LGR4GM Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 Blame it on the #blueprint @BuffNewsVogl Mikhail Grigorenko's linemates last night (Scott, McCormick) have one goal in last 237 games. Grigorenko has one goal in 32 NHL games. I just saw that... Good job Ron Rolston, well done putting a kid with twice as much talent as both players combined on the ice with a bunch of 4th line trolls. unf###inbelievable
JJFIVEOH Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 If they were "just a piece or two away," they would've won more than zero playoff series in the 6 years since Black Sunday. The Vanek-Roy-Stafford-Connolly-Pommer core was a lousy core. They were soft, they were inconsistent and they hid under the bed in crunch time. Not as bad as the train wreck we're now being treated to, but a failure nevertheless. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. In this day and age of a watered down talent pool as well as league parity, EVERY team that makes the playoffs are only one or two pieces away if they aren't already there. Especially one that was capable of putting together a streak like the one the Sabres put together when Pegula came aboard. But, that is besides the point. The fans didn't like that team and they asked for change.
LGR4GM Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 In this day and age of a watered down talent pool as well as league parity, EVERY team that makes the playoffs are only one or two pieces away if they aren't already there. Especially one that was capable of putting together a streak like the one the Sabres put together when Pegula came aboard. But, that is besides the point. The fans didn't like that team and they asked for change. That team and core never won a playoff series... EVER.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 That team and core never won a playoff series... EVER. Like I said, one or two pieces...........
LGR4GM Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 Like I said, one or two pieces........... That is not one or two pieces...........
nfreeman Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 In this day and age of a watered down talent pool as well as league parity, EVERY team that makes the playoffs are only one or two pieces away if they aren't already there. Especially one that was capable of putting together a streak like the one the Sabres put together when Pegula came aboard. But, that is besides the point. The fans didn't like that team and they asked for change. What is the point of this statement? Do you think DR made the moves that he made in response to what some of the fans wanted?
That Aud Smell Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 In this day and age of a watered down talent pool That statement harkens to a time when the NHL wasn't freely importing talent from all over Europe and the former U.S.S.R. I don't think there's any shortage of talent.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 That is not one or two pieces........... Yes, it is. Especially when you're an overtime goal away from making it to the 2nd round. That statement harkens to a time when the NHL wasn't freely importing talent from all over Europe and the former U.S.S.R. I don't think there's any shortage of talent. I'm going to have to disagree. Teams are having difficulties putting together mediocre 2nd lines much less having a quality 2nd line they can count on. Scoring isn't down in the league simply because of the rules.
Kristian Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 Yes, it is. Especially when you're an overtime goal away from making it to the 2nd round. I'm going to have to disagree. Teams are having difficulties putting together mediocre 2nd lines much less having a quality 2nd line they can count on. Scoring isn't down in the league simply because of the rules. Come on, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The only reason that series went to 7 games was because either Philly goalie couldn't stop a beach ball, we were outhustled and forechecked to bits the entire series. The Sabres played physical, and wore down the Flyers, but we were thoroughly outplayed the entire series, when it came to actually playing hockey.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 Come on, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The only reason that series went to 7 games was because either Philly goalie couldn't stop a beach ball, we were outhustled and forechecked to bits the entire series. The Sabres played physical, and wore down the Flyers, but we were thoroughly outplayed the entire series, when it came to actually playing hockey. And two more pieces couldn't make that team a contender?
Wyldnwoody44 Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 And two more pieces couldn't make that team a contender? Oh snap, oh no he didn't ;)
SwampD Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 And two more pieces couldn't make that team a contender? Weren't we at the cap and still needed two more pieces? You are the gift that keeps on giving today. This team is a crap sandwich made by Darcy and now he's trying to make us a turd burger.
Weave Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 And two more pieces couldn't make that team a contender? Here we go again! That series was was awful. Neither one of those teams should look back on that series and believe they were *this* close.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 Weren't we at the cap and still needed two more pieces? You are the gift that keeps on giving today. This team is a crap sandwich made by Darcy and now he's trying to make us a turd burger. Where the team was with the cap is besides the point. Here we go again! That series was was awful. Neither one of those teams should look back on that series and believe they were *this* close. A team that finished the season 40-20-8 in it's last 68 and 16-4-4 in it's last 24 wasn't one or two pieces away from being a contender? Really?
SwampD Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 Where the team was with the cap is besides the point. Just because you keep saying that, doesn't mean it's true. Those two mythical magical pieces, I'm assuming, would be replacing two people already on that team. I am also assuming that they would be better than those players replaced (they would have to be). Better players get payed more. If those two magical pieces were going to come through free agency (which Darcy tried) they have to be payed even more. If you are already at the cap, then how do you do that? Magic, I guess. Darcy is Rasputin.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 Just because you keep saying that, doesn't mean it's true. Those two mythical magical pieces, I'm assuming, would be replacing two people already on that team. I am also assuming that they would be better than those players replaced (they would have to be). Better players get payed more. If those two magical pieces were going to come through free agency (which Darcy tried) they have to be payed even more. If you are already at the cap, then how do you do that? Magic, I guess. Darcy is Rasputin. How much did Van Riemsdyk, Leino and Giroux make that year?
SwampD Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 How much did Van Riemsdyk, Leino and Giroux make that year? I'm not sure I care. What's your point?
JJFIVEOH Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 I'm not sure I care. What's your point? Figure it out.
kishoph Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 I'll just go ahead and say I think Ott has been pretty terrible this year (but he hasn't reached whipping boy status, so it seems to go unnoticed or at least unmentioned). I think having him on the 1st line has taken away the strengths of his game and is playing to the weaknesses (not to mention he's stuck on his off wing...thanks for 5 billion LWs Darcy). I agree that I'd like to see them play a different way, but I still don't think it would make a damn bit of difference on the outcomes--we might just lose 4-2 instead of 2-0. Has putting the 'C' on him changed his game any ?
