Two or less Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 I disagree. Stability in net is what you want with rookies and young players on the ice. They should be worried about playing their game, not whether or not the question mark in net is going to suck a fat one every game. Totally. With a young and inexperienced team, if we don't find the "right" goalie in net, and there's little indication anyone in our system is ready to take over, then what will happen to our team? It'll set us back for years, and we'll be like the Columbus Blue Jackets. Before you know it, we'll be trading Pommers and Vanek for picks at the deadline too and be in total rebuild mode. With the influx of money and commitment from ownership, it's best to just rebuild on the fly. It can be done. But, playing around with different goalies, not so much.
Tex Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Black Sabbath Iron Maiden Judas Priest Metallica Motor Head Megadeath Slayer AC/DC Although I disagree with your Sabres roster moves, I pretty much agree on the music portion... If I were GM I would probably sit Motor Head and Slayer and insert DIO and Manowar. Also I would throw Ted Nugent into the mix.
Sabre Dance Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Although I disagree with your Sabres roster moves, I pretty much agree on the music portion... If I were GM I would probably sit Motor Head and Slayer and insert DIO and Manowar. Also I would throw Ted Nugent into the mix. Great White Buffalo (live)!! Plus, Ted is definitley a shooter.... :rolleyes:
LabattBlue Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Never mind that he was playing through multiple injuries during that span. I guess not all parts of the "truth" are worth mentioning..... :rolleyes: Maybe if "he ain't going anywhere" Ruff didn't have him in the front of the net getting HIS ASS KICKED on every single PP, he would be healthier. ;) ...and the PP would probably be better with Vaneks skills being utilized from the wing.
gohansrage Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Maybe if "he ain't going anywhere" Ruff didn't have him in the front of the net getting HIS ASS KICKED on every single PP, he would be healthier. ;) ...and the PP would probably be better with Vaneks skills being utilized from the wing. I agree. The problem is who else would Lindy have put there? (Now Ott and Foligno can battle in front.)
TrueBlueGED Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 I agree. The problem is who else would Lindy have put there? (Now Ott and Foligno can battle in front.) That's the problem, is there aren't any good alternatives. Yes, guys like Foligno and Ott could probably do it this year...but being in front on the PP is about more than just battling and size. Part of what makes Vanek so effective is his hands for deflections, which those two players don't have. Note: I'm still in favor of getting him the hell out of there to preserve his body (at least don't put him there on a regular basis), but, there is a reason he scores so much on the PP.
nfreeman Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 To be fair, he did have 11 points in the final 10 games (perhaps not-so-coincidentally, after he got paired with Hodgson). I'm looking forward to seeing what the pair can do this year. (Especially with Doan riding shotgun.) Me too. And having Doan as RW on that line would be fantastic -- the anticipation would be the Sabres' equivalent of the anticipation for Mario Williams. Never mind that he was playing through multiple injuries during that span. I guess not all parts of the "truth" are worth mentioning..... :rolleyes: He could have just watched the game from the press box due to injuries like the rest of the team during that period, but he didn't. That's just the truth. Oops, you already had that covered. ;) Yes, he had some injuries. Nothing that required surgery, innit? Doesn't every NHL player get banged up over the course of a season? Does either of you think 8 goals in the last 43 games for a team desperately trying to get into the playoffs is acceptable for a $50MM winger who (for some inexplicable reason) wears an A? I'm not saying the Sabres should dump Vanek. I think there's a decent possibility that he could have a really good year playing with Hodgson, especially if a real blood-and-guts leader like Doan were also on that line. But I don't think he should get a free pass for having a terrible second half last year when his team really needed him.
RazielSabre Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 That's the problem, is there aren't any good alternatives. Yes, guys like Foligno and Ott could probably do it this year...but being in front on the PP is about more than just battling and size. Part of what makes Vanek so effective is his hands for deflections, which those two players don't have. Note: I'm still in favor of getting him the hell out of there to preserve his body (at least don't put him there on a regular basis), but, there is a reason he scores so much on the PP. I watched a lot of the opposing teams commentary last season (being from the UK I seem to have more choice) and quite a number of commentators said Vaneks hands are some of the best in the game when it comes to deflections, but he does get beaten up. 100% agree though, he still needs to be there, just maybe a little less.
gohansrage Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 That's the problem, is there aren't any good alternatives. Yes, guys like Foligno and Ott could probably do it this year...but being in front on the PP is about more than just battling and size. Part of what makes Vanek so effective is his hands for deflections, which those two players don't have. Note: I'm still in favor of getting him the hell out of there to preserve his body (at least don't put him there on a regular basis), but, there is a reason he scores so much on the PP. I worry about this too. I don't really have an answer for it either.
