TrueBlueGED Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 I have no objection to reporters being reporters and opinion columnists being opinion columnists. I read them differently and appreciate both. The Bucky and Jerry venom has always confounded me. It seems to me that many disparaged columns would, had they appeared here, be followed by quotes of "this" or "good post." With regard to the season ending press conference, I offer this. What we're missing more is "why wasn't it held" and less "what would have been said." For me personally, I just don't think they're very good at their job. I don't find either of them to be particularly clever, witty, or well-written, and they're certainly not even a little insightful.
Weave Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 I have no objection to reporters being reporters and opinion columnists being opinion columnists. I read them differently and appreciate both. The Bucky and Jerry venom has always confounded me. It seems to me that many disparaged columns would, had they appeared here, be followed by quotes of "this" or "good post." With regard to the season ending press conference, I offer this. What we're missing more is "why wasn't it held" and less "what would have been said." Well put. Or, said another way, good post. :P
TheChimp Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 For me personally, I just don't think they're very good at their job. I don't find either of them to be particularly clever, witty, or well-written, and they're certainly not even a little insightful. Their job is to keep readers coming back, though, and they're masters at that. And frankly, when I'm mad at the team, they always seem to voice my opinions pretty closely.
nucci Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 For me personally, I just don't think they're very good at their job. I don't find either of them to be particularly clever, witty, or well-written, and they're certainly not even a little insightful. Exactly. They just criticize after the fact.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 I really have no opinion of the Buffalo Press, I don't read them at all. I do know that the Toronto press can build a band wagon and then tear it down faster then a crazy guy with a flame thrower....... :beer:
X. Benedict Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 Exactly. They just criticize after the fact. In fairness, I think Bucky closely follows the league. If he wasn't a writer he'd still be watching. He's a hockey guy (or has at least become one) and has a much broader and league-wide hockey perspective than most hockey writers in the US. I don't always agree with him - but I really appreciate his writing.
fan2456 Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 They need a true power forward to play on Vanek's line and they need a real center for the 3rd line. Absolutely. I only heard about 15 minutes of the Black interview. What I heard about toughness, I thought was about getting nastiness on the top lines and getting more of a Red Wings style 4th line than a return of the likes of Eric Boulton and Andrew Peters. For FAR too long, the Sabres top 3 lines have been way too willing to say 'thank you sir may I have another' rather than give someone a facewash. Considering Black wasn't here for the 7/1/7 massacre but he does read boards like this (or at minimum has a staffer relay stuff back to him), I could see where he'd think there's still leftover angst from that day. There is. But that is a VERY small portion of the current discontent. The bulk of it stems from this past season being a step back. Though I would state that the D is significantly better today than it was 1 year ago and the forwards are better today than 1 year ago, so though they took the step back they're facing the right direction. They have pieces today that SHOULD be able to be parlayed into filling the holes that remain. They didn't have enough of those pieces a year ago to fill all the holes. People don't believe that they are on the right track because the end results were so similar to what has been the end result since 7/1/7. I think they are on the right track, but that opinion could take a serious hit this summer. I don't expect it will, but if the roster today is essentially what we see on October 5ish, then I will doubt it a lot. Black's been a pretty straight shooter to date, he says they'll make changes; until I see that there weren't changes, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. You mean when a washed up Drury used us to up the anty with the Rangers,and we failed to sign a number two center named Briere? I'll buy the second and wish he was here if we had MEN to play with him. Then we failed miserably and succumbed to public opinion by not letting a second line winger walk for five number one picks from Edm. A few of which were first overall!!!! I only hope keeping Thomas was on ownership and not Regier. Maybe the WGR GM's influenced the decision. I hope not. That might be the only thing that saves him(DR) in my opinion. I'm on record for letting V walk. back then. I hope ownership made that decision, cuz he IS not an ellite player, and his lack of physical play and or skating ability was obvious in 2007 to an objective 10 year old. Salaries have cought up, and now we could keep him as a second line winger. I just hope we can determine first line talent. Last summer makes me wonder. We hit on one German and blew the other two signings. Maybe we need to coach and draft tough d and not keep trading for old guys who can't skate. We even named one captain. LOL! How about a guy on the coaching staff who played d with some tougness and a nasty streak, and can teach the kids to play the body and clear the front of the net with some nastiness? That certainly ain't James , and the jury is out onTeppo.
