Delayed reaction...

[Stoner]

Over a minute left in the third, on the power play, down a goal against Ottawa. Faceoff in the Ottawa zone. I was pretty shocked Lindy pulled Biron at that time and said at the time it was a mistake even if we scored (huh?) :)

 

I don't believe he makes that decision in a playoff game. Now I'm worried about why he makes it now. Has winning become so much like crack that we'll sell ourselves out to get more? It's not just that decision that has me a little flummoxed. It's four goals a game. Every game.

 

I couldn't quite figure out why that number bugged me, then I went to my media guide.

 

ECF

 

Carolina 4, Buffalo 3

 

Carolina 4, Buffalo 0

 

Carolina 4, Buffalo 3

 

Carolina 4, Buffalo 2

 

We scored seven goals in the final four games of that series. You are not always going to burn out the red light.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Dude you got up on the wrong side of the bed I think. You know they are 15-2-1, right?

Lindy apparently himself said he was not sure it was the right move (see other thread about him speaking at some dinner) and deferred to the assistants. Live and learn, he won't make the same mistake again.

I don't understand what you are suggesting ... should they play NOT to lose? Go back into the 1999 shell? You do realize they are missing their top 2 defenseman and their starting goalie, right? You think maybe the GAA will get back to normal when they come back? Maybe?

[Crestwood]

I have to say I agree with PASabreFan here. During that timeout, I told my roommate I hoped Lindy wouldn't pull the goalie. Yes, sometimes it does work (I was at the Ottawa regular season game last year where they tied it within the last 1:30 with the goalie pulled). But it seems to me that half of the goals that are scored on empty nets are flukey just like the one the Sens scored Wednesday night. If I'd been Lindy, I'd would have had Biron stand between the faceoff circles in his end and wait for the Sabres to get some puck movement around the horn, then take him out. Still, however, I sometimes think six teammates in one zone is almost too much.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I have no problem with PA's point about the empty net. Like I said, even Lindy questioned himself.

[Crestwood]

I have no problem with PA's point about the empty net. Like I said, even Lindy questioned himself.

Oh, I know what you're getting at. Just my $0.02. :thumbsup:

[SDS]

I didn't think it was so bad. If we were worried about the faceoff - we could have had one of the six stand on our blueline until we got control. They would have been able to stop that sliding puck.

 

It doesn't matter if you lose by one or two. Might as well go for it and let the chips fall where they may.

[X. Benedict]

Nothing wrong with that decision. You pull the goaltender.

[Stoner]

I don't understand what you are suggesting ... should they play NOT to lose? Go back into the 1999 shell? You do realize they are missing their top 2 defenseman and their starting goalie, right? You think maybe the GAA will get back to normal when they come back? Maybe?

 

I am not suggesting something heretical. Just that they play better defensively. Is that still important in the "new" NHL?

 

The surge in our goals-against roughly coincided with Tallinder going out, but before Lydman and Miller were hurt. If Tallinder is that important, we better hope the arm holds up this time.

 

 

I have to say I agree with PASabreFan here.

 

How come when people agree with me, it always sounds like they are siding with Bin Laden? "You know, I hate to give the devil his due, but Osama has a point..."

[X. Benedict]

"You know, I hate to give the devil his due, but Osama has a point..."

 

:lol:

[Crestwood]

How come when people agree with me, it always sounds like they are siding with Bin Laden? "You know, I hate to give the devil his due, but Osama has a point..."

I assure you, it was only meant with the utmost respect. B-)

[CallawaySabres]

I thought it was the perfect call. Sabres set that puck up on the blueline with 2 extra guys and 9 times out of 10 with the game on the line, they score. It was a lucky bounce. Usually those go Buffalo's way

[wjag]

I thought it was the perfect call. Sabres set that puck up on the blueline with 2 extra guys and 9 times out of 10 with the game on the line, they score. It was a lucky bounce. Usually those go Buffalo's way

I didn't like it when it happened. I was in the chat room and I typed, "too soon". five on four should have been enough to get the job done. There almost isn't enough room for six guys to play effectively up there. You end up camping guys in front of the goal and playing the screen. Of course, had it worked I would be celebrating a 16-1-1 record. But like many here, I don't fault them for trying. Play to win or in that case, tie.

[SDS]

I didn't like it when it happened. I was in the chat room and I typed, "too soon". five on four should have been enough to get the job done. There almost isn't enough room for six guys to play effectively up there. You end up camping guys in front of the goal and playing the screen. Of course, had it worked I would be celebrating a 16-1-1 record. But like many here, I don't fault them for trying. Play to win or in that case, tie.

 

but the PP hadn't been working for crap with 5-4 (even 5-3 for that matter). Having a guy camped right in front for screens/rebounds and then having guys in the corners SHOULD assure yourself of keeping the puck in the zone. Alas, it was not our night....

[thesportsbuff]

it was a terrible call. with no icing on the PP, every time ottawa touches the puck there's a scoring opportunity if you pull your goalie. considering how clutch Briere, Drury, and the like have been, I'd send out five forwards and get the job done on the powerplay.

[wjag]

it was a terrible call. with no icing on the PP, every time ottawa touches the puck there's a scoring opportunity if you pull your goalie. considering how clutch Briere, Drury, and the like have been, I'd send out five forwards and get the job done on the powerplay.

I like the idea of five forwards. Kind of like going for broke without leaving yourself completely defenseless...

[thesportsbuff]

I like the idea of five forwards. Kind of like going for broke without leaving yourself completely defenseless...

 

Well I'd rather have 5 forwards, preferably Briere, Drury, Vanek, Pommer & Al at the point, and a goalie in net against 4 Ottawa players who are playing purely to run out the clock. Why give them to chance for an empty net goal? 5 forwards = likely to score a goal. And if the puck gets out, they have a goalie to ensure it doesn't go in the net... and to stop it at maybe top of the circles. Saves about 5-10 seconds. :/

[BetweenThePipes00]

OK I can see both sides ... and 5 forwards with a goalie still in seems like a nice happy medium ...

BUT ... "5 forwards = likely to score a goal"????

Not really ... the best power plays of all time scored less than 30 percent of the time ... the Sabres are good, they are not SO much better than any other power play EVER that adding a 5th forward to the PP somehow makes it "likely" they score a goal. Likely, to me, means at least 51%, more often than not. If 5 forwards could do that, Lindy would ALWAYS play 5 forwards and they'd set all kinds of records, shorties against be damned ...

I'm just sayin ... it was a longshot either way .... this is not what decided the game.

[thesportsbuff]

OK I can see both sides ... and 5 forwards with a goalie still in seems like a nice happy medium ...

BUT ... "5 forwards = likely to score a goal"????

Not really ... the best power plays of all time scored less than 30 percent of the time ... the Sabres are good, they are not SO much better than any other power play EVER that adding a 5th forward to the PP somehow makes it "likely" they score a goal. Likely, to me, means at least 51%, more often than not. If 5 forwards could do that, Lindy would ALWAYS play 5 forwards and they'd set all kinds of records, shorties against be damned ...

I'm just sayin ... it was a longshot either way .... this is not what decided the game.

 

Yeah, I worded that wrong. I meant "more likely" to score a goal. But IMO Pommer and Kotalik got enough experience last season on the point during PP's just because of their hard shots... so I'd imagine they have at least decent defensive stature. And I know what you mean, it could have gone either way... and It's nothing to dwell on... but when it comes down to it, I'd rather put the game in the hands of our leaders than take the chance just to put an extra guy up there.