GAME DISCUSSION THREAD GDT: Vancouver at Buffalo 10-17-13 at 7:00 PM

[deluca67]

Contrary to popular belief, you need talent to be hard to play against.

This just isn't true. Wining battles for loose pucks and along the boards is more about desire and the will to win. Throw a puck into a corner with four guys to battle for it and the player who wants it most is coming out with the puck a majority of the time.

[Kristian]

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?

 

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

 

Personally, I disagree because of this :

 

Leighton : .862 SV% 3.43 GAA

Bobrovksy : .877 SV% 3.23 GAA

Boucher : .904 SV% 3.13 GAA

 

And the Sabres still couldn't close that series.

 

That's not being one or two pieces away.

[deluca67]

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

 

Personally, I disagree because of this :

 

Leighton : .862 SV% 3.43 GAA

Bobrovksy : .877 SV% 3.23 GAA

Boucher : .904 SV% 3.13 GAA

 

And the Sabres still couldn't close that series.

Great point, losing to that goaltending combo is not a sign of a team being close. Let's not forget that same Flyers team got swept by the Bruins and outscored 20-7 in the four games. If the Sabres couldn't beat the Flyers they would need to add a lot more than two players against the Bruins.

 

When talking about "one or two players away" it really needs to be done so realistically. You have to consider the roster and any available cap space.

[dudacek]

I have no doubt that team was one two players away from a championship:

Perreault and Hasek, Bossy and Potvin, Lidstrom and Yzerman, Crosby and Malkin...

[darksabre]

 

This just isn't true. Wining battles for loose pucks and along the boards is more about desire and the will to win. Throw a puck into a corner with four guys to battle for it and the player who wants it most is coming out with the puck a majority of the time.

 

Based on what, your personal belief?

[SwampD]

Based on what, your personal belief?

 

Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.

[TrueBlueGED]

Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.

 

Then why did out beloved hardest working team in hockey constantly get shelled and rely on miraculous goaltending to win? They worked so hard!

 

Hard work only gets you so far. There's a reason the most talented teams have the best records, and it's not because they're playing balls to the wall every night. It's because they don't have to work that hard all the time to win games.

[darksabre]

Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.

 

I'll take "Supposition" for 400, Alex.

[Weave]

Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.

 

But loses when talent does work hard.

 

 

You still need talent.

[SwampD]

I'll take "Supposition" for 400, Alex.

To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.

 

Based on what, your personal belief?

He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.

 

Then why did out beloved hardest working team in hockey constantly get shelled and rely on miraculous goaltending to win? They worked so hard!

 

Hard work only gets you so far. There's a reason the most talented teams have the best records, and it's not because they're playing balls to the wall every night. It's because they don't have to work that hard all the time to win games.

When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack.

[nfreeman]

 

Now, back to the original point that the fans wanted a change regardless of how close they were. And now they got it.

 

This is the big payoff? We had to wait for a dozen nonsensical posts for this?

 

Of course "fans" wanted "change." The Sabres haven't won a playoff series in 6 years and have gotten worse 4 years in a row. That doesn't mean that "fans" (which, again, is a lazy and weak logical position, because clearly there are thousands of different fans and many, many different views on what the team needed) wanted the team to bottom out like this.

 

Your point, such as it is, seems to be that the Sabres should've tried to add a few pieces to the team from 3-4 years ago instead of tearing it to pieces and starting over -- and that no one has any right to complain (or "cry" as you cleverly put it) since a number of posters here felt that the best way to improve the team would be to finish low enough in the standings to get a high draft pick.

 

If this is your point, I partially agree. I do not think that the team of 3 - 4 years ago needed to be torn apart in order to improve. I think it needed a significant upgrade in the top six forwards, and continued development from younger defenseman like Myers and Sekera.

 

However, it's also worth noting that there really hasn't been a complete tear down. The core group from that team is still mostly here, other than Roy and Pominville. Losing those 2 should not have caused this team to fall off the table as abjectly as this. In other words, the team shouldn't be as bad as they are -- but the losing infection has permeated the entire team and it's quite likely that the coach is in over his head.

[darksabre]

To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.

 

 

He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.

 

 

When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack.

 

One man's garbage is another man person's good ungarbage.

[Weave]

To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.

 

 

He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.

 

 

When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack.

 

You are a funny guy Sully. I like you. That is why I am going to kill you last.

 

This is the big payoff? We had to wait for a dozen nonsensical posts for this?

 

Of course "fans" wanted "change." The Sabres haven't won a playoff series in 6 years and have gotten worse 4 years in a row. That doesn't mean that "fans" (which, again, is a lazy and weak logical position, because clearly there are thousands of different fans and many, many different views on what the team needed) wanted the team to bottom out like this.

 

Your point, such as it is, seems to be that the Sabres should've tried to add a few pieces to the team from 3-4 years ago instead of tearing it to pieces and starting over -- and that no one has any right to complain (or "cry" as you cleverly put it) since a number of posters here felt that the best way to improve the team would be to finish low enough in the standings to get a high draft pick.

