GDT: Sabres @ Penguins 3/5/17 5pm

[inkman]

still say that goal was high stick :p

I expect people to lose their over questionable calls. I find it a little perplexing that the same people who were waving the white flag before the game expecting a beat down, lost their ever loving minds when they lost.

[R_Dudley]

So I was at the game but waited to post.

They had a great first period and proved they can play with a Stanley cup contender. Now would they win a series against a team like the Pens, Nah I am not delusional however i was not totally disappointed. They competed and had the lead for 2 and 3/4's periods. The kicked in goal and and the could a been a high stick goal puck luck for the pens made the difference. A game changer was the switch from Murray to Fleury between the 1st and 2nd. Fleury really made some great saves to keep it at 3. 

 

What stood out. Ennis and Moulson have no physical game. They really looked horrible and overpowered at times and Pgh is not a big physical team. It's a shame Rodriguez is stuck mainly with them because they are not strong on the puck at all, just a couple of stick check kings. Still Moulson had an open look at the net and just couldn't coral it.     

Nilsson deserved better he really played a strong game, except for a few rebound control mishaps.  As far as the D goes they did not look that bad. They had a few break downs but the pens do that to everyone. What i did notice was how the team was backing up in the 2nd and 3rd instead of continuing to press the play in the Pens zone like they did in the first. The pens looked like they were sending 2 wingers high which made or D back off and created more space in the neutral zone for the Pens passing game which is really good. The number of tape to tape passes are at least 3x  what I see the Sabres doing. That and their cycle game and speed is what gave them 5 on 5's that looked like power plays. The sabres insistent use ff the boards didn't help us much with that when the other team is owning them.  But that's something we are seeing a bunch of teams doing that have picked up on that Sabres tactic.

 

I guess I didn't expect then to win which is why I am not as disappointed as I could be with losing another that way. l have to come to grips with they are not a playoff ready team and I am resolved to watching the string play out here and see what players really show they care and still play hard for the team. lets hope TM see the same necessary changes a bunch here have already stated.            

[Stoner]

Rinks and a hotel over a donut shop is literally the most progress in Buffalo's waterfront maybe ever.  It's the most progress downtown since we finished building the Marine Midland Arena 20 years ago.  It's still super rare to see cranes building something in this city.

 

Oh, and the Bills didn't move to Toronto or LA because of them.  I guess that's also not worth being thankful for?

 

Everyone please get a grip.  Despite the fact that a couple new buildings went up downtown, Buffalo is still an insanely poor city .  The Pegulas investing in it is a good thing.

The bold seems like a strawman. No one would disagree. They're good people, from all accounts, just terrible owners.

[carpandean]

You were physics too??

 

No.  Business, but our coursework was mostly advanced mathematics (econometrics, mathematical programming, stochastic processes, etc.)  Different than physics, obviously, but probably more alike than many would expect.  In fact, a lot of business systems are analyzed by approximating them as known physical systems (for example, modeling/analyzing/approximating queues using fluid dynamics.)

Edited March 6, 2017 by carpandean

[nfreeman]

Congrats Flagg!

 

Excellent choice -- I think you will have plenty of good career options.

[rickshaw]

Imagine not losing the Col, Az and Pitt games. 72 points and in wild card spot.

 

Gotta laugh

[Doohicksie]

What i did notice was how the team was backing up in the 2nd and 3rd instead of continuing to press the play in the Pens zone like they did in the first.

 

Yeah.  Everybody notices that.  Everybody but Disco Dan.

[Randall Flagg]

Yall pick some weird games to lose your ######.

Just from my experience as a fan, blowing a lead as big as 3 goals is probably the most angering thing to watch, closely followed by a blown call deciding the game the wrong way and a loss to a team much worse than us. It's not surprising to me that the board is angry!

 

Well, that's annoying :lol:

I'm actually sending out a couple emails today to see where I stand - I was convinced by a professor I talked to (who isn't taking students and is retiring soon, so he had no reason not to give me his honest opinion) that this is the best course of action. Based on where I've been accepted so far about 4 of the schools I don't care about anymore and will withdraw my application. What about you, know where you'll be yet?

 

No.  Business, but our coursework was mostly advanced mathematics (econometrics, mathematical programming, stochastic processes, etc.)  Different than physics, obviously, but probably more alike than many would expect.  In fact, a lot of business systems are analyzed by approximating them as known physical systems (for example, modeling/analyzing/approximating queues using fluid dynamics.)

Yeah, I believe it. 

 

Congrats Flagg!

