"Let it all hang out" in Game 2?

[Stoner]

Under Lindy Ruff, the Sabres have now won eight Game 1s on the road (8-2). The first seven times they won Game 1, they lost Game 2 four times. From Day One as a playoff coach, Lindy talked about "taking chances" and "letting it all hang out" in Game 2 in an attempt to put a strangehold on the series. He said it after Game 1 of the conference finals in Washington in 1998. The Sabres lost Game 2. He said it after Game 1 of the conference finals in Toronto and Game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals in Dallas in 1999. Sabres lost both. Now, it's possible this is just "coach speak," an attempt to confuse the opponent about the real strategy Ruff might employ. What do you guys think? Do the Sabres really intend to abandon this "defense-first" strategy on Monday and "go for broke"? I'll make some cawfee. Tawk amongst yourselves.

[nfreeman]

Well...that means that we did win 3 of the 7 game 2s on the road. So, in 3 out of 7 chances, we won the first 2 on the road. In 3 of the 4 times we lost game 2, it was either the conf. finals or the cup finals, when presumably we were playing a darn good team. This isn't that shabby. In the playoffs, if a team loses game 1 at home, you should expect them to come out and play like their lives depend on it -- unless of course it's ottawa (sorry, couldn't resist).

 

As far as whether it's just coach-speak -- I would guess the answer is yes. I doubt we'll see Max and Vanek get more minutes than Drury and Grier.

 

Go Sabres.

[bob_sauve28]

Under Lindy Ruff, the Sabres have now won eight Game 1s on the road (8-2). The first seven times they won Game 1, they lost Game 2 four times. From Day One as a playoff coach, Lindy talked about "taking chances" and "letting it all hang out" in Game 2 in an attempt to put a strangehold on the series. He said it after Game 1 of the conference finals in Washington in 1998. The Sabres lost Game 2. He said it after Game 1 of the conference finals in Toronto and Game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals in Dallas in 1999. Sabres lost both. Now, it's possible this is just "coach speak," an attempt to confuse the opponent about the real strategy Ruff might employ. What do you guys think? Do the Sabres really intend to abandon this "defense-first" strategy on Monday and "go for broke"? I'll make some cawfee. Tawk amongst yourselves.

I think Ruff will dress a new defenseman for this game :P

[BetweenThePipes00]

In the Ottawa series at least, they did not let it all hang out in Game 2 ... they got a lead and hung on to it for dear life ...

But remember, even if letting it all hang out is the plan, in every one of these Game 2s you are talking about they are facing a VERY desperate team on their home ice ... you can't expect a team good enough to reach a conference final or put up 113 points like Ottawa did to just roll over and let you come at them in waves. the other guys are getting paid too so it's not always easy to dictate play, especially on the road against desperation.

[wjag]

I think the fact that Buffalo has scored first in all but one goes a long way to dictating play. They press until they get the lead then they protect, counter punch, protect and counter punch. Both Ottawa and Carolina are fast teams with a penchant for scoring goals. That short handed one against us is all the reminders we need. If Carolina gets the first goal, I expect Game 4 Ottawa style, if Buffalo gets the first goal, I expect them to revert to their current strategy of protecting the lead and attacking when possible. They simply can't afford to play the Philly style games with this team, they are too fast, too able and still home.

 

I should also add that it was Game 2 against Ottawa that I became a true believer. Up until then, I was just hopeful. Weathering that storm at the end of Game 2 showed me that this team had the mental tenacity to win 16 playoff games. It was also the most nail biting game I have ever been witness to. That game broke Ottawa's spirit in my opinion.

[Taro T]

Under Lindy Ruff, the Sabres have now won eight Game 1s on the road (8-2). The first seven times they won Game 1, they lost Game 2 four times. From Day One as a playoff coach, Lindy talked about "taking chances" and "letting it all hang out" in Game 2 in an attempt to put a strangehold on the series. He said it after Game 1 of the conference finals in Washington in 1998. The Sabres lost Game 2. He said it after Game 1 of the conference finals in Toronto and Game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals in Dallas in 1999. Sabres lost both. Now, it's possible this is just "coach speak," an attempt to confuse the opponent about the real strategy Ruff might employ. What do you guys think? Do the Sabres really intend to abandon this "defense-first" strategy on Monday and "go for broke"? I'll make some cawfee. Tawk amongst yourselves.

