TheFunPolice Posted June 16, 2011 Report Posted June 16, 2011 Say what you will about Vanek, but he has SHOWN UP in the playoffs for the past 2 seasons. The Sedin twins, "bigger stars" went AWOL when their team needed them the most. You can trust Thomas to deliver in the playoffs. We just need to get a real center, and he will be DEADLY!
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted June 16, 2011 Report Posted June 16, 2011 Say what you will about Vanek, but he has SHOWN UP in the playoffs for the past 2 seasons. The Sedin twins, "bigger stars" went AWOL when their team needed them the most. You can trust Thomas to deliver in the playoffs. We just need to get a real center, and he will be DEADLY! While i don't think this comment warranted its own thread, i agree.
TheFunPolice Posted June 16, 2011 Author Report Posted June 16, 2011 While i don't think this comment warranted its own thread, i agree. I think it does, merely because so many people like to rag on Vanek. He is the one guy (aside from Miller) that you can really count on in the playoffs so far. I think he'll only get better.
dEnnis the Menace Posted June 16, 2011 Report Posted June 16, 2011 I think it does, merely because so many people like to rag on Vanek. He is the one guy (aside from Miller) that you can really count on in the playoffs so far. I think he'll only get better. Can't we talk about this in a few months? just for S&G though: Vanek doesn't really show up or disappear, it's more like, he is...He doesn't increase his production rate like I'd like him to, but he also doesn't pull a Sedin Sisters act.
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted June 16, 2011 Report Posted June 16, 2011 I think it does, merely because so many people like to rag on Vanek. He is the one guy (aside from Miller) that you can really count on in the playoffs so far. I think he'll only get better. On the contrary, i think the one thing most people agree about on here is that he's a keeper. People can say what they want about the acquisition of Boyes, Darcy's ability as a GM, Millers controversial salary, Lindy's use of his goaltender, Butlers decision making in his own end, Timmers complete waste of a contract, and Stafford's new contract. I rarely, if ever have seen anything bashing thomas vanek on this board, other than possibly his defensive abilities, which, don't really factor into offensive consistency. Edit: I invite anyone who has an issue to raise them here, I'm sure Ghost would have a ball with this one
spndnchz Posted June 16, 2011 Report Posted June 16, 2011 On the contrary, i think the one thing most people agree about on here is that he's a keeper. People can say what they want about the acquisition of Boyes, Darcy's ability as a GM, Millers controversial salary, Lindy's use of his goaltender, Butlers decision making in his own end, Timmers complete waste of a contract, and Stafford's new contract. I rarely, if ever have seen anything bashing thomas vanek on this board, other than possibly his defensive abilities, which, don't really factor into offensive consistency. Edit: I invite anyone who has an issue to raise them here, I'm sure Ghost would have a ball with this one Vanek for Stamkos. Just sayin'.
thesportsbuff Posted June 16, 2011 Report Posted June 16, 2011 On the contrary, i think the one thing most people agree about on here is that he's a keeper. People can say what they want about the acquisition of Boyes, Darcy's ability as a GM, Millers controversial salary, Lindy's use of his goaltender, Butlers decision making in his own end, Timmers complete waste of a contract, and Stafford's new contract. I rarely, if ever have seen anything bashing thomas vanek on this board, other than possibly his defensive abilities, which, don't really factor into offensive consistency. Edit: I invite anyone who has an issue to raise them here, I'm sure Ghost would have a ball with this one I don't have a real issue with Vanek. He obviously does not deserve the money he is getting, but I can't blame him for signing it, nor can I blame DR for matching the offer sheet after DB & CD left. So I can deal with a big contract for our marquee player (forward). For the most part he has been "adequate" in the playoffs. Maybe that's a bad word for it. He has been far from bad, but I still think he could amp it up another level-- maybe if they had gone deeper, we would have seen it.
LGR4GM Posted June 16, 2011 Report Posted June 16, 2011 Can't we talk about this in a few months? just for S&G though: Vanek doesn't really show up or disappear, it's more like, he is...He doesn't increase his production rate like I'd like him to, but he also doesn't pull a Sedin Sisters act. ...heres a video of the Sedins during game 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG5MT3sCKBg&feature=related
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted June 16, 2011 Report Posted June 16, 2011 Vanek for Stamkos. Just sayin'. Absolutely. that i'd do in a heartbeat, point of my post being that doesn't seem to be often targeted (as far as i can tell) as an inconsistent player
nobody Posted June 18, 2011 Report Posted June 18, 2011 It would be nice to have a full comparison with Vanek to see how he does round from round. :) While I'm not really going to defend the Sedin's too much - I'll just say that they and the whole team ran into a goalie and defense they couldn't solve so their numbers do get skewed a bit. But on the same front I'll say they both ended up with horrible minus numbers in +/- and horrible shooting percentages for top scorers.
Chief Enabler Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Absolutely. that i'd do in a heartbeat, point of my post being that doesn't seem to be often targeted (as far as i can tell) as an inconsistent player Stamkos stock rose recently. Great player, up there now with Ovie/Sid IMO; but stupid question. I want to know the consensus of vanek/oiler signing vs. Drury/briere signing. In retrospect today. (without starting a new thread....)
wonderbread Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 Stamkos stock rose recently. Great player, up there now with Ovie/Sid IMO; but stupid question. I want to know the consensus of vanek/oiler signing vs. Drury/briere signing. In retrospect today. (without starting a new thread....) really again?
