Robviously Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Well, it undeniably included their 2 best and most important players in Miller and Myers, and the Sabres have undeniably been much better since those 2 have been back and found their games. :unsure:
radiomike Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 Shush.....haven't you heard? The Sabres have lost 23,459 man games to injury this year. Sure, that tally includes Colin Stuart, Cory Tropp, McNabb, Whitmore, and every other dingleberry that would have never sniffed the roster this year and played 2 periods before missing 4 months.....but IT COUNTS! For the record, Whitmore was never injured...
nobody Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 So he might play tonight. I am sure that would be very reassuring to other GM's. Wolski had been out for most of the season recovering from sports hernia surgery. Do you think a probably minor day to day injury would really kill a trade for Boyes? Of course the team and league would get all the info about it before the trade was made official.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 For the record, Whitmore was never injured... I should have said Brennan...thank you. You get thepoint though.....everyone talking about all these man games lost....Stuart skated 6 minutes and they probably counted 30 games to him. It's the spirit of Status Quo shennanigans as always.
wonderbread Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 I should have said Brennan...thank you. You get thepoint though.....everyone talking about all these man games lost....Stuart skated 6 minutes and they probably counted 30 games to him. It's the spirit of Status Quo shennanigans as always. Like a back alley 3 card monty dealer, Darcy's slights of hand continue to dumbfound our gullible billionaire owner.
radiomike Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 I hear you, it's a pretty thin excuse to count the call ups and their injuries, but I guess it speaks to the extent that injuries pillaged our once highly thought of depth. Either way, the injury excuse never did it for me. Nor did the whole 'well we went on a run last year' routine. Playing bad to average hockey for 2/3 of the season and then making the playoffs by the skin of our teeth is nothing to feel good about in retrospect, and to expect to do it again and feel OK about it is just terrifying.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 I hear you, it's a pretty thin excuse to count the call ups and their injuries, but I guess it speaks to the extent that injuries pillaged our once highly thought of depth. Either way, the injury excuse never did it for me. Nor did the whole 'well we went on a run last year' routine. Playing bad to average hockey for 2/3 of the season and then making the playoffs by the skin of our teeth is nothing to feel good about in retrospect, and to expect to do it again and feel OK about it is just terrifying. That's a great outlook. One of the big reasons some threw their support at keeping Status Quo was because, "Look at the great run they went on at the end of the year! You'd be crazy to fire them now because they will just build on it." Then they come out and are in last place overall at the 60% mark of the season. Now if they go on a mini-run again, the same excuse gets used...which is why you see someone like Labatt starting a post saying he hopes they lose. If common sense can't get us changes, you need to hope for unquestioned misery....and that probably won't even get it done...because it was the injuries...or guys need to gel....or we're really 13 games over .500 in Vulcan terms. How hard is it for the average person to see over an 82 game season, there are maybe 5 games you are flat out proud of their effort, 20 that are acceptable, 40 that are blah, and just 15 to 20 games where you want to crawl into a ball and hide the fact you follow this team, sort of like the team itself goes into the fetal position. I just don't get how something so obvious can be excused...year after year. It's just amazing to me this show has gone on for so long.
Lanny Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 ....or we're really 13 games over .500 in Vulcan terms. I believe the Vulcan conversion actually has us at 14 games over .500.
deluca67 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 That's a great outlook. One of the big reasons some threw their support at keeping Status Quo was because, "Look at the great run they went on at the end of the year! You'd be crazy to fire them now because they will just build on it." Then they come out and are in last place overall at the 60% mark of the season. Now if they go on a mini-run again, the same excuse gets used...which is why you see someone like Labatt starting a post saying he hopes they lose. If common sense can't get us changes, you need to hope for unquestioned misery....and that probably won't even get it done...because it was the injuries...or guys need to gel....or we're really 13 games over .500 in Vulcan terms. How hard is it for the average person to see over an 82 game season, there are maybe 5 games you are flat out proud of their effort, 20 that are acceptable, 40 that are blah, and just 15 to 20 games where you want to crawl into a ball and hide the fact you follow this team, sort of like the team itself goes into the fetal position. I just don't get how something so obvious can be excused...year after year. It's just amazing to me this show has gone on for so long. I was wondering, if we are not supposed to count overtime losses when determining .500, why should we count overtime wins?