 

Excellent choice -- I think you will have plenty of good career options.

Thank you! I'm not solely focused on getting a position in academia, which is thoroughly saturated, and will market myself and the skills I develop to the best of my ability when I'm done. The degree itself is an end to me, so if I move into a tangentially related field or even something further from physics than that, I'm okay with it. 

[inkman]

The bold seems like a strawman. No one would disagree. They're good people, from all accounts, just terrible owners.

I guess like some of our posting peers, your opinion is accurate and correct?

 

I think there needs to be a metric for a "good owner". Building a consistent winner, winning championships, treating players and coaches properly, making money (it is after all the reason you buy a team), just to name a few. I don't think it's as simple as: Terry sucks behind the mic, has a mail order bride over involved in non-woman work (stole that from a WGR caller), hires coaches we like then dislike, keeps Russ Brandon aboard despite conspiracy theories liking him to some evil overlord pulling the strings, and so on.

Edited March 6, 2017 by inkman

[nfreeman]

I guess like some of our posting peers, your opinion is accurate and correct?

 

I think there needs to be a metric for a "good owner". Building a consistent winner, winning championships, treating players and coaches properly, making money (it is after all the reason you buy a team), just to name a few. I don't think it's as simple as: Terry sucks behind the mic, has a mail order bride over involved in non-woman work (stole that from a WGR caller), hires coaches we like then dislike, keeps Russ Brandon aboard despite conspiracy theories liking him to some evil overlord pulling the strings, and so on.

 

Yes indeed. 

 

I also think that seeing the results of various choices that are made at the ownership level inevitably takes more time than we as fans would like. 

 

When TP bought the Sabres, he made the (IMHO gentlemanly) decision to give the holdover management team another shot.  He didn't want to be the heartless raider who came in and fired everyone -- he wanted to see what they could do with more resources supporting them.  After 2.3 or so seasons, he realized that it wasn't working, fired them and brought in a new GM, who is now finishing his 3rd full season on the job -- one of which was a tank year.  (And while I and many others disagreed with the decision to tank, certainly many supported it.) 

 

It's certainly possible that GMTM will prove out not to have the right stuff for the job.  And it's fair to say that Darcy should've been cut loose by TP immediately.  But I don't look at TP's ownership of the Sabres and think to myself "this team stinks because of bad ownership." 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Congrats Randall!!

 

Science, in general, is a subject matter that is too complicated for my little brain, unless you count the analysis and interpretation of a Balance Sheet a science.

 

+++++

 

Welcome back, PA.

 

It's good to hear from you.

 

+++++

 

This loss really hurt, as the Sabres played pretty well, even in their 2nd and 3rd period shells.  2 questionable goals in a 4-3 loss ... if the calls went the other way we would be celebrating a near cusp like victory.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm actually sending out a couple emails today to see where I stand - I was convinced by a professor I talked to (who isn't taking students and is retiring soon, so he had no reason not to give me his honest opinion) that this is the best course of action. Based on where I've been accepted so far about 4 of the schools I don't care about anymore and will withdraw my application. What about you, know where you'll be yet?

 

Yea, I mean, you have to be able to have enough time before the deadline to make an informed decision, to say nothing of scheduling interviews. Are any of those you have heard back from among your top choices? 

 

As for me, I'm still waiting on one response (which is ironic, as it's the worst program I applied to and only did it as a fallback...), but I'm like 70% decided. What was initially my second choice vaulted to my top choice with a tremendous financial offer (higher paying stipend and the tuition waiver includes the out of state surcharge, which I did not know when I applied). I should be getting the total financial package from my other top choice this week, but I'll be pretty surprised if it can match what I've been offered. The firm offer I have also has an assistantship doing exactly what I want to be doing, and the program itself is more established (which was noticeable during their respective interview weekends). Of my boxes to check off (program quality, financial package, GA position), it comes in first on the three most important ones. Barring a surprise, gonna be hard to turn it down for the sake of location/culture.

[LTS]

So... the thread is littered with all kinds of flaws aimed at the officiating and also the Sabres suck.

 

I only watched part of the game as we had people over but I saw a team that seemed to be getting screwed by the officials.  I did also see a team that plays too defensively (and manages to NOT be defensive while doing it) but I don't know that I can sit there and lose my mind over the game.

 

Oh well... it's probably good I didn't see it.  I did see the high stick goal.  That was garbage but of course it was allowed. The only thing I needed to know was that the shot was trending above the cross bar, was deflected and managed to squeak in just under the cross bar.  So, how do you contact a puck 6-7 feet out from the net and deflect it down so it goes just under the cross bar without putting your stick ABOVE the cross bar.  Yep.  Love to find some good photos of this one.

