Would we have won if our injured players played in this game?

[LabattBlue]

In my book, this playoff run ended with the question "What if...?". 25 years from now, I'll still be asking the same question.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

We keep talking about our injuries, but what I saw was really 3 goals, not an unreasonable amount to overcome. Danny Briere didn't even register a single shot on goal for pete's sake. We lost this game because our forwards didn't create enough scoring chances and then bury them. Our defense set us up for a historic game, it's a shame our forwards didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

yeah our forwards suck thats why we lost and to think some thought that maybe the loss of TC, Talinder, Teppo, Khalinin and McKeee didint matter.

[Kristian]

Yes, go to bed SDS. Twoline isn't a fan of objective analysis.

Now if you want to whine about injuries and talk about how crappy the Canes are, he's your man.

 

The Goat

 

Don't feed the troll.

[MichFan]

People can speculate all they want about the "what ifs". Fact is that the team as it existed had two chances to take the series and failed on both. Max had a breakaway at the end of a tied game 5 and couldn't finish it. Last night they took a 2-1 lead into the third period and looked absolutely flat until they got behind by one.

 

What if we are sitting here next year, heading into the Cup finals, talking about how good this year was for getting Janik, Jilson, and Paetsch playoff experience and revealing that Max is poorly suited for the playoffs?

[Claude_Verret]

You think only the defense was protecting the goal? The Sabres collapsed 5 guys in front of Miller. Forwards were back checking all night and broke up several odd-man rushes. They did miss opportunites, but so did the Canes.

 

Tallinder was incredible at breaking the team out of the zone the entire playoffs. Numminem also excelled at making the pass out of the zone. Those plays are crucial to Buffalo's attack, let's not forget that they knocked Ottawa out of the playoffs in large part to the transition game, and that they won the first game in Carolina the same way.

 

With the team holding back, protecting the rooks, it eliminated the transition game.

 

On the power play, the defense is instrumental in pinching on shoot-arounds. Tallinder was key at maintining possesion in the offensive zone. Ruff moved Briere to the point to make up for the loss, but the power play is really more effective with Danny playing down low.

 

Not to mention, if they have Tallinder and Numminem, they probably hold the two goal lead they had in game 5.

 

Stop it, here in Canes country we know it's only about getting shots on goal. Hockey is really that simple. <_<

[Dan Gross]

We scored 2 goals. 1 fluke goal by a forward and one by an AHL defenseman who wouldn't have been on the ice if not for the injuries....

 

Maybe it wouldn't have come to this, but if everyone was back for this one game - we are still left with the question of who was going to score....

 

Well considering the Sabres were scoring an average of nearly 5 goals a game with Connolly in and had managed less than 2.5 (far less than even their season average) with Connolly out, that they had 4 games out of 7 with 4 or more goals with Connolly and 1 game out of 11 with 4 or more goals without, any chance that maybe Connolly did make a difference? Any chance, with all the 1 goal games, that his presence would be worth that extra goal?

 

Of course that doesn't even get into what happens when you're pretty well forced to get 30 minutes out of your remaining top defensemen. Any coincidence that the Canes scored 4 in 3 out of the 4 games that we played without Tallinder...?

 

Nobody can say for certain that we'd win or lose based on who was playing, but I can't see how anyone could put forth a truly valid argument that we would definitely lose even if we were at full strength...

[shrader]

Well considering the Sabres were scoring an average of nearly 5 goals a game with Connolly in and had managed less than 2.5 (far less than even their season average) with Connolly out, that they had 4 games out of 7 with 4 or more goals with Connolly and 1 game out of 11 with 4 or more goals without, any chance that maybe Connolly did make a difference? Any chance, with all the 1 goal games, that his presence would be worth that extra goal?

 

To me, Connolly looks like that guy who steps up and performs on the big stage. Yes, it's only one year, but he grew up so much this year. He came into the season as a borderline guy struggling to even make the team. He stepped up and became a go to guy on this team. Then when the playoffs rolled around, he was clutch. Just look at the last game he played (not counting the 30 seconds in game 2). Connolly was the definition of clutch in game 1 of the Ottawa series.

[Chilly]

We keep talking about our injuries, but what I saw was really 3 goals, not an unreasonable amount to overcome. Danny Briere didn't even register a single shot on goal for pete's sake. We lost this game because our forwards didn't create enough scoring chances and then bury them. Our defense set us up for a historic game, it's a shame our forwards didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

 

I disagree. A lot of our offense came all season from our defensemen creating turnovers in the Buffalo zone and then getting the puck to the forwards when they got to the neutral zone.