bunomatic Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 That's a great outlook. One of the big reasons some threw their support at keeping Status Quo was because, "Look at the great run they went on at the end of the year! You'd be crazy to fire them now because they will just build on it." Then they come out and are in last place overall at the 60% mark of the season. Now if they go on a mini-run again, the same excuse gets used...which is why you see someone like Labatt starting a post saying he hopes they lose. If common sense can't get us changes, you need to hope for unquestioned misery....and that probably won't even get it done...because it was the injuries...or guys need to gel....or we're really 13 games over .500 in Vulcan terms. How hard is it for the average person to see over an 82 game season, there are maybe 5 games you are flat out proud of their effort, 20 that are acceptable, 40 that are blah, and just 15 to 20 games where you want to crawl into a ball and hide the fact you follow this team, sort of like the team itself goes into the fetal position. I just don't get how something so obvious can be excused...year after year. It's just amazing to me this show has gone on for so long. I agree. Its funny how we're painted as the bad fans for wanting change and a competitive team that can challenge for the cup to wear the Sabres colours. I would think that someone thats happy with the status quo should be seen as someone that is scuttling the opportunity for success.
deluca67 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Posted February 25, 2012 I agree. Its funny how we're painted as the bad fans for wanting change and a competitive team that can challenge for the cup to wear the Sabres colours. I would think that someone thats happy with the status quo should be seen as someone that is scuttling the opportunity for success. IMO, it's a difference of short term thinking and long term thinking. As I watch the game tonight I won't be routing for the Rangers. I also wont be celebrating a Sabres victory because I know a win does nothing to enhance any long term Stanley Cup aspirations.
Robviously Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I agree. Its funny how we're painted as the bad fans for wanting change and a competitive team that can challenge for the cup to wear the Sabres colours. I would think that someone thats happy with the status quo should be seen as someone that is scuttling the opportunity for success. I like being painted as a bad fan because I'd be excited about a high draft pick. I was pretty excited in 2004 when we drafted 5th overall and got Thomas Vanek. Was I a bad fan for thinking that could work out really well? 226 goals later, he's no.7 on the list of all-time Sabres goal scorers.
TheChimp Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Wolski had been out for most of the season recovering from sports hernia surgery. Do you think a probably minor day to day injury would really kill a trade for Boyes? Of course the team and league would get all the info about it before the trade was made official. I know I'm new here, but I learn fast and maybe I can help with this. You are debating with korab so he has to win. Carry on.
nobody Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I know I'm new here, but I learn fast and maybe I can help with this. You are debating with korab so he has to win. Carry on. No need for help. korab and i don't debate - we were just chatting. :)
korab rules Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 No need for help. korab and i don't debate - we were just chatting. :) Word.
carpandean Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I was wondering, if we are not supposed to count overtime losses when determining .500, why should we count overtime wins? It depends on what you're using it for. If you are using it in the traditional sense (50% wins) as a measure of being above or below average, then you either shouldn't or you should count both. 50% of points is not average, so counting them as ties in stating a team is "above .500" and using that to say that they are above average is wrong. However, if you're using as a starting point for point %, then you should, since they count the same as regulation wins and OT/SO losses do get you 50% of the points. For example, "teams usually need to be 5 games over .500 to make the playoffs" is fine using all wins and just regulation losses. Whether you are 46-35-0 (5 games over 41-41-0) or 41-31-10 (5 games over 36-36-10) or any other combination of 5 games over .500, regarless of where the wins came from, your teams has 92 points and is right around the playoff mark. The big problem comes when the same person wants to use it for both.