[Stoner]

I guess like some of our posting peers, your opinion is accurate and correct?

 

I think there needs to be a metric for a "good owner". Building a consistent winner, winning championships, treating players and coaches properly, making money (it is after all the reason you buy a team), just to name a few. I don't think it's as simple as: Terry sucks behind the mic, has a mail order bride over involved in non-woman work (stole that from a WGR caller), hires coaches we like then dislike, keeps Russ Brandon aboard despite conspiracy theories liking him to some evil overlord pulling the strings, and so on.

Owners don't build winners, his or her managers do. Setting the mission, providing the resources, sure. Owners shouldn't be close enough to players and coaches for their treatment to be an issue. As for making money, no one ever bought an NHL team to make money year to year. To flip, like OSP did, maybe. These filthy rich buy teams to have a toy to play with. See Pegula, Terrence. They should remember the corollary to the old adage: you buy it, you break it.

[Doohicksie]

Owners don't build winners, his or her managers do. Setting the mission, providing the resources, sure. Owners shouldn't be close enough to players and coaches for their treatment to be an issue. As for making money, no one ever bought an NHL team to make money year to year. To flip, like OSP did, maybe. These filthy rich ###### buy teams to have a toy to play with. See Pegula, Terrence. They should remember the corollary to the old adage: you break it, you buy it.

 

fify (you had it backwards)

[Stoner]

fify (you had it backwards)

I was flipping the old adage around. (But I don't think I wanted the word corollary there.)

[Iron Crotch]

Congratulations and good luck!  Every program is a little different, but what most have in common is that the first two years are very tough and designed to trim the group down.  In addition to the original acceptance letter, there were three other letters that we received in the first two-and-a-half years that could have said "you're done."

 

Your program was/is well-known for weeding out more students than most. Less so in my field than in yours. Two years of hell, basically. BTW - My Dad was the second ever PhD graduate out of that program (back in the day)

[That Aud Smell]

Owners don't build winners, his or her managers do. Setting the mission, providing the resources, sure. Owners shouldn't be close enough to players and coaches for their treatment to be an issue. 

 

I understand what you're saying, but, boy - you sure do hear that said (that the winning started at the top) with regard to just about every winning franchise don't you?

 

OTOH, consider the run of success the Bruins had with one of the most miserly, cheap owners in the history of pro sports. (At least, Jacobs was reputed to be as much for many decades before the Bruins all of a sudden got good.)

[Doohicksie]

I was flipping the old adage around. (But I don't think I wanted the word corollary there.)

 

Oh, that was on purpose?  Sorry, didn't pick up on the word play.

[biodork]

So I was at the game but waited to post.

They had a great first period and proved they can play with a Stanley cup contender. Now would they win a series against a team like the Pens, Nah I am not delusional however i was not totally disappointed. They competed and had the lead for 2 and 3/4's periods. The kicked in goal and and the could a been a high stick goal puck luck for the pens made the difference. A game changer was the switch from Murray to Fleury between the 1st and 2nd. Fleury really made some great saves to keep it at 3. 

 

What stood out. Ennis and Moulson have no physical game. They really looked horrible and overpowered at times and Pgh is not a big physical team. It's a shame Rodriguez is stuck mainly with them because they are not strong on the puck at all, just a couple of stick check kings. Still Moulson had an open look at the net and just couldn't coral it.     

Nilsson deserved better he really played a strong game, except for a few rebound control mishaps.  As far as the D goes they did not look that bad. They had a few break downs but the pens do that to everyone. What i did notice was how the team was backing up in the 2nd and 3rd instead of continuing to press the play in the Pens zone like they did in the first. The pens looked like they were sending 2 wingers high which made or D back off and created more space in the neutral zone for the Pens passing game which is really good. The number of tape to tape passes are at least 3x  what I see the Sabres doing. That and their cycle game and speed is what gave them 5 on 5's that looked like power plays. The sabres insistent use ff the boards didn't help us much with that when the other team is owning them.  But that's something we are seeing a bunch of teams doing that have picked up on that Sabres tactic.

 

I guess I didn't expect then to win which is why I am not as disappointed as I could be with losing another that way. l have to come to grips with they are not a playoff ready team and I am resolved to watching the string play out here and see what players really show they care and still play hard for the team. lets hope TM see the same necessary changes a bunch here have already stated.            