SwampD Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 You wouldn't care, because it invalidates your point. You mean my point that Darcy overpaid undertalented players so he had no room under the cap for two magical pieces that were going to make his team better, and got nothing in return for his 2 best assets in '07 and it looks like he is going to do the same again this year, and now we've entrusted him to tear down this tower of crapple in order to rebuild it again and we are being told to wait another three years? For the record, what is your point? Where do you see this team in 3 years under Darcy?
Weave Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 Where the team was with the cap is besides the point. A team that finished the season 40-20-8 in it's last 68 and 16-4-4 in it's last 24 wasn't one or two pieces away from being a contender? Really? I guess we'll never know but I didn't believe then, and I don't now that that team was 2 or fewer players away from threatening for a Stanley Cup. That was a flawed group. I'm not sure they were Cup contenders if the two players added were Kane and Toews.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 You mean my point that Darcy overpaid undertalented players so he had no room under the cap for two magical pieces that were going to make his team better, and got nothing in return for his 2 best assets in '07 and it looks like he is going to do the same again this year, and now we've entrusted him to tear down this tower of crapple in order to rebuild it again and we are being told to wait another three years? For the record, what is your point? Where do you see this team in 3 years under Darcy? No, I'm saying that the timing in giving your young players their first big contract, signing free agents, anticipating the cap limit and organizing it all is a crap shoot; and most often pure luck. If it were so easy teams wouldn't have to get rid of high priced players. With that said, the cap at the time is completely besides my point that the Sabres were one or two pieces from being a contender. You said your best players are paid the most, yet the Flyers got lucky in that they rode the backs of their cheapest players at the time. I don't know where I see this team in 3 years. I think our new draft picks will become damaged goods because they're getting too much responsibility at a young age. I guess we'll never know but I didn't believe then, and I don't now that that team was 2 or fewer players away from threatening for a Stanley Cup. That was a flawed group. I'm not sure they were Cup contenders if the two players added were Kane and Toews. I think they were close so we'll just have to agree to disagree. :flirt: Now, back to the original point that the fans wanted a change regardless of how close they were. And now they got it.
SwampD Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 No, I'm saying that the timing in giving your young players their first big contract, signing free agents, anticipating the cap limit and organizing it all is a crap shoot; and most often pure luck. If it were so easy teams wouldn't have to get rid of high priced players. With that said, the cap at the time is completely besides my point that the Sabres were one or two pieces from being a contender. You said your best players are paid the most, yet the Flyers got lucky in that they rode the backs of their cheapest players at the time. I don't know where I see this team in 3 years. I think our new draft picks will become damaged goods because they're getting too much responsibility at a young age. I think they were close so we'll just have to agree to disagree. :flirt: Now, back to the original point that the fans wanted a change regardless of how close they were. And now they got it. That is the crux of it all right there. The fans wanted change because we didn't think we were that close. FTR, I didn't think were that close in 05-07 either and said as much. The rules change in the playoffs and Darcy's teams weren't built for them.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted October 18, 2013 Report Posted October 18, 2013 That is the crux of it all right there. The fans wanted change because we didn't think we were that close. FTR, I didn't think were that close in 05-07 either and said as much. The rules change in the playoffs and Darcy's teams weren't built for them. Perhaps the biggest spotlight on Darcy's failure is the Summer of '06.....where Dumont, McKee, Grier, and Pyatt were let go. That's what set the fire under my bippy, and it was downhill ever since.....
LTS Posted October 19, 2013 Report Posted October 19, 2013 I'll just go ahead and say I think Ott has been pretty terrible this year (but he hasn't reached whipping boy status, so it seems to go unnoticed or at least unmentioned). I think having him on the 1st line has taken away the strengths of his game and is playing to the weaknesses (not to mention he's stuck on his off wing...thanks for 5 billion LWs Darcy). I agree that I'd like to see them play a different way, but I still don't think it would make a damn bit of difference on the outcomes--we might just lose 4-2 instead of 2-0. Ott shouldn't be there... I'd rather see Girgensons, Foligno or Grigorenko there (in that order). If it gets to Grigorenko then at least the weakest defensive forwards are all together! It's possible they picked up bad habits. It's also possible that those teams were just a piece or two away. We'll never know. My point is that people wanted change, they wanted the core gone because the team became stagnant. They got their wish, and now they're still not happy. I'm just as upset as the next person, I expected to see some kind of effort with lots of rookie mistakes. But when we had the 'core' fans asked for Darcy to do something. Be careful what you ask for, you might get what you want and it may not be pretty. (Not you personally). No.. the change, whatever comes of it is good. If this is actually the best this team can do then clearly more change is needed. I'm just at the point now where I think a new culture needs to be brought in at the coach and GM level. I think these players can be good, but not by sitting back and waiting for teams to beat them to the puck. It creates a passive mentality. Is there a reason the Sabres are always a step behind the puck in the defensive zone? This happened under Ruff and now under Rolston. It happens when they continually collapse forwards too far down to protect the net. It's a system thing. Even aggressive forwards are collapsing so I know it's not just talent. Does anyone really see all that much difference with what the team is doing under Rolston compared to Ruff? Wingers are on the halfwall, taking passes with their backs to the play while standing still. They pass back to the D. They go back and forth with the puck and all the while lose it at the blue line. WHen they are successul they are doing so with a short pass from the winger to the center. Truthfully my son's Squirt team works on the same breakout. The difference is that with 9&10 year olds it works.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.