Skibum Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 I have been really amazed at how the team, in particular the young guys like Ennis, Gerbe, Sekera, Weber, and McCormick have stepped up their game since Roy went down. I was among the many who wrote the team off when Roy was deemed out for the season. It makes me wonder what the deal is. I can't believe Roy himself was the problem - he plays with a lot of heart and obviously produces on the scoreboard. Could it be that the team just relied too heavily on the Roy line? Maybe a lot of guys didn't feel like it was their job to score (even though this is, technically, every player's job). Anyway, with each win I wonder how this is happening, especially when many of the veterans have done nothing to fill the scoring void. The last few seasons have given me little reason to believe that this team is conditioned to handle adversity. What the heck is going on here?
carpandean Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 A few guys (McCormick, Gerbe, Vanek, Pominville, etc.) have really stepped up their game. Also, Miller has been playing better (not every game, but he's had some stronger ones lately.) I definitely don't think that Roy is the problem or that they are better without him. However, it does show that some of the dead weight can go away next year and there are some guys who are able to fill in. I'd let Connolly walk and try to acquire that #1 center that they've needed, dropping Roy to the second line. Easier said than done, but it's the best case.
shrader Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 A few guys (McCormick, Gerbe, Vanek, Pominville, etc.) have really stepped up their game. Also, Miller has been playing better (not every game, but he's had some stronger ones lately.) I definitely don't think that Roy is the problem or that they are better without him. However, it does show that some of the dead weight can go away next year and there are some guys who are able to fill in. I'd let Connolly walk and try to acquire that #1 center that they've needed, dropping Roy to the second line. Easier said than done, but it's the best case. I'm with you on most of this. So far, it looks like Roy's injury was a bit of a wakeup call for a lot of people. Another possibility I'll throw out there is that it brought on some new line combinations that may work better than the previous ones.
wjag Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 I'm with you on most of this. So far, it looks like Roy's injury was a bit of a wakeup call for a lot of people. Another possibility I'll throw out there is that it brought on some new line combinations that may work better than the previous ones. desperation hockey...
Robviously Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 I'm with you on most of this. So far, it looks like Roy's injury was a bit of a wakeup call for a lot of people. Another possibility I'll throw out there is that it brought on some new line combinations that may work better than the previous ones. It's ironic that it happened in the season where Roy seemingly "woke up" and started taking his career more seriously.
IKnowPhysics Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 desperation hockey... This. I wonder if we can keep this desperation and sense of urgency going. If by some miracle, we do end up in the playoffs after grinding out three months of this style of hockey, I would think we'd be well-conditioned and toughened for the first round. Possibly pipe dreams, but I still (mostly) like where this team has been going since the new year.
nfreeman Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 A few guys (McCormick, Gerbe, Vanek, Pominville, etc.) have really stepped up their game. Also, Miller has been playing better (not every game, but he's had some stronger ones lately.) I definitely don't think that Roy is the problem or that they are better without him. However, it does show that some of the dead weight can go away next year and there are some guys who are able to fill in. I'd let Connolly walk and try to acquire that #1 center that they've needed, dropping Roy to the second line. Easier said than done, but it's the best case. I'm with you on most of this. So far, it looks like Roy's injury was a bit of a wakeup call for a lot of people. Another possibility I'll throw out there is that it brought on some new line combinations that may work better than the previous ones. desperation hockey... Coincidentally, I was thinking about starting a similar thread. Anyway, all 3 of these posts are plausible and likely causes. Still, I can't help feeling like there is a little bit of addition by subtraction going on here. The head of the SGM faction has departed the scene. He's not around to set an example to be emulated. To the extent that example was a bad one -- ie mailing it in on some shifts, goofing around, not taking winning seriously enough, not hating losing enough -- him disappearing can be a good thing. Hecht is now the #1 center and getting the most ice time among forwards. Gaustad is getting the 2nd-most ice time among centers. We all think they are overpaid and not skilled enough, but they play hard and consistently. There is more ice time for guys like McCormick and Gerbe, who are the kind of guys to whom every NHL shift is a precious gift, not to be wasted. I think effort, determination and positive attitude is contagious -- just like laziness and a bad attitude. Vanek and Pommer now have a center who wears a letter and who is determined to do his best, at both ends of the rink, on every shift. It seems to be helping them. Then someone like Ennis looks around, sees everyone else playing better and raises his game to match theirs. It's all just speculation. I could be completely wrong about Roy -- he might be the best leader they have. Or, he might not be the only guy with a less-than-perfect approach, but combine him with Stafford, Vanek and TC, and that's too many expensive top 6 guys who don't bring it hard every time. Teams can't win with that kind of albatross dragging them down. But maybe he is an immature SGM, and maybe just reducing the total by one guy can tip the scales in the other direction.
inkman Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 I'd just like to point out McCormick will be 28 in 3 months. I've seen various posters an even intermission hosts refer to him as young or a prospect.