Derrico Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I agree. Its funny how we're painted as the bad fans for wanting change and a competitive team that can challenge for the cup to wear the Sabres colours. I would think that someone thats happy with the status quo should be seen as someone that is scuttling the opportunity for success. Is any Sabres fan happy with the status quo? I can't imagine anyone is. The debate, as I see it, is those thinking losing is the best in order to get the high draft pick and hope that will force change versus those thinking winning is best because change likely isnt happening this year regardless of outcome, we're not bad enough to get a high pick that will make a big difference, and a playoff run would be fun. I still say that every single Sabres fan is NOT happy with status quo. I feel like the vast majoirty of posters here and Sabres fans in general realize the team and management is seriously flawed, there are just two theories on how to bring about the necessary changes / trying to stomach these games.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Is any Sabres fan happy with the status quo? I can't imagine anyone is. The debate, as I see it, is those thinking losing is the best in order to get the high draft pick and hope that will force change versus those thinking winning is best because change likely isnt happening this year regardless of outcome, we're not bad enough to get a high pick that will make a big difference, and a playoff run would be fun. I still say that every single Sabres fan is NOT happy with status quo. I feel like the vast majoirty of posters here and Sabres fans in general realize the team and management is seriously flawed, there are just two theories on how to bring about the necessary changes / trying to stomach these games. Good post.
bunomatic Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Is any Sabres fan happy with the status quo? I can't imagine anyone is. The debate, as I see it, is those thinking losing is the best in order to get the high draft pick and hope that will force change versus those thinking winning is best because change likely isnt happening this year regardless of outcome, we're not bad enough to get a high pick that will make a big difference, and a playoff run would be fun. I still say that every single Sabres fan is NOT happy with status quo. I feel like the vast majoirty of posters here and Sabres fans in general realize the team and management is seriously flawed, there are just two theories on how to bring about the necessary changes / trying to stomach these games. I hear you but on another thread a certain poster has said you are not a fan of the sabres if you think that losing will bring about change faster. Bull$hit I know but he even went as far as to ask me who my favourite team was even though I had explained I've never hoped for a losing outcome but that I thought losing might bring about change faster. Anyways, that was what I was referring too in that particular post. Sorry, I realize this is the wrong thread for this debate. Just explaining my point.
Derrico Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I hear you but on another thread a certain poster has said you are not a fan of the sabres if you think that losing will bring about change faster. Bull$hit I know but he even went as far as to ask me who my favourite team was even though I had explained I've never hoped for a losing outcome but that I thought losing might bring about change faster. Anyways, that was what I was referring too in that particular post. Sorry, I realize this is the wrong thread for this debate. Just explaining my point. Ya, I didn't mean to get off topic either. Your point is fair.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I hear you but on another thread a certain poster has said you are not a fan of the sabres if you think that losing will bring about change faster. Bull$hit I know but he even went as far as to ask me who my favourite team was even though I had explained I've never hoped for a losing outcome but that I thought losing might bring about change faster. Anyways, that was what I was referring too in that particular post. Sorry, I realize this is the wrong thread for this debate. Just explaining my point. For me the losing debate would hold more water for me if we had 5 games left and had a shot at a top three pick in the draft. Realistically this is not the case, we have 20 or so games left and no shot at a top three pick. I would rather make the playoffs, get our younger guys some valuable experience and go from there. I would like to see some players traded but only if the trade is worth making........IE Roy, Stafford, Boyes etc.
SwampD Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 For me the losing debate would hold more water for me if we had 5 games left and had a shot at a top three pick in the draft. Realistically this is not the case, we have 20 or so games left and no shot at a top three pick. I would rather make the playoffs, get our younger guys some valuable experience and go from there. I would like to see some players traded but only if the trade is worth making........IE Roy, Stafford, Boyes etc. Our young guys already know how to lose a playoff series.
Eleven Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I agree. Its funny how we're painted as the bad fans for wanting change and a competitive team that can challenge for the cup to wear the Sabres colours. I would think that someone thats happy with the status quo should be seen as someone that is scuttling the opportunity for success. No one is painted as a bad fan (well, maybe there are one or two who are especially miserable after a win), and I don't think anyone is happy with the status quo. It is the solution that people disagree on. And this still is the trade deadline thread, dammit!
bunomatic Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 No one is painted as a bad fan (well, maybe there are one or two who are especially miserable after a win), and I don't think anyone is happy with the status quo. It is the solution that people disagree on. And this still is the trade deadline thread, dammit! Got that. Thanks.
Lanny Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Bishop to Ottawa for 2nd round pick. Decent short term replacement for Anderson, who potentially could become a long term replacement. Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie Before trading G Ben Bishop to OTT for a 2013 2nd rd pick, STL signed him to a one-year, one-way contract. #TradeCentre #tsn
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.