 

Yesterday, this didn't happen. The defensemen were very bad about controlling their dumps out of the zone. Most of the time it was sent straight to a Hurricane's player.

[Claude_Verret]

I disagree. A lot of our offense came all season from our defensemen creating turnovers in the Buffalo zone and then getting the puck to the forwards when they got to the neutral zone.

 

Yesterday, this didn't happen. The defensemen were very bad about controlling their dumps out of the zone. Most of the time it was sent straight to a Hurricane's player.

 

Absolutely. This is exactly what I tried to explain to the astute Canes fans here at work who have no understanding at all of the nuances of the game.

[SDS]

Well considering the Sabres were scoring an average of nearly 5 goals a game with Connolly in and had managed less than 2.5 (far less than even their season average) with Connolly out, that they had 4 games out of 7 with 4 or more goals with Connolly and 1 game out of 11 with 4 or more goals without, any chance that maybe Connolly did make a difference? Any chance, with all the 1 goal games, that his presence would be worth that extra goal?

 

Of course that doesn't even get into what happens when you're pretty well forced to get 30 minutes out of your remaining top defensemen. Any coincidence that the Canes scored 4 in 3 out of the 4 games that we played without Tallinder...?

 

Nobody can say for certain that we'd win or lose based on who was playing, but I can't see how anyone could put forth a truly valid argument that we would definitely lose even if we were at full strength...

 

1. There is a difference between the Flyers and the Sens/Canes with regards to our offensive output...

 

I guess I was focussing more on the dmen than on Timmy, but it doesn't bode well that *one* guy gets hurt and our entire offense tanks. That goes against the whole "rolling four lines" that can kill you at any time theory.

 

2. I know technically they scored four last night, but for all intents and purposes - they scored three with a late garbage goal.

 

Let's play "Let's Make a Deal". If going into last night, given the state of our defense, I gave you the choice of 3 regulation goals against us - would you have taken that or would you have traded that in for an unknown number of goals behind curtain number 1? Personally, I think I would have taken the three and hoped we put in four. I don't think it was realistic to expect that we would hold them to 1 or 2 goals.

 

As it played out, we would have needed to hold them to a shutout or one goal to advance. I think given a full, healthy team - EXPECTING to hold Carolina to one goal or less is asking a lot. Not impossible, we did it before with less, but certainly not a given.

 

Our style of game was limited last night and over the course of a series or a season the odds would be against us to win consistantly. But last night was just one game. One game to find a way. Any way. But one fluke goal by the forwards was just way, way too little regardless of our style being cramped due to injuries.

 

We had plenty of chances to score. We just didn't do it. Two goals was not enough.

[BRH]

Sometimes you just have to tip your cap. We had some chances last night and they did not go in -- not so much because we couldn't finish, but because Ward played very well. Had we had MORE chances, we'd have had more goals, but we didn't get those chances because Ward had a full complement of healthy, experienced defensemen blocking shots, tying up people in front of the net, and clearing the zone.

 

So how were we to get those chances? Were the forwards supposed to create them themselves? Maybe, but that's not how our game works. We are not a halfcourt team, to borrow from another sport. Last night we scored two goals that were relatively out of character for us -- a blast from the point and a double-deflection from behind the net. Our typical goal comes off an odd-man rush, and we often got them because a defenseman like Numminen made a long tape-to-tape pass, or a defenseman like Tallinder joined the rush, or a defenseman like McKee blocked a shot.

 

In other words, a large part of our offense depends on crisp breakouts, two-line passes, defensemen jumping into the rush, and not having to worry about leaving our blueliners exposed. Very little of which we got last night.

 

And I haven't even addressed Connolly. Connolly was not only a huge offensive threat by himself, but he made Max a better player. They were each other's finisher and when Timmy went out, Max looked lost. I view the Connolly loss as taking not one but TWO explosive forwards out of our game plan. Maybe three if you count Kotalik. After Connolly went out and took his five goals with him, I think Max and Kotalik scored two goals between them the rest of the way (after scoring five prior to Timmy's injury).

 

I am with those who say you really can't make a valid argument that we still would have lost last night.

[jad1]

1. There is a difference between the Flyers and the Sens/Canes with regards to our offensive output...

 

I guess I was focussing more on the dmen than on Timmy, but it doesn't bode well that *one* guy gets hurt and our entire offense tanks. That goes against the whole "rolling four lines" that can kill you at any time theory.

 

2. I know technically they scored four last night, but for all intents and purposes - they scored three with a late garbage goal.