I find your choice of examples of the Sabres not getting it done in Game 2's interesting. In the Washington series, Kerry @#%@%@!% Fraser GAVE the game to Washington. IF he isn't a SOB and actually allows Bondra's goal to be reviewed, then Buffalo wins that series. The SOB REFUSED to ask for a review of the goal (and because of him being a #@!$@$, the league changed their rule for the next season so the VGJ could call down to the ref) and it was illegal for not 1 but TWO reasons. Bondra not only hit the puck with a high stick, he was in the crease before the puck was there. The non-icing in OT was merely icing on the cake.

 

Game 2 of the TO series was a game the Sabres almost expected to lose. Lindy had told his team before Rolosen went in, that Rolosen was 1 game over 0.500 in the regular season and if he could do that again (assuming Dom couldn't go in that round) the Sabres would be in the Finals. Dwayne won game 1 (thanks to Sanderson's heroics) and it was asking for a lot to have him get the Sabres up 2-0.

 

There isn't a lot to be said about Game 2 of the '99 Finals other than if Kruse touches the puck to prevent icing rather than drilling the D-man the faceoff that Dallas scores their 1st goal on, doesn't happen. Does Buffalo win the game? Who knows. But Kruse looked for a hit when he should have looked for a puck (much like Rory did yesterday).

 

I think Buffalo tries to play the exact same way they tried to play Saturday. Attack when possible and keep Carolina away from the front of the net when attack isn't possible.

[topshelfcookies]

I guess I'm not too surprised about the Game 2 stat. In most every case, the home team suddenly found themselves with their backs up against the wall after dropping game 1. You can bet that the home team will bring everything they have.

[Stoner]

topshelf, history does bear that out. I thought that winning Game 1 of a best of seven series on the road should bode extremely well for winning the series. But according to whowins.com, in NHL history, only 53% of teams that have won Game 1 on the road have gone on to win the series (just 55% when looking at the NHL, NBA and MLB combined). The reason? The team that wins Game 1 on the road has won only 34% of Game 2s. So actually Lindy's Game 2 record is pretty good. Now, if you go up 2-0 on the road, your chance of winning the series naturally skyrockets -- to 75%. But if you think about it, losing the first two at home and winning the series seems like it should be very unlikely, not something you can pull off one in four times. Carolina, of course, did it against Montreal this postseason. Another curious anomaly is that when you win the first two games on the road, your record back home in Game 3 is under .500 -- 47.5% to be exact. Edmonton tonight became just the 14th team in NHL history to win the first two games on the road in the semifinal round. The record the first 13 times it happened? 12-1. Anyone for 15?

 

Insomnia. You gotta love it.

[topshelfcookies]

Insomnia. You gotta love it.

 

PA, I do love it! haha. Thanks for the stats too...I've been trying to go back and find out the scores of past Game 2s under Ruff, but have come up empty. The season recaps over at SabresFans are good, but they don't always tell you who had home ice, or what the final score of games were. The database over there doesn't list playoff games either, just regular season. Bummer.

[Stoner]

Go to sabres.com and download the media guide. You'll be in score heaven.

[topshelfcookies]

PA, thanks a ton!

 

Here are the Road Game 2's under Ruff

1998 - Conf Quarterfinals - at Philly - L, 3-2

1998 - Conf Finals - at Washington - L, 3-2 (OT)

1999 - Conf Quarterfinals - at Ottawa - W, 3-2 (2OT)

1999 - Conf Semifinals - at Boston - W, 3-1

1999 - Conf Finals - at Toronto - L, 6-3

1999 - Cup Finals - at Dallas - L, 4-2

2000 - Conf Quarterfinals - at Philly - L, 2-1

2001 - Conf Quarterfinals - at Philly - W, 3-2 (OT)

2006 - Conf Semifinals - at Ottawa - W, 2-1

 

Only vs Philly in 2000 and Boston in 1999 did the Sabres fail to win Game 1 on the road. Most impressive I think, is that just twice, in the 13 playoff series under Ruff, have the Sabres fallen behind 2 games to none (Philly 200 and Pittsburgh 2001). That's pretty sweet, and it's already been extended again in playoff series 13.