RazielSabre Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Me too. And having Doan as RW on that line would be fantastic -- the anticipation would be the Sabres' equivalent of the anticipation for Mario Williams. Yes, he had some injuries. Nothing that required surgery, innit? Doesn't every NHL player get banged up over the course of a season? Does either of you think 8 goals in the last 43 games for a team desperately trying to get into the playoffs is acceptable for a $50MM winger who (for some inexplicable reason) wears an A? I'm not saying the Sabres should dump Vanek. I think there's a decent possibility that he could have a really good year playing with Hodgson, especially if a real blood-and-guts leader like Doan were also on that line. But I don't think he should get a free pass for having a terrible second half last year when his team really needed him. Doans goals over the last 3 seasons were 18, 20, 22. Doans points were 55,60,50. Pominville goals: 24, 22,30. Points: 62, 52, 73. Stafford goals: 14, 31, 20. Points: 34, 52, 50. If he is anything, Doan is a 2nd/3rd line RW at this point in his career. Like Regehr, his best days are long behind him and you sign him for the leadership and intangibles. I am NOT saying his a bad player, just not a top line RW and certainly not on a line with Van and Hodg. His actual production is more comparable with Stafford than Pom. (using Stafford as the 2nd line RW example and Pom as top line RW example). I also note that he was playing on a team that has done remarkably well for 2 of the last 3 seasons. Oh and I truely believe Vanek should have taken 5 games off rather than play through the series of bruises and injuries, thats what killed his game, I could see it with my own eyes.
Robviously Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Yes, he had some injuries. Nothing that required surgery, innit? Great logic, Dr. Freeman. No surgery means it's not a real injury? By that standard, concussions aren't real injuries either. Doesn't every NHL player get banged up over the course of a season? I'm not sure if "every" NHL player suffers a back injury from being the only guy on the team willing to stand in front of the net every night. And the fact that injuries happen doesn't mean all injuries are the same. Does either of you think 8 goals in the last 43 games for a team desperately trying to get into the playoffs is acceptable for a $50MM winger who (for some inexplicable reason) wears an A? Three non-sequiturs in one sentence. That might be a record around here: 1. His ability to play through multiple injuries has nothing to do with whether or not the team is "desperate." Maybe they wouldn't have been so desperate had a few players besides Vanek and Pominville bothered to contribute during the first half of the season. 2. His salary also has nothing to do with whether or not he was injured. Miller's salary doesn't help him play through a concussion either. Doubling a guy's pay won't help him double his output or make his body heal faster. 3. The "A" on his sweater also doesn't change whether or not you're injured. And it's pretty "explicable" why it's there considering the players took a vote. (And do you ever wonder why your buddy, Lindy Ruff, lets him keep that A if he's so undeserving?) Keep digging.
nfreeman Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Great logic, Dr. Freeman. No surgery means it's not a real injury? By that standard, concussions aren't real injuries either. I'm not sure if "every" NHL player suffers a back injury from being the only guy on the team willing to stand in front of the net every night. And the fact that injuries happen doesn't mean all injuries are the same. Three non-sequiturs in one sentence. That might be a record around here: 1. His ability to play through multiple injuries has nothing to do with whether or not the team is "desperate." Maybe they wouldn't have been so desperate had a few players besides Vanek and Pominville bothered to contribute during the first half of the season. 2. His salary also has nothing to do with whether or not he was injured. Miller's salary doesn't help him play through a concussion either. Doubling a guy's pay won't help him double his output or make his body heal faster. 3. The "A" on his sweater also doesn't change whether or not you're injured. And it's pretty "explicable" why it's there considering the players took a vote. (And do you ever wonder why your buddy, Lindy Ruff, lets him keep that A if he's so undeserving?) Keep digging. There's nothing to dig for. He didn't produce. He didn't do what he's being paid to do. He didn't deliver when his team really needed him to do so -- which is even more disappointing when he's wearing an A (and, btw, Lindy picked him and the other letter-wearers last year -- there was no team election -- http://niagara-gazette.com/sports/x1402469339/Pominville-named-Sabres-captain). Of course, if you want to let him off the hook with the injury excuse, you're free to do so.
