Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I like Ray.  RJ seems to not only like Ray but is having fun with him around and it leads to some good banter. Maybe people that don't like Ray want a more fancy stat type. I like my fancy stat types during intermission and only for short periods of time. I'm watching for enjoyment and not for betting or fantasy playing and the fancy stat'ers take away from watching the game by making it more like a work environment.

 

I'd be curious to see how many teams are putting their color guy down in between the benches like Ray is.  I feel like it hurts the chemistry between two announcers.

Posted

Too bad for Torts that he wasn't coaching while Nolan was in the league.

 

Honestly I'd take Nolan everyday and twice on Sunday before I'd hire that idiot.  Let's take a transition speed team and make them a physical team that blocks pucks.  Because Daniel and Henrik Sedin scream physical play.  :D

Posted

I'd be curious to see how many teams are putting their color guy down in between the benches like Ray is.  I feel like it hurts the chemistry between two announcers.

I don't know why an analyst would want to be at ice level. Hell, I'd put the coach up top, too.

Posted

It did provide us with that priceless moment where we got to watch Ray's face as he covered his mic while Lindy and Bryan Murray loudly traded very rude statements in the aftermath of Neil on Drury...

 

Hard to fathom that was almost nine years ago. 

Posted

Semantics, I suppose, but why not rely on something you're really good at? 

 

Because you risk becoming predictable to, and more easily defensed by opponents, especially those who see you a lot. You also risk missing better (more readily available) scoring opportunities. Lots of reasons, really.

 

Your alternate universe where Vanek stays in Buffalo and accumulates a number-retirement-worthy amount of points is one I am glad we avoided.

Posted

Because you risk becoming predictable to, and more easily defensed by opponents, especially those who see you a lot. You also risk missing better (more readily available) scoring opportunities. Lots of reasons, really.

 

Your alternate universe where Vanek stays in Buffalo and accumulates a number-retirement-worthy amount of points is one I am glad we avoided.

As a Vanek fan, me too.

Posted

Because you risk becoming predictable to, and more easily defensed by opponents, especially those who see you a lot. You also risk missing better (more readily available) scoring opportunities. Lots of reasons, really.

 

Your alternate universe where Vanek stays in Buffalo and accumulates a number-retirement-worthy amount of points is one I am glad we avoided.

If Danny Gare's up there, how many points does it take to qualify? Vanek had 517 points as a Sabres (including playoffs) and Gare had 544. Vanek played in 73  more games. It's close.

 

Your statement seems to oddly confirm the notion that Vanek's production didn't matter much to fans. Something else soured them (you) on him.

Posted (edited)

If Danny Gare's up there, how many points does it take to qualify? Vanek had 517 points as a Sabres (including playoffs) and Gare had 544. Vanek played in 73 more games. It's close.

 

Your statement seems to oddly confirm the notion that Vanek's production didn't matter much to fans. Something else soured them (you) on him.

Vanek was an average 1st liner constantly forced into the role of being our best player. It's also clear that his tools are elite, so some expected elite production. Edited by qwksndmonster
Posted

Vanek was an average 1st liner constantly forced into the role of being our best player. It's also clear that his tools are elite, so some expected elite production.

I wouldn't disagree with that. His production was pretty close to elite though. People wanted him to "hustle" more and not be so "lazy" and to "be a leader." /farley

Posted

I wouldn't disagree with that. His production was pretty close to elite though. People wanted him to "hustle" more and not be so "lazy" and to "be a leader." /farley

That's kinda what I was getting at. Vanek was our best player so he unfairly took some of the heat for Darcy's horrible team building.
Posted

I'd be curious to see how many teams are putting their color guy down in between the benches like Ray is.  I feel like it hurts the chemistry between two announcers.

 

 

I don't know why an analyst would want to be at ice level. Hell, I'd put the coach up top, too.

 

Could it be a comfort level thing for Ray? It's where he's spent almost his entire life. Ray up in the Box with RJ and Marty Biron between the benches, that would be some entertainment.

Posted

Could it be a comfort level thing for Ray? It's where he's spent almost his entire life. Ray up in the Box with RJ and Marty Biron between the benches, that would be some entertainment.

 

If it was a comfort thing, you wouldn't take a guy who made a living getting punched in the face and put him in a position where he has to talk a lot. :bag:

Posted

If Danny Gare's up there, how many points does it take to qualify? Vanek had 517 points as a Sabres (including playoffs) and Gare had 544. Vanek played in 73  more games. It's close.

 

Your statement seems to oddly confirm the notion that Vanek's production didn't matter much to fans. Something else soured them (you) on him.

 

Yeah. There is more to it than just numbers, obviously. Although the numbers hafta be there to start the conversation. (And yes, Horton.)

 

As for what I said about TV. He just needed to go. That entire core needed to go. They had to go. Did I mention they needed to go? The team was not going anywhere with him, no matter how many sick re-direct goals he had or how many Hossa-esque performances he provided.

 

And yes. Vanek Face.

Posted

I'd be curious to see how many teams are putting their color guy down in between the benches like Ray is.  I feel like it hurts the chemistry between two announcers.

 

I figured most teams have three guys, one on the ice and two up top. I was under the impression that the RJ/Ray combo was kind of unique.

Posted

I don't even understand how people say Vanek had a soft style of play.  Ever watch the abuse he took in front of the goal?  That's not soft.

Posted

I don't even understand how people say Vanek had a soft style of play. Ever watch the abuse he took in front of the goal? That's not soft.

The perceived floating, lack of checks, style of defense, could all be seen as soft. I agree it's not, my point was it can be seen as laziness or lack of hustle or lack of grit, etc. I think the same thing of Stafford btw.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...