Weave Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 How about a guy on the coaching staff who played d with some tougness and a nasty streak, and can teach the kids to play the body and clear the front of the net with some nastiness? That certainly ain't James , and the jury is out onTeppo. I guess the name Lindy doesn't work here either. :P
fan2456 Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 I guess the name Lindy doesn't work here either. :P :worthy:
Robviously Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 You mean when a washed up Drury used us to up the anty with the Rangers,and we failed to sign a number two center named Briere? I'll buy the second and wish he was here if we had MEN to play with him. Then we failed miserably and succumbed to public opinion by not letting a second line winger walk for five number one picks from Edm. A few of which were first overall!!!! I only hope keeping Thomas was on ownership and not Regier. Maybe the WGR GM's influenced the decision. I hope not. That might be the only thing that saves him(DR) in my opinion. I'm on record for letting V walk. back then. I hope ownership made that decision, cuz he IS not an ellite player, and his lack of physical play and or skating ability was obvious in 2007 to an objective 10 year old. Salaries have cought up, and now we could keep him as a second line winger. I just hope we can determine first line talent. Last summer makes me wonder. We hit on one German and blew the other two signings. Maybe we need to coach and draft tough d and not keep trading for old guys who can't skate. We even named one captain. LOL! How about a guy on the coaching staff who played d with some tougness and a nasty streak, and can teach the kids to play the body and clear the front of the net with some nastiness? That certainly ain't James , and the jury is out onTeppo. Wow! I wish you were the GM back then. It's almost like your opinion on what the Sabres should have done in Summer 2007 is based on knowing exactly how the next 5 years would turn out. If only Regier had your foresight! Vanek scored 43 goals, and 84 points in 2006-2007 on his way to leading the league in plus-minus. For some reason I have trouble believing you thought he was a "second line winger" that summer. When was the last time the Sabres had ANY winger scoring 84 points in a season? Also, good call on how crappy Drury and Briere were. It's not like losing them caused our franchise to completely implode or anything.
TheChimp Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 Wow! I wish you were the GM back then. It's almost like your opinion on what the Sabres should have done in Summer 2007 is based on knowing exactly how the next 5 years would turn out. If only Regier had your foresight! Vanek scored 43 goals, and 84 points in 2006-2007 on his way to leading the league in plus-minus. For some reason I have trouble believing you thought he was a "second line winger" that summer. When was the last time the Sabres had ANY winger scoring 84 points in a season? Also, good call on how crappy Drury and Briere were. It's not like losing them caused our franchise to completely implode or anything. Burn.
fan2456 Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Wow! I wish you were the GM back then. It's almost like your opinion on what the Sabres should have done in Summer 2007 is based on knowing exactly how the next 5 years would turn out. If only Regier had your foresight! Vanek scored 43 goals, and 84 points in 2006-2007 on his way to leading the league in plus-minus. For some reason I have trouble believing you thought he was a "second line winger" that summer. When was the last time the Sabres had ANY winger scoring 84 points in a season? Also, good call on how crappy Drury and Briere were. It's not like losing them caused our franchise to completely implode or anything. Great, but those who know me,know I said it in July of 2007. Yes I know hindsight is 20/20 and you can rip me for it, even though it's not the case.. Forget my specific comments on the Sabres. It was obvious to a long time fan and hockey watcher, that the old boys network would let the pre-lockout officiating of the rules drift back in. Most OHL kids had problems under those rules. Canada grows their kids on small rinks where systems and interference is the game. Size is what makes their AAA teams. Sure they have their superstars, just based on numbers. The 2006 Sabres, soft and fast, were ideal for that world. Early in 2007 the rules were drifting back. Soft and/or small didn't cut it anymore. I said it, and the Sabres were, and are, late to adapt. We are still one of the smallest and softest teamsd in the NHL. I love speed, skating and skill. Soft and small players are not allowed to play that way anymore. Please tell DR. Put small Drury in his prime and Briere on this soft small team and see where we go. BURN!
TheChimp Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 BURN! You're supposed to wait for an onlooker to declare burn. Or were you worried nobody would?
TheChimp Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Sorry, didn't read the rules! LOL Actually, I was shocked anyone even remembered the whole "burn" thing. I was saying it in middle school, and that was last century. :w00t:
carpandean Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Then we failed miserably and succumbed to public opinion by not letting a second line winger walk for five number one picks from Edm. Just in case this discussion ever comes up again, it was four first-round draft picks, not five. A few of which were first overall!!!! Funny, with all of the foresight argument that Robviously addressed, he missed one of the biggest. I really hate when people say that not taking a draft pick in a future draft cost you the player that the team ended up drafting (see Tyler Seguin in the Kessel trade.) They were Edmonton's future and unknown first-round picks. It's fine to say that you knew Edmonton still wouldn't be good after adding Vanek, so you expected early first-round picks, but there was know way to know that some of them would be #1 overall picks. That's worst case, so it's likely that if you changed the starting conditions (adding Vanek), then the results would have been better. Maybe you get four top ten picks with with one or two around 4 or 5. That possibility is very different than "a few of which were first overall!!!" Plus, you didn't know (especially four the third and fourth picks) how deep those drafts would be or how good the top player would be. I'm not saying that I was sure about keeping Vanek at the time, but the four firsts were a bit more of a crap shoot than you're giving them credit for.