gohansrage Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 There's nothing to dig for. He didn't produce. He didn't do what he's being paid to do. He didn't deliver when his team really needed him to do so -- which is even more disappointing when he's wearing an A (and, btw, Lindy picked him and the other letter-wearers last year -- there was no team election -- http://niagara-gazet...-Sabres-captain). Of course, if you want to let him off the hook with the injury excuse, you're free to do so. My problem with this argument is that it ignores how Vanek carried the team the first half of the year. Without him they would have been worse (which is hard to imagine). Because Vanek played so well to start the year, the Sabres were in a spot to even make a playoff run.
Weave Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 This thread is why we need a thread ignore option. I keep ducking my head in here expecting (hoping?) to find a post with a nugget that makes reading it worthwhile. And of course, none is going to be here. must. stop. clicking. on. thread.
spndnchz Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Thread update: Page 1: Sabres in for Ryan Page 2: Trade Sekera Page 3: Whinny little children Page 4: Poking at Semin Page 5: Flyers trading Couturier Page 6: Stafford is a third line winger Page 7: Enroth isn't unseating Miller Page 8: move Pominville Page 9: Vanek doesn't deliver
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Thread update: Page 1: Sabres in for Ryan Page 2: Trade Sekera Page 3: Whinny little children Page 4: Poking at Semin Page 5: Flyers trading Couturier Page 6: Stafford is a third line winger Page 7: Enroth isn't unseating Miller Page 8: move Pominville Page 9: Vanek doesn't deliver Thanks chz, I think i'll take a look at page 5... You should do this for every thread
Robviously Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 There's nothing to dig for. He didn't produce. He didn't do what he's being paid to do. He didn't deliver when his team really needed him to do so -- which is even more disappointing when he's wearing an A (and, btw, Lindy picked him and the other letter-wearers last year -- there was no team election -- http://niagara-gazet...-Sabres-captain). Of course, if you want to let him off the hook with the injury excuse, you're free to do so. So injuries don't matter when you say they don't matter (and injuries that don't require surgery aren't really injuries anyway), and highly paid athletes should have the magical ability to either never be injured or to play through injuries with no effect on their production. Got it. You seem very reasonable. This thread is why we need a thread ignore option. I keep ducking my head in here expecting (hoping?) to find a post with a nugget that makes reading it worthwhile. And of course, none is going to be here. must. stop. clicking. on. thread. We're back to our weekly "Vanek sucks because I say so" discussion. What could be better? :rolleyes:
TrueBlueGED Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 So injuries don't matter when you say they don't matter (and injuries that don't require surgery aren't really injuries anyway), and highly paid athletes should have the magical ability to either never be injured or to play through injuries with no effect on their production. Got it. You seem very reasonable. We're back to our weekly "Vanek sucks because I say so" discussion. What could be better? :rolleyes: The "Ruff sucks because I say so" discussion is going on in another thread :P
Robviously Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 The "Ruff sucks because I say so" discussion is going on in another thread :P Does he suck because he gave Vanek an 'A' even though Vanek isn't capable of playing through non-surgery-requiring injuries without his game being affected? Maybe we can tie everything together.
wjag Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Maybe if "he ain't going anywhere" Ruff didn't have him in the front of the net getting HIS ASS KICKED on every single PP, he would be healthier. ;) ...and the PP would probably be better with Vaneks skills being utilized from the wing. So this is my NUMBER 1 thing or complaint about how Buffalo uses Vanek. I've said many times that he's a better player in open space and to camp him in front of the goalie for the PP is a waste of his talent. For the amount of time it actually works, he takes a real pounding over the course of the season..