 

Let's play "Let's Make a Deal". If going into last night, given the state of our defense, I gave you the choice of 3 regulation goals against us - would you have taken that or would you have traded that in for an unknown number of goals behind curtain number 1? Personally, I think I would have taken the three and hoped we put in four. I don't think it was realistic to expect that we would hold them to 1 or 2 goals.

 

As it played out, we would have needed to hold them to a shutout or one goal to advance. I think given a full, healthy team - EXPECTING to hold Carolina to one goal or less is asking a lot. Not impossible, we did it before with less, but certainly not a given.

 

Our style of game was limited last night and over the course of a series or a season the odds would be against us to win consistantly. But last night was just one game. One game to find a way. Any way. But one fluke goal by the forwards was just way, way too little regardless of our style being cramped due to injuries.

 

We had plenty of chances to score. We just didn't do it. Two goals was not enough.

 

You talk about the Sabres fluke goal, what about Carolina's first, where the shot was 5 feet wide until it bounced off Mair and went into the net? Fluke goals still count.

 

Carolina is a tough team. They were the 3rd tough team the Sabres played in the playoffs. The Sabres opponents accumulated points was the highest in the final four.

 

And losing Connolly was a devestating loss. Max was not the same without him. At the same time though, they had 21 players registering points in the playoffs. 8 different players scored the game winning goal in their 11 wins. So they are truly a 4 line team.

 

They won on guts and determination, but at the end, they needed more talent. Consider the Bills losing Smith, Bennet, Odoms, Talley, and Kelly or Reed during the early '90s at the same time. How far would they have gotten? This, in my opinion, was worse for the Sabres.

 

SDS you really have to recognize how good the Sabres were in the transition game to realize how much the loss of just Tallinder hurt. When Numminen went down, it was even worse. McKee and Kalinen would have played huge minutes whe n the Sabres were up by a goal on the road in the third. Again they weren't there.

 

Meanwhile, the Canes weren't forced to make a single roster change. The Playoffs are a war of attrition, but if only one team is losing players, there's going to be a talent-gap, which will always be exploited.

 

I hate moral victories and excuses, but knowing how the Sabres work their system, I can't blame the forwards last night. The team just lacked the overall talent to play their game. If they were playing Washington or Pittsburgh they would won that game. But game 7 of the ECF, it just wasn't enough.

[SDS]

Sometimes you just have to tip your cap. We had some chances last night and they did not go in -- not so much because we couldn't finish, but because Ward played very well. Had we had MORE chances, we'd have had more goals, but we didn't get those chances because Ward had a full complement of healthy, experienced defensemen blocking shots, tying up people in front of the net, and clearing the zone.

 

So how were we to get those chances? Were the forwards supposed to create them themselves? Maybe, but that's not how our game works. We are not a halfcourt team, to borrow from another sport. Last night we scored two goals that were relatively out of character for us -- a blast from the point and a double-deflection from behind the net. Our typical goal comes off an odd-man rush, and we often got them because a defenseman like Numminen made a long tape-to-tape pass, or a defenseman like Tallinder joined the rush, or a defenseman like McKee blocked a shot.

 

In other words, a large part of our offense depends on crisp breakouts, two-line passes, defensemen jumping into the rush, and not having to worry about leaving our blueliners exposed. Very little of which we got last night.

 

And I haven't even addressed Connolly. Connolly was not only a huge offensive threat by himself, but he made Max a better player. They were each other's finisher and when Timmy went out, Max looked lost. I view the Connolly loss as taking not one but TWO explosive forwards out of our game plan. Maybe three if you count Kotalik. After Connolly went out and took his five goals with him, I think Max and Kotalik scored two goals between them the rest of the way (after scoring five prior to Timmy's injury).

 

I am with those who say you really can't make a valid argument that we still would have lost last night.

 

You started off well, but I am going to disagree with the rest. Why? Because what I am hearing from almost everyone in this thread is that we shouldn't have even played the game last night. We couldn't play "our style", so why even try? Was last night a pointless excerise?

 

My point is that we only had to play one game and yes, it wasn't going to be in the mold that we were used to all season. We knew BEFORE the 1st face-off that this was a fact going into the game. Yet, we still had a chance. It WAS within reach. The defense stepped up. Miller held his own. However, those responsible for finding the back of the net, those who needed to find their own way to step up, didn't do it (perhaps defensively they did, save for goal number 3 where Roy and Max were ineffective trying to play defensive hockey in front of the net). Could they have had more chances? Sure... everyone could use more chances. Could the defense have made it easier for them to score? Sure, everyone could use an easier time of it. But, they had enough chances and came up short in this single game, 60 minutes long, where we needed to score more than 1 or 2 goals.

