
billsrcursed Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 What does the Olympics have to do with the Sabres? Miller's play tailed off leading up the break. It's a fact. Not blaming him for the slump, but he's been part of the problem. The Olympics showed what Miller can do with quality play in front of him. This coming right after this supposed "tail off". We'll just have to agree to disagree here. You think Miller's play tailed off, I say the play in front of Miller tailed off, causing Miller to look bad. However, I am beginning to wonder if you're right about it being Ruff. I mean at some point, the coach has to take some heat for players either not improving, or, not adhering to the system he demands. There, now we can be friends again... :nana:
FogBat Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 Well, yeah.... there's a reason why Burke picked the best 23-players in the United States and theres a reason why their salaries combined to like $80 million. Sabres are at $46 million i think. Sorry to correct you, but I did say "half" of the team that was playing in front of him for the Olympics. Granted, that would still be a huge chunk of change, but it would still represent a better product than what everyone is complaining about now. Speaking of which, Tallinder came back without a medal - but Lydman returned with a bronze medal.
Stoner Posted March 5, 2010 Author Report Posted March 5, 2010 The Olympics showed what Miller can do with quality play in front of him. This coming right after this supposed "tail off". We'll just have to agree to disagree here. You think Miller's play tailed off, I say the play in front of Miller tailed off, causing Miller to look bad. However, I am beginning to wonder if you're right about it being Ruff. I mean at some point, the coach has to take some heat for players either not improving, or, not adhering to the system he demands. There, now we can be friends again... :nana: Look bad=tail off. Same difference. The reasons why can be debated. But it's the goalie's job to stop the darn puck.
SwampD Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 Look bad=tail off. Same difference. The reasons why can be debated. But it's the goalie's job to stop the darn puck. 2 goals allowed against Washington and 3 against Pittsburgh? C'mon. He can say whatever he wants. He is not the problem.
Stoner Posted March 5, 2010 Author Report Posted March 5, 2010 2 goals allowed against Washington and 3 against Pittsburgh? C'mon. He can say whatever he wants. He is not the problem. He didn't play against Pittsburgh. The tail off was before the break. He played well against the Caps. So far so good.
SwampD Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 He didn't play against Pittsburgh. The tail off was before the break. He played well against the Caps. So far so good. It doesn't matter anyway, if it was the top six not scoring or the D not coming together (like another thread has suggested), or whether it is Miller who has tailed off, because...(wait for it)...Ruff will "get' em there".
jad1 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 If Miller had half the team that was playing in front of him for the Olympics playing for the Sabres, we would be a force to be reckoned with. If the Sabres played with half the effort and heart that the USA team played with, we'd be a force to be reckoned with.
tom webster Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 Well, yeah.... there's a reason why Burke picked the best 23-players in the United States and theres a reason why their salaries combined to like $80 million. Sabres are at $46 million i think. Sorry to correct you but a) Burke clearly said he did not pick the 23 best, he built a team. b) The Sabres are at around $55 million c) I don't have time to add it up, but I'd be surprised if that team came anywhere near $80 million. My guess with out looking is around $60 million.
tom webster Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 Sorry to correct you but a) Burke clearly said he did not pick the 23 best, he built a team. b) The Sabres are at around $55 million c) I don't have time to add it up, but I'd be surprised if that team came anywhere near $80 million. My guess with out looking is around $60 million. I stand corrected on the Olympic roster as a quick check puts the number arounbd $78 million but that includes $6 million for the back up goalie and $8.05 for the fourth line center.
SwampD Posted March 5, 2010 Report Posted March 5, 2010 I stand corrected on the Olympic roster as a quick check puts the number arounbd $78 million but that includes $6 million for the back up goalie and $8.05 for the fourth line center. :lol:
Stoner Posted March 5, 2010 Author Report Posted March 5, 2010 You know, the more I think about this comment of Ruff's, the bigger it gets. (Hmm...) He's throwing down a real gauntlet there, for himself, almost certainly unintentionally. But if he doesn't get 'em there, after saying that... he should be gone. What "there" is is open to debate. I took it as "playing a winning system again."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.