Good post.  I will say that for my part, the bolded is why I'm so frustrated with this team.  Last year (and the one before) you couldn't get mad after a while because they were so bereft of talent that no one expected them to win.  But when they show up and play as well as they did in the 1st period against Pittsburgh, it's clear they can and should be better than they are.  In years past I grew accustomed to watching the slow start as the players adjusted to the new teammates, made gradual progress, and inevitably coalesced into a legitimately good team at some point over the west coast road trip in Jan., then played consistently well for the remainder of the season.  And as irritated as I am with Bylsma and I wouldn't mind seeing him go, I'm also inclined to side with we've in saying a lot of this is on the players.  They play just well enough to give me hope, and then yet again manage to sh!t the bed.

 

[Thorner]

I expect people to lose their ###### over questionable calls. I find it a little perplexing that the same people who were waving the white flag before the game expecting a beat down, lost their ever loving minds when they lost.

Well the elephant in the room with regards to this, is the manner that they lost. Having a 3 goal lead and losing in regulation is inherently more frustrating than losing 4-3 in a back-and-forth game, or even a 4-1 loss, for my money.

[Randall Flagg]

Congrats Randall!!

 

Science, in general, is a subject matter that is too complicated for my little brain, unless you count the analysis and interpretation of a Balance Sheet a science.

If you can do the math of an accountant (right?) then I'm positive you could learn science! You just have to be in a university setting, or have access to people who already know the material, and want to be there doing it, IMO. Everyone that posts here is smart enough to learn it if the drive is there and the means are easy to get to (and they aren't once people start settling down, getting married and having kids etc., living life - I just don't have a life yet!)

 

Yea, I mean, you have to be able to have enough time before the deadline to make an informed decision, to say nothing of scheduling interviews. Are any of those you have heard back from among your top choices? 

 

As for me, I'm still waiting on one response (which is ironic, as it's the worst program I applied to and only did it as a fallback...), but I'm like 70% decided. What was initially my second choice vaulted to my top choice with a tremendous financial offer (higher paying stipend and the tuition waiver includes the out of state surcharge, which I did not know when I applied). I should be getting the total financial package from my other top choice this week, but I'll be pretty surprised if it can match what I've been offered. The firm offer I have also has an assistantship doing exactly what I want to be doing, and the program itself is more established (which was noticeable during their respective interview weekends). Of my boxes to check off (program quality, financial package, GA position), it comes in first on the three most important ones. Barring a surprise, gonna be hard to turn it down for the sake of location/culture.

I had a 'reach' tier, a 'this is my level' tier, and a 'safety' tier. I've gotten into two safeties and a match tier school, and I have a visit this weekend to one in my reach tier, being invited to the open house is a good thing though they don't make decisions til after (and certainly don't invite all of the dozens and dozens that apply). I've been rejected from two reaches. I will send the emails to two of the other reaches (one I know i'll be rejected from, it just hasn't happened yet) and maybe one other match, but the program of the match school is perfect for my interests, it seems, and I'll be visiting to make sure later this month. I probably won't know until early April where I'm going for sure though.

 

That's fantastic news, congrats! You're going to be the best student in the program, I can already tell, even if I never know where you're going. I think I'm going to be a miserable failure. We'll see though! The place I visited this weekend isn't as highly ranked, and I discovered it's because they only focus on three different areas of research, but I really liked two of them and several of the professors. And location-wise it will not be beat by anywhere else, so we'll see. 

[Robviously]

The bold seems like a strawman. No one would disagree. They're good people, from all accounts, just terrible owners.

I don't even think they're terrible owners.  They just don't know how to build a winner.  They trust the wrong people. 

 

Terrible owners wouldn't invest in the arena, or the city.  They wouldn't spend money to the cap trying to build a winner.  I do think they care about the fans but they have no idea how to give them the one thing they need.

[WildCard]

I don't even think they're terrible owners.  They just don't know how to build a winner.  They trust the wrong people. 

 

Terrible owners wouldn't invest in the arena, or the city.  They wouldn't spend money to the cap trying to build a winner.  I do think they care about the fans but they have no idea how to give them the one thing they need.

Terrible owners would be involved in who your head coach is, and what decisions your GM can make. Which they do

[Drunkard]

Terrible owners would be involved in who your head coach is, and what decisions your GM can make. Which they do

 

Yep. I'd add in using irrelevant metrics in the hiring process. It would be great if we'd hire football people based on their football qualifications and hockey people based on their hockey qualifications rather than letting what type of wine you drink, spiritual beliefs, and success in unrelated sports factor in.