BuffalOhio Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 Vanek has certainly picked up lately, as well. More ice time for Gerbe, McCormick, and Ennis doesn't hurt, either. Ennis needs to watch the careless giveaways and he needs to shoot more. I feel bad for anyone that has to try and score with Grier and Niedermayer. Good Lord they suck! I'm happy with the team's direction right now!
spndnchz Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 I'd just like to point out McCormick will be 28 in 3 months. I've seen various posters an even intermission hosts refer to him as young or a prospect. See that too. He does seem "younger" Reminded me of a vid a friend sent me today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sldgunY3Fw
carpandean Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 Vanek and Pommer now have a center who wears a letter For the record, Roy wears a letter.
bob_sauve28 Posted January 21, 2011 Report Posted January 21, 2011 The biggest difference has been the power play. Its really clicking now and the top scorer isn't in the line up.
nfreeman Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Just to update: they are 9-4-1 without "Roysie." Here's a scenario: they make the playoffs and win a round without him. TC is dealt at the deadline and then replaced in the offseason with a good center. That means next year's team would effectively be adding 2 good centers.
Stoner Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Just to update: they are 9-4-1 without "Roysie." Here's a scenario: they make the playoffs and win a round without him. TC is dealt at the deadline and then replaced in the offseason with a good center. That means next year's team would effectively be adding 2 good centers. Oh, wow, that is classic Quinn logic. I suspect you are his ghostwriter. And the roster gets turned over every four years.
Weave Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Oh, wow, that is classic Quinn logic. I suspect you are his ghostwriter. And the roster gets turned over every four years. :clapping:
nfreeman Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Oh, wow, that is classic Quinn logic. I suspect you are his ghostwriter. And the roster gets turned over every four years. Well, I am including the addition of a good center from outside the organization in my "addition of 2 good centers" theory. Sheeeeesh.
Sterling Archer Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Please change the thread title to "No Tin Man, No problem."
Kristian Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Please change the thread title to "No Tin Man, No problem." Couldn't agree more. Too lazy to check the numbers, but how many games has Tiny Tim missed since Roy went down? At any rate, at this point I don't think there's much doubt that Connolly adds Z-E-R-O to this team. In fact, I think in his case, we're talking addition by subtraction.
nobody Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 Couldn't agree more. Too lazy to check the numbers, but how many games has Tiny Tim missed since Roy went down? At any rate, at this point I don't think there's much doubt that Connolly adds Z-E-R-O to this team. In fact, I think in his case, we're talking addition by subtraction. If only Darcy and Lindy believed this.
carpandean Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 Both in: 9-13-3 Roy out: 6-3-1 Tim out: 5-4-1 Both out: 3-1-0 Note: the game that Roy got injured, he played just 1:46. Right now, that's listed under just Connolly out (he didn't start), but could easily be under both out. Anyway, while the sample is really too small to say much about and there are many other affects that could be hidden in these results (e.g., they have mostly missed recent games, so trends such as players improving over time or rookies getting experience are masked), they're not the type of stats that you want to see for your top two centers.
shrader Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 Both in: 9-13-3 Roy out: 6-3-1 Tim out: 5-4-1 Both out: 3-1-0 Note: the game that Roy got injured, he played just 1:46. Right now, that's listed under just Connolly out (he didn't start), but could easily be under both out. Anyway, while the sample is really too small to say much about and there are many other affects that could be hidden in these results (e.g., they have mostly missed recent games, so trends such as players improving over time or rookies getting experience are masked), they're not the type of stats that you want to see for your top two centers. And if I remember correctly, in that game that Roy got hurt, they fell behind 3-0, but dug out of that hole and tied it up. Then they gave up a late goal in the 3rd to lose. What does this mean? I have no clue, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
BuffaloFan32 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 This is definitely addition through subtraction. Roy was putting up great numbers this year but his unique gift of killing offensive chances by turning the puck over was in full effect as usual. Also, I am obviously not in the locker room with the Sabres but it seems like his attitude undermines the coaching staff and the work ethic of the team. It is nice to see the young guys step in and contribute.
carpandean Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 This is definitely addition through subtraction. Roy was putting up great numbers this year but his unique gift of killing offensive chances by turning the puck over was in full effect as usual. Also, I am obviously not in the locker room with the Sabres but it seems like his attitude undermines the coaching staff and the work ethic of the team. It is nice to see the young guys step in and contribute. I would call dropping Connolly addition by subtraction. However, I would still contend that given his production and salary, they would not be best served by moving Roy (barring a really good deal, but that's true of almost anyone), but rather by adding someone above him that is actually suited for the #1 spot (and likely paid that way.)
That Aud Smell Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 tough to find this thread, as searching for just "roy" won't cut it. i recall some talk a while back about how the team may actually play its "system" better without roy because it's roy who routinely bucks the same. i don't know precisely what the record is without roy, but there appears to be something to this theory -- a variation perhaps on bill simmons' ewing theory. i revived the thread because i keep hearing about how if the team can make a run, #9 will return. question being, would they want him if that came to pass this spring? edit: i DO recall such talk, since buffalofan32 alluded to it a few posts above this one. :doh:
LabattBlue Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 I don't buy into the Sabres success is because of Roy not being in the lineup. That being said, if my suspicions are wrong and there is truth to this "addition by subtraction" in that he is a "problem" either on the ice or off(head case in the locker room, doesn't give a ###### about winning a cup, etc...), I don't think the new regime will stand for it and it will be addressed in the off-season. Sorry for the run-on sentence. :)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.