Chief Enabler Posted June 19, 2011 Report Posted June 19, 2011 really again? June,July,august &september......
bob_sauve28 Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 I wonder how Vanek would have done against Thomas and Chara instead of the Proger-less Flyers and their rotating goalie scheme
dEnnis the Menace Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 I wonder how Vanek would have done against Thomas and Chara instead of the Proger-less Flyers and their rotating goalie scheme Over his career, him AND stafford have both done well against the Bruins. specifically this season. We had their number this season, just couldn't get to them in the post season... :(
X. Benedict Posted June 20, 2011 Report Posted June 20, 2011 I wonder how Vanek would have done against Thomas and Chara instead of the Proger-less Flyers and their rotating goalie scheme Two versus one fore-checker.... I'd take one (Boston).
waldo Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 5 goals vs. Flyers, also a -7... I do not remember, so maybe you can remind me... Of those goals that made up the -7, how many times was it Vaneks missed defensive zone assignment that cause the goal? (I also wonder which d pair was on the ice with his line when the goals were scored) In other words how many of those goals were the result of a defensive zone mistake by Vanek? From where were the goals scored? How many scoring chances did he take away with a strong backcheck in that series? The point being Vanek is not a great defensive player BUT there is more to a fair assesment than a -7. I never liked that stat.
X. Benedict Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 I do not remember, so maybe you can remind me... Of those goals that made up the -7, how many times was it Vaneks missed defensive zone assignment that cause the goal? (I also wonder which d pair was on the ice with his line when the goals were scored) In other words how many of those goals were the result of a defensive zone mistake by Vanek? From where were the goals scored? How many scoring chances did he take away with a strong backcheck in that series? The point being Vanek is not a great defensive player BUT there is more to a fair assesment than a -7. I never liked that stat. At least one was an empty netter, an other one in game 6 OT was because he missed the net. The team was -6 for the series. Hard to make much of numbers in a single series, but I thought Vanek played pretty well defensively despite the numbers.
waldo Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 I wonder how Vanek would have done against Thomas and Chara instead of the Proger-less Flyers and their rotating goalie scheme Vaneks line generally plays against the shutdown line on the opposing team. On Boston that line includes their number one d pair. Boston likes to double Vanek in certain situations and when he is in specific offensive zones .(as do many team)In some instances Chara mans up on him. In the three games in which tim thomas was in net Vanek had 2 goals 2 assists and four pts. In one of those games Tim was pulled after he got pounded. In the two games against Rask he had 2 goals, 1 assist and 3 pts
shrader Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 At least one was an empty netter, an other one in game 6 OT was because he missed the net. The team was -6 for the series. Hard to make much of numbers in a single series, but I thought Vanek played pretty well defensively despite the numbers. And pretty much all of that -6 was game 7, wasn't it?
nobody Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 Vaneks line generally plays against the shutdown line on the opposing team. On Boston that line includes their number one d pair. Boston likes to double Vanek in certain situations and when he is in specific offensive zones .(as do many team)In some instances Chara mans up on him. In the three games in which tim thomas was in net Vanek had 2 goals 2 assists and four pts. In one of those games Tim was pulled after he got pounded. In the two games against Rask he had 2 goals, 1 assist and 3 pts Not to mention last years playoffs - 2g, 1a in less than 3 games.
waldo Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 At least one was an empty netter, an other one in game 6 OT was because he missed the net. The team was -6 for the series. Hard to make much of numbers in a single series, but I thought Vanek played pretty well defensively despite the numbers. My point exactly Benedict. I do not want to be put in a position of trying to defend his defensive prowess but a -7 exagerates it.(I personally do not care about his defense.) He plays better defensively and becomes more physical in the playoffs..He stands in front of the net alla espisito, and takes his beating from some of the best d men in the league.Then he scores. Pick your hero on the Sabres then put them in front of the net on pp and see how they play for a season. For some guys here it is never enough.They sound like Obamanites.."He makes too much" Trade Vanek...better yet put him out there on waivers. I am positive he is such a shitite that only three or four teams will want him.Use the cap room to get more for TP's money. Everybody knows that a 100 guys better than Vanek are available every year
spndnchz Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 I do not remember, so maybe you can remind me... Of those goals that made up the -7, how many times was it Vaneks missed defensive zone assignment that cause the goal? (I also wonder which d pair was on the ice with his line when the goals were scored) In other words how many of those goals were the result of a defensive zone mistake by Vanek? From where were the goals scored? How many scoring chances did he take away with a strong backcheck in that series? The point being Vanek is not a great defensive player BUT there is more to a fair assesment than a -7. I never liked that stat. +/- is tough to look at with match up differences. Corsi would probably be a better bet than +/-. My usual site for that doesn't have playoff Corsi's for the Sabres. :pirate:
waldo Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 +/- is tough to look at with match up differences. Corsi would probably be a better bet than +/-. My usual site for that doesn't have playoff Corsi's for the Sabres. :pirate: I agree...corsi is better than the plus and minus but still leave a ton of holes ...match ups are critical.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.