 

If this is your point, I partially agree. I do not think that the team of 3 - 4 years ago needed to be torn apart in order to improve. I think it needed a significant upgrade in the top six forwards, and continued development from younger defenseman like Myers and Sekera.

 

However, it's also worth noting that there really hasn't been a complete tear down. The core group from that team is still mostly here, other than Roy and Pominville. Losing those 2 should not have caused this team to fall off the table as abjectly as this. In other words, the team shouldn't be as bad as they are -- but the losing infection has permeated the entire team and it's quite likely that the coach is in over his head.

 

Players still on the roster that were in that '11 Flyers series:

Myers, Vanek, Ennis, Kaleta, Stafford, McCormick, Miller, Weber, Enroth

 

I was prepared to argue that the core group from that team is most definitely not still here. I guess you still can make that argument but it would be one based on semantics and how you define core. To be honest I thought we had more turnover in the roster than that. Didn't realize we have so many still around until I looked at the roster from that year.

[dudacek]

You are a funny guy Sully. I like you. That is why I am going to kill you last.

 

 

 

Players still on the roster that were in that '11 Flyers series:

Myers, Vanek, Ennis, Kaleta, Stafford, McCormick, Miller, Weber, Enroth

 

I was prepared to argue that the core group from that team is most definitely not still here. I guess you still can make that argument but it would be one based on semantics and how you define core. To be honest I thought we had more turnover in the roster than that. Didn't realize we have so many still around until I looked at the roster from that year.

 

Ennis was a rookie was he not? And McCormick in his first full season? And Enroth and Weber were either rookies or part-timers.

 

It always comes back to Stafford, does it not? :devil:

[SwampD]

You are a funny guy Sully. I like you. That is why I am going to kill you last.

 

 

 

Players still on the roster that were in that '11 Flyers series:

Myers, Vanek, Ennis, Kaleta, Stafford, McCormick, Miller, Weber, Enroth

 

I was prepared to argue that the core group from that team is most definitely not still here. I guess you still can make that argument but it would be one based on semantics and how you define core. To be honest I thought we had more turnover in the roster than that. Didn't realize we have so many still around until I looked at the roster from that year.

When you doubt your powers, you give power to your doubts.

[deluca67]

Based on what, your personal belief?

From watching the NHL for about 40 years.

Then why did out beloved hardest working team in hockey constantly get shelled and rely on miraculous goaltending to win? They worked so hard!

 

Hard work only gets you so far. There's a reason the most talented teams have the best records, and it's not because they're playing balls to the wall every night. It's because they don't have to work that hard all the time to win games.

Are you saying that team wasn't difficult to play against?

[darksabre]

 

From watching the NHL for about 40 years.

 

 

You've been watching the NHL for forty years and that's the conclusion you've come to?

[JJFIVEOH]

This is the big payoff? We had to wait for a dozen nonsensical posts for this?

 

Of course "fans" wanted "change." The Sabres haven't won a playoff series in 6 years and have gotten worse 4 years in a row. That doesn't mean that "fans" (which, again, is a lazy and weak logical position, because clearly there are thousands of different fans and many, many different views on what the team needed) wanted the team to bottom out like this.

 

Your point, such as it is, seems to be that the Sabres should've tried to add a few pieces to the team from 3-4 years ago instead of tearing it to pieces and starting over -- and that no one has any right to complain (or "cry" as you cleverly put it) since a number of posters here felt that the best way to improve the team would be to finish low enough in the standings to get a high draft pick.

 

If this is your point, I partially agree. I do not think that the team of 3 - 4 years ago needed to be torn apart in order to improve. I think it needed a significant upgrade in the top six forwards, and continued development from younger defenseman like Myers and Sekera.

 

However, it's also worth noting that there really hasn't been a complete tear down. The core group from that team is still mostly here, other than Roy and Pominville. Losing those 2 should not have caused this team to fall off the table as abjectly as this. In other words, the team shouldn't be as bad as they are -- but the losing infection has permeated the entire team and it's quite likely that the coach is in over his head.

 

Nowhere have I EVER said anybody doesn't have the right to complain about it. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy. Go back to last season's threads, most on here wanted the team to bottom out. Does that mean all BFLO fans wanted it? Who knows, but we're not talking about them. We're talking about the people on here. Here we are, bottoming out, and now people aren't happy about it.

 

Sorry my posts are so nonsensical to you. Perhaps you should have refrained from wasting your time if it wasn't worth it.

[Weave]

From watching the NHL for about 40 years.

 

Are you saying that team wasn't difficult to play against?

 

Hasek is what made that team difficult to play against.

 

I loved those May, Ray, Barnaby, Boughner years but other than when the 4th line was on the ice that team was an easy one for other teams to dominate.

[TrueBlueGED]

Are you saying that team wasn't difficult to play against?

 

Discounting Hasek, that's exactly what I'm saying. Annoying to play against sure. But difficult? I don't consider just hitting a lot to be difficult to play against. Other teams controlled the game more often than not simply because the Sabres weren't very talented. A team that regularly gets dominated is not difficult to play against no matter how many hits they throw.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Hasek is what made that team difficult to play against.

