Stoner Posted April 29, 2006 Report Posted April 29, 2006 Paul Hamilton on WGR ripped Ryan Miller pretty good. He said that fourth goal reminded him of some of the "goofy goals" Dominik Hasek gave up in the playoffs. And that Hasek's tendency to give up such goals from time to time was the reason there's not a Stanley Cup banner hanging in the arena. Sure, the Umberger goal was bad, but it doesn't touch some of lowlights on the Dominator's playoff blooper reel. I hate myself.
Taro T Posted April 29, 2006 Report Posted April 29, 2006 Paul Hamilton on WGR ripped Ryan Miller pretty good. He said that fourth goal reminded him of some of the "goofy goals" Dominik Hasek gave up in the playoffs. And that Hasek's tendency to give up such goals from time to time was the reason there's not a Stanley Cup banner hanging in the arena. Sure, the Umberger goal was bad, but it doesn't touch some of lowlights on the Dominator's playoff blooper reel. I hate myself. Ryan did let in 1 bad goal and 1 or 2 others that I would like to have seen him stop. That said, Ryan didn't lose this game, the Sabres lost this game. They were outplayed by Filadephia for the 1st time this series. Paul Hamilton has a different remembering of recent Sabres history than I do. While I can show you a questionable goal or 2 in Dom's repertoire, I can show you a lot more instances where he was the only thing the Sabres had going in early rounds or the regular season. I've always been impressed with the local media's inability to forgive Dom for ripping Jim Kelley's shirt. He was absolutely in the wrong on that occasion, but you are a fairly small man if you don't give a person a chance to make up for a mistake. If you think the Sabres make the Conference Finals in '98 without Dom or make the Finals in '99 without Dom, you have a much different view of that team than I do.
Stoner Posted April 29, 2006 Author Report Posted April 29, 2006 Well now's not the time to rehash all that. I just thought Hamilton's comment was funny -- and pretty courageous. By the way, the question as framed by Hamilton's comment isn't whether they would have made the conference finals in 98 or the finals in 99 without Dom. There's no question there. The question is whether Dom's propensity to give up a soft goal in the playoffs is what prevented the Sabres from winning a Cup.
Taro T Posted April 29, 2006 Report Posted April 29, 2006 Well now's not the time to rehash all that. I just thought Hamilton's comment was funny -- and pretty courageous. By the way, the question as framed by Hamilton's comment isn't whether they would have made the conference finals in 98 or the finals in 99 without Dom. There's no question there. The question is whether Dom's propensity to give up a soft goal in the playoffs is what prevented the Sabres from winning a Cup. Personally, while I think "Dom's propensity to give up a soft goal in the playoffs" MAY have cost the Sabres a SC Championship; I think the league's propensity to not follow it's own rules was far more damning. Especially when you consider the fact that the Sabres had a "goal" (or 2) scored against them in THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS that shouldn't have been a goal and caused the league to change it's rules because of the "goal" scored against the Sabres in the round they lost in the playoffs. The next year, Kasparaitis was told "if you do that again, we'll call a penalty on you". How many friggin' times will Kasparaitis (or any OTHER Penguin) get a chance to throw a puck over the boards during play in a single game (heck, in a single season). I don't blame Hasek for the Sabres failing to win the SC, I actually give him the lion's share of credit for the Sabres being in position to compete for it. I realize I may be in the minority with that position.
Eleven Posted April 29, 2006 Report Posted April 29, 2006 Personally, while I think "Dom's propensity to give up a soft goal in the playoffs" MAY have cost the Sabres a SC Championship; I think the league's propensity to not follow it's own rules was far more damning. Especially when you consider the fact that the Sabres had a "goal" (or 2) scored against them in THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS that shouldn't have been a goal and caused the league to change it's rules because of the "goal" scored against the Sabres in the round they lost in the playoffs. The next year, Kasparaitis was told "if you do that again, we'll call a penalty on you". How many friggin' times will Kasparaitis (or any OTHER Penguin) get a chance to throw a puck over the boards during play in a single game (heck, in a single season). I don't blame Hasek for the Sabres failing to win the SC, I actually give him the lion's share of credit for the Sabres being in position to compete for it. I realize I may be in the minority with that position. You may be in the minority, or may not be, but at least I'm with you. No way would the Sabres have advanced so far in '98 or '99 without Hasek.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.