 

FWIW, I do think we would have won that game if healthy, I'm just expressing disappointment that our forwards didn't find a way. It was their's for the taking.

[SDS]

SDS you really have to recognize how good the Sabres were in the transition game to realize how much the loss of just Tallinder hurt. When Numminen went down, it was even worse. McKee and Kalinen would have played huge minutes whe n the Sabres were up by a goal on the road in the third. Again they weren't there.

 

Who says I don't???

 

I'm not mad at the Sabres because they lost. I'm not cursing anybody. I'm only making some mild observations. And I observed a relatively healthy set of forwards put in one bad goal. That is the truth. It is an observation. Maybe our injured defensmen would have helped them increase that total last night. I have no problem with that.

 

But if I am Chris Drury, Danny Briere, or JP Dumont - I don't go to bed thinking "if only the defense made my job easier last night, we would have won..." Each and every forward last night had the task to pick up their game, do something different, and score enough goals to win this one game. It didn't happen. We fell short. This isn't a criticism, it is an observation of what happened.

[GoKotalik]

i dont' understand how there is a question if we would have won or not, did anyone notice how hard the canes had to work to get us out of there when they are 100% and we were - 5 NHLers and +3 AHLers.

 

How can you even question that??

 

i hope the canes get Swept...out in 5 at the MOST...

 

hate to say it being the SAbres fan that i am....GO Canada...

 

in terms the hicks can understand.....Oilers git-r-done

[BRH]

FWIW, I do think we would have won that game if healthy, I'm just expressing disappointment that our forwards didn't find a way. It was their's for the taking.

This I will agree with. Hecht stepped up, I thought (but I am not absolving him -- he was invisible for much of this series). The others, not so much.

[jad1]

Who says I don't???

 

I'm not mad at the Sabres because they lost. I'm not cursing anybody. I'm only making some mild observations. And I observed a relatively healthy set of forwards put in one bad goal. That is the truth. It is an observation. Maybe our injured defensmen would have helped them increase that total last night. I have no problem with that.

 

But if I am Chris Drury, Danny Briere, or JP Dumont - I don't go to bed thinking "if only the defense made my job easier last night, we would have won..." Each and every forward last night had the task to pick up their game, do something different, and score enough goals to win this one game. It didn't happen. We fell short. This isn't a criticism, it is an observation of what happened.

 

The Sabres were 9-0 when they had the lead entering the 3rd period in the playoffs. The team got a 2-1 lead by scoring two 'half-court' goals (and let's not diminish the assists and screens set by the forwards on the defensemen's goal), even though their forte is the transition game. They were finding a way to win.

 

My observations are that unlike the rest of the playoffs, the Sabres lacked the players to protect the lead in the 3rd; that their speed was nullified by their focus on chipping the puck out, rather than making breakout passes; that their emphasis on back-checking hurt their forechecking; that position switches on the power play necessitated by injuries hurt their execution.

 

I'd love to be able to dump it on one guy and say 'it's his fault.' The fact is that with 20 minutes to go, they were where they were in 9 of their playoff wins, and they lacked the horses to finish the race.

 

I don't know what Drury and Briere went to bed thinking, but I know I fell asleep thinking that the Sabres were just out-manned. And that's a lousy way to end a great season.

[MBD]

Would our injured players have helped? You're damned RIGHT they would have! I'd even submit that just McKee playing would have made this a win.

 

If I were the Hurricanes, I'd be ashamed that a team made up of AHL blue-liners took them to the 3rd period of game 7 before they put it away. I can only hope the Oilers come to play, because if they do, the Hurricanes will get swept.

[hopeleslyobvious]

Yes, go to bed SDS. Twoline isn't a fan of objective analysis.

Now if you want to whine about injuries and talk about how crappy the Canes are, he's your man.

 

The Goat

 

 

Goat, that's funny coming from you, since your analysis is usually just firing off stats. If i wanted to know statistics I could check Yahoo or ESPN. I have never really seen a thread where you analyzed anything, or even looked beyond the stats.

 

Would the Sabres have won with a healthy line up? Yes. I will be brief since it's already been said a number of times. Our transition game was hurt by the missing players, and the forewards were too preoccupied with defense to be completely effective on offense.

[Raelity]

In my book, this playoff run ended with the question "What if...?". 25 years from now, I'll still be asking the same question.

Man I hope like hell you're wrong about that. Because the only way I'M still wondering about that 25 years from now is the Sabres still haven't won the Cup! The win we have been after all these long years will heal all those past wounds, and it will be sweeter because of them. 25 years? Lord I hope not!