 

I loved those May, Ray, Barnaby, Boughner years but other than when the 4th line was on the ice that team was an easy one for other teams to dominate.

 

No way.... Peca, Ward, Burridge, Audette, Varada.....guys HATED playing against them. Every single one of them have "it"...that innate grit and competitive level that almost seems a prerequisite for a player NOT to have for Darcy to value them. They had enough offense too. Grosek....Stafford's skill set with a mean streak. The defense was adequate too. McKee was young, but guys like Galley and Zhitnik at least brought a respectable level of physicality in their own end. Shannon and Smehlik were solid too. The only foo-foos were Holzinger, Plante, Satan, and maybe Dawe.

 

I loved watching that team, and sure...you had an all-world goalie....which is why you CAN win with that style of play. I would sign on for a team like that all day, every day. Remember, Patty was a headcase then. Add a healthy Lafontaine and Hasek in the playoffs, and that team had every right to be in it to the end.

 

Man....I miss having men around. How many years have we wasted?

[deluca67]

You've been watching the NHL for forty years and that's the conclusion you've come to?

One of many.

Hasek is what made that team difficult to play against.

 

I loved those May, Ray, Barnaby, Boughner years but other than when the 4th line was on the ice that team was an easy one for other teams to dominate.

Discounting Hasek, that's exactly what I'm saying. Annoying to play against sure. But difficult? I don't consider just hitting a lot to be difficult to play against. Other teams controlled the game more often than not simply because the Sabres weren't very talented. A team that regularly gets dominated is not difficult to play against no matter how many hits they throw.

They weren't named the Hardest Working Team because of one line. That team had a roster wide attitude that made the team difficult to play against.

 

I don't believe anyone is saying you can win without talent, that Nolan team could have gone further if they had more talent. That isn't the issue being discussed.

[darksabre]

One of many.

They weren't named the Hardest Working Team because of one line. That team had a roster wide attitude that made the team difficult to play against.

 

I don't believe anyone is saying you can win without talent, that Nolan team could have gone further if they had more talent. That isn't the issue being discussed.

 

So you admit that talent beats hard work?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

So you admit that talent beats hard work?

 

A level 8 talent that has little to no grit will lose out to a level 6 talent that has the attitude when it matters. That sums up Nolan's team versus the past decade of Darcy at it's peak. The reason 2006 was a better team than 2007 was because of guys like Dumont, Grier, McKee and Pyatt. They all had less top line talent than some of the others, but the right size and attitude for playoff hockey. I gave up on the Sabres the 2nd half of '07. You could see that one set of guys (Peters, Mair, Kaleta), were in the John Scott mode of having a small concentration of goonism diluted by a whole pool of softer players. You can't take one 10 and two 9's and have them offset a team of 2's, 3's and a few 6's and 7's in grit and effort. Darcy let a bunch of 5-7 talents walk who had 6-8 grit. That was the downfall and exposed his philosophy and lack of understanding how to build a winning team.

 

Guys like Crosby, Malkin, Towes.....they may have level 9 or 10 talent, but are each at least a 6 or 7 in grit. THAT's why those teams have had success. Not because they tanked and got draft picks. Boston? A couple of 8 or 9 talents, but a lot of that team is 6 or 7 in talent but 7 to 10 in grit. THAT's why they win over the years.

 

Hard work and grit with mediocre talent at least has a shot to win when it matters.

 

Top talent with no grit will almost never win when it matters. This isn't the SAT's.....it's a 2 month war from April to June waged by men.

[nfreeman]

 

 

A level 8 talent that has little to no grit will lose out to a level 6 talent that has the attitude when it matters. That sums up Nolan's team versus the past decade of Darcy at it's peak. The reason 2006 was a better team than 2007 was because of guys like Dumont, Grier, McKee and Pyatt. They all had less top line talent than some of the others, but the right size and attitude for playoff hockey. I gave up on the Sabres the 2nd half of '07. You could see that one set of guys (Peters, Mair, Kaleta), were in the John Scott mode of having a small concentration of goonism diluted by a whole pool of softer players. You can't take one 10 and two 9's and have them offset a team of 2's, 3's and a few 6's and 7's in grit and effort. Darcy let a bunch of 5-7 talents walk who had 6-8 grit. That was the downfall and exposed his philosophy and lack of understanding how to build a winning team.

 

Guys like Crosby, Malkin, Towes.....they may have level 9 or 10 talent, but are each at least a 6 or 7 in grit. THAT's why those teams have had success. Not because they tanked and got draft picks. Boston? A couple of 8 or 9 talents, but a lot of that team is 6 or 7 in talent but 7 to 10 in grit. THAT's why they win over the years.

 

Hard work and grit with mediocre talent at least has a shot to win when it matters.

 

Top talent with no grit will almost never win when it matters. This isn't the SAT's.....it's a 2 month war from April to June waged by men.

 

Right on, except for including Pyatt with Grier, McKee and Dumont.