Robviously Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Just in case this discussion ever comes up again, it was four first-round draft picks, not five. Funny, with all of the foresight argument that Robviously addressed, he missed one of the biggest. I really hate when people say that not taking a draft pick in a future draft cost you the player that the team ended up drafting (see Tyler Seguin in the Kessel trade.) They were Edmonton's future and unknown first-round picks. It's fine to say that you knew Edmonton still wouldn't be good after adding Vanek, so you expected early first-round picks, but there was know way to know that some of them would be #1 overall picks. That's worst case, so it's likely that if you changed the starting conditions (adding Vanek), then the results would have been better. Maybe you get four top ten picks with with one or two around 4 or 5. That possibility is very different than "a few of which were first overall!!!" Plus, you didn't know (especially four the third and fourth picks) how deep those drafts would be or how good the top player would be. I'm not saying that I was sure about keeping Vanek at the time, but the four firsts were a bit more of a crap shoot than you're giving them credit for. Terrific point. (I've brought that up before but I totally forgot it this time around.) Add Vanek to Edmonton and there's no reason to think they don't get better. Maybe they make some other moves and get even better after that. The point is, pretending we get those draft picks and the exact same players is specious at best.
TheChimp Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Just in case this discussion ever comes up again, it was four first-round draft picks, not five. Funny, with all of the foresight argument that Robviously addressed, he missed one of the biggest. I really hate when people say that not taking a draft pick in a future draft cost you the player that the team ended up drafting (see Tyler Seguin in the Kessel trade.) They were Edmonton's future and unknown first-round picks. It's fine to say that you knew Edmonton still wouldn't be good after adding Vanek, so you expected early first-round picks, but there was know way to know that some of them would be #1 overall picks. That's worst case, so it's likely that if you changed the starting conditions (adding Vanek), then the results would have been better. Maybe you get four top ten picks with with one or two around 4 or 5. That possibility is very different than "a few of which were first overall!!!" Plus, you didn't know (especially four the third and fourth picks) how deep those drafts would be or how good the top player would be. I'm not saying that I was sure about keeping Vanek at the time, but the four firsts were a bit more of a crap shoot than you're giving them credit for. BINGO.
RazielSabre Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Just in case this discussion ever comes up again, it was four first-round draft picks, not five. Funny, with all of the foresight argument that Robviously addressed, he missed one of the biggest. I really hate when people say that not taking a draft pick in a future draft cost you the player that the team ended up drafting (see Tyler Seguin in the Kessel trade.) They were Edmonton's future and unknown first-round picks. It's fine to say that you knew Edmonton still wouldn't be good after adding Vanek, so you expected early first-round picks, but there was know way to know that some of them would be #1 overall picks. That's worst case, so it's likely that if you changed the starting conditions (adding Vanek), then the results would have been better. Maybe you get four top ten picks with with one or two around 4 or 5. That possibility is very different than "a few of which were first overall!!!" Plus, you didn't know (especially four the third and fourth picks) how deep those drafts would be or how good the top player would be. I'm not saying that I was sure about keeping Vanek at the time, but the four firsts were a bit more of a crap shoot than you're giving them credit for. Aside from the fact that Edmonton got those picks because they've been worse than us. Whose to say we wouldn't stink as much if we'd have lose Vanek, we might have had a crap few seasons but Edmonton's have been worse. The assumption that with EDM's picks we'd have been contenders by now is a largely silly and bogus one. It's both. Nobody is moving on from Black Sunday because the Sabres have never given the fans a reason to move on. Mike Schopp was on the radio yesterday pointing out that Briere has as many playoff goals for the Flyers since 2007 as the entire Sabres franchise has since 2007. Brutal. The Sabres imploded on July 1st, 2007, and we're still waiting for the day we can be confident they're back on track to win something someday. I actually hated the part where Ted Black said he "didn't know and didn't care" about what happened in 2007. He should know and should care, because it matters. it's not like Golisano didn't give Regier money to spend. We spent it on the wrong players. I have. It's so long ago, get over it.
deluca67 Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Fact is, they probably ran out of new and exciting excuses. That or they were taken back by fan reaction to Pegula breaking out the injury excuse earlier in the year. I truly believe they expected media/fans to just go along with it.
shrader Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Great, but those who know me,know I said it in July of 2007. You have to realize when you say something like this that most of the people here do not know you. And since you weren't on this board at that time (as far as I know anyway), pretty much no one here ever heard you say those words. It just plays into the "incredible foresight" responses you're getting.
BMWR100RT Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Hockey Hell, for me, is having the highest payroll in hockey, and grossly underperforming. I'm 31, so I was initiated into hockey with the Mogilny years, and I was a die-hard teen fan for the hardest working team in hockey. We had superstars in those days, at least to me they were. Hell, even Peca was a major figure. Hasek is the greatest goaltender I've ever seen. Then there was Coach Ruff, and "no goal." Then darkness. Then Briere and Drury. I don't really get the people who idolize Miller, or Vanek. I've loved cheering for the underdog Sabres. It wasn't as much fun in '07-08. It felt like we lost our identity, and it's exponentially worse now. This is a team that thinks that they can buy success. That's their identity now. Great post from a youngster!
darksabre Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Great post from a youngster! I would also like to note that I didn't expect him to be 31. Yuri, you speak like you have more years behind you than you do. :thumbsup:
That Aud Smell Posted May 15, 2012 Report Posted May 15, 2012 you're not fooling anyone with this sort of stuff, mr. pegula -- hear me?! http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/buffalo/article857260.ece (seriously, though -- thanks, uncle terry.)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.