qwksndmonster Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Doans goals over the last 3 seasons were 18, 20, 22. Doans points were 55,60,50. Pominville goals: 24, 22,30. Points: 62, 52, 73. Stafford goals: 14, 31, 20. Points: 34, 52, 50. If he is anything, Doan is a 2nd/3rd line RW at this point in his career. Like Regehr, his best days are long behind him and you sign him for the leadership and intangibles. I am NOT saying his a bad player, just not a top line RW and certainly not on a line with Van and Hodg. His actual production is more comparable with Stafford than Pom. (using Stafford as the 2nd line RW example and Pom as top line RW example). I also note that he was playing on a team that has done remarkably well for 2 of the last 3 seasons. Oh and I truely believe Vanek should have taken 5 games off rather than play through the series of bruises and injuries, thats what killed his game, I could see it with my own eyes. I think that Doan is the perfect wing to play with Hodgson and Vanek. He's a big winger with skill, so he can open it up for his linemates and still score on a regular basis. This isn't even mentioning his intangibles. X pointed out to me that without Vanek, Ennis's line would've been pulling top pairings. Vanek staying in is part of the reason for that line's success. So injuries don't matter when you say they don't matter (and injuries that don't require surgery aren't really injuries anyway), and highly paid athletes should have the magical ability to either never be injured or to play through injuries with no effect on their production. Got it. You seem very reasonable. We're back to our weekly "Vanek sucks because I say so" discussion. What could be better? :rolleyes: You've obviously both made your minds up on Vanek, so why are you in particular being so snarky?
Eleven Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 Maybe if "he ain't going anywhere" Ruff didn't have him in the front of the net getting HIS ASS KICKED on every single PP, he would be healthier. ;) ...and the PP would probably be better with Vaneks skills being utilized from the wing. So this is my NUMBER 1 thing or complaint about how Buffalo uses Vanek. I've said many times that he's a better player in open space and to camp him in front of the goalie for the PP is a waste of his talent. For the amount of time it actually works, he takes a real pounding over the course of the season.. I watched a lot of the opposing teams commentary last season (being from the UK I seem to have more choice) and quite a number of commentators said Vaneks hands are some of the best in the game when it comes to deflections, but he does get beaten up. 100% agree though, he still needs to be there, just maybe a little less.
shrader Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 We're back to our weekly "Vanek sucks because I say so" discussion. What could be better? :rolleyes: If nothing else, it can serve as a message to our new poster as to why we get sick of rehashing old arguments.
LabattBlue Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 That's the problem, is there aren't any good alternatives. Yes, guys like Foligno and Ott could probably do it this year...but being in front on the PP is about more than just battling and size. Part of what makes Vanek so effective is his hands for deflections, which those two players don't have. Note: I'm still in favor of getting him the hell out of there to preserve his body (at least don't put him there on a regular basis), but, there is a reason he scores so much on the PP. You honestly believe that Vanek doing tip drills in front of the net on the PP is a better use of his offensive skills versus playing him on the wing? I would bet any amount of money that Vanek's PP numbers would go up, if he got the same amount of PP ice time, and played exclusively along the wall. I agree. The problem is who else would Lindy have put there? (Now Ott and Foligno can battle in front.) Stafford. So this is my NUMBER 1 thing or complaint about how Buffalo uses Vanek. I've said many times that he's a better player in open space and to camp him in front of the goalie for the PP is a waste of his talent. For the amount of time it actually works, he takes a real pounding over the course of the season.. Thank you!
TrueBlueGED Posted July 26, 2012 Report Posted July 26, 2012 You honestly believe that Vanek doing tip drills in front of the net on the PP is a better use of his offensive skills versus playing him on the wing? I would bet any amount of money that Vanek's PP numbers would go up, if he got the same amount of PP ice time, and played exclusively along the wall. Stafford Not at all--I think it's the best use of the overall roster as has been constructed in recent years. I'd much rather have Vanek on the wall than in front--but we have other guys who can do that, we don't have (or haven't--maybe Foligno changes it) other guys who can effective be in front. And please tell me you don't think Stafford is going to battle in front. Stafford and "battle" don't belong in the same sentence...ever.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.