HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Failed comeback attempt 2.0, same old Sabres

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2010, 09:26 AM
  #101
broomedusters
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ithaca, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 57
vCash: 500
How bout' that penalty killing last night?

I would really like to see Kaleta get back in the lineup. I'm starting to think there are some intangibles with him. We could use someone capable of scoring a short handed goal and generally throwing the other team off their game right about now.

Can any of you photoshop experts stitch together our new logo:




broomedusters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 09:36 AM
  #102
jlr
\m/o.o\m/
 
jlr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broomedusters View Post
I would really like to see Kaleta get back in the lineup. I'm starting to think there are some intangibles with him.
No doubt about it - Kaleta brings a high energy level to the game and sets a tone the other guys on this team would do well to follow.

He's very sorely missed right now. Thankfully Goose seems to be playing like his old self, so hopefully he can pick up some of the slack.

jlr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 09:36 AM
  #103
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 19,094
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlr View Post
Roy may as well play on the 4th line with Ellis and Mair, because he doesn't use his wingers effectively anyway. This is the same Roy that racks up points while his team misses the playoffs. His selfish play was obvious to me last night, and he needs to get switched to wing ASAP if this team wants to win games.
You're just regurgitating the same tired Roy complaints. How can you say last night's game illustrated the bolded? He got the puck to Mac with nary a defender in sight of Clarke, yet Mac couldn't beat Legace despite having more time and space than any forward should have during the run of a game. I'm sure in your deluded, anti-Roy universe that it was Roy's fault that Mac missed that golden opportunity. Further, just before the third goal, Roy made a good play to keep it in and perfectly fed Vanek who was stoned by Legace. Roy then scored the tying goal later in the play. While I have little doubt that you credit Vanek more on that goal than Roy (can anyone be surprised?), despite missing such a great opportunity, not even you can deny that Roy made that play happen.

We are now bordering on the Theatre of the Absurd in here when it comes to Roy. Even the appearance of objectivity has been tossed to the wind.

Zip15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 09:42 AM
  #104
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy4Prez View Post
The ****? Says who Jame. Did your crystal ball tell you that? Any general manager with a clue for the way the game is heading (strong, big, and fast) would realize the MAJOR flaws of this offense and that it's not all on Lindy ****ing Ruff. Again, your point is WRONG.
Do you know of any GMs being fired, and the new GM retaining the fired GMs Coach?

i love how you think im wrong about something that is hypothesized. My POV is informed based on the majority of GM/Coaching changes that happen in sports. Your opinion is just plain made up and totally uninformed.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 09:44 AM
  #105
jlr
\m/o.o\m/
 
jlr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
You're just regurgitating the same tired Roy complaints. How can you say last night's game illustrated the bolded? He got the puck to Mac with nary a defender in sight of Clarke, yet Mac couldn't beat Legace despite having more time and space than any forward should have during the run of a game. I'm sure in your deluded, anti-Roy universe that it was Roy's fault that Mac missed that golden opportunity. Further, just before the third goal, Roy made a good play to keep it in and perfectly fed Vanek who was stoned by Legace. Roy then scored the tying goal later in the play. While I have little doubt that you credit Vanek more on that goal than Roy (can anyone be surprised?), despite missing such a great opportunity, not even you can deny that Roy made that play happen.

We are now bordering on the Theatre of the Absurd in here when it comes to Roy. Even the appearance of objectivity has been tossed to the wind.
The bad plays outnumber the good. Yes, he got 2 goals. Yes, he made some nice plays. But he doesn't do it consistently. He doesn't make his linemates better, not on a regular basis.

We've watched him do this for 3 years. This isn't news. Playing like a selfish ass might get him plenty of points, but he's not a net positive for the team playing center in the top six.

There were bigger, more costly mistakes made by other players last night that cost us the game. But Roy's play still hurt the team on several occasions last night, and it was obvious he's still trying to do too much himself.

jlr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 09:56 AM
  #106
BackGroundMusic
rebuildingeverywhere
 
BackGroundMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
You're just regurgitating the same tired Roy complaints. How can you say last night's game illustrated the bolded? He got the puck to Mac with nary a defender in sight of Clarke, yet Mac couldn't beat Legace despite having more time and space than any forward should have during the run of a game. I'm sure in your deluded, anti-Roy universe that it was Roy's fault that Mac missed that golden opportunity. Further, just before the third goal, Roy made a good play to keep it in and perfectly fed Vanek who was stoned by Legace. Roy then scored the tying goal later in the play. While I have little doubt that you credit Vanek more on that goal than Roy (can anyone be surprised?), despite missing such a great opportunity, not even you can deny that Roy made that play happen.

We are now bordering on the Theatre of the Absurd in here when it comes to Roy. Even the appearance of objectivity has been tossed to the wind.
Wait by the tree?

Did he mean this tree?

Do you see any others?

BackGroundMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 10:00 AM
  #107
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 19,094
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlr View Post
The bad plays outnumber the good. Yes, he got 2 goals. Yes, he made some nice plays. But he doesn't do it consistently. He doesn't make his linemates better, not on a regular basis.

We've watched him do this for 3 years. This isn't news. Playing like a selfish ass might get him plenty of points, but he's not a net positive for the team playing center in the top six.

There were bigger, more costly mistakes made by other players last night that cost us the game. But Roy's play still hurt the team on several occasions last night, and it was obvious he's still trying to do too much himself.
Sorry, but your timing sucks on this one. He played very well last night. Maybe if you waited for a bad game, your usual message would be better received. Your "we've watched him do this for 3 years" statement only reaffirms that your complaints are mired in your overall hatred for Roy. Given that you've candidly admitted your twisted desire for individuals within the Sabres organization to fail (Regier, Roy), which is sick in and of itself, I just don't see how you can be taken seriously on such matters.

As Joechip stated, when Vanek was with Kennedy-Grier, he was invisible. As soon as he joined Roy-Stafford, he started getting chances. When Mac was with Roy-Stafford, he was getting chances. When he was moved down to the 3rd line, he disappeared. Unless you think Drew Stafford was the creator on that line last night, Roy is the common thread for the increased chances.

The double standard is obvious. When we were winning but Roy wasn't producing, it was "trade Roy and get someone in here who will produce." Now that he's producing and the team is cold, it's "Roy produces at the expense of winning." What a joke.

Roy is one of the primary reasons they took even one point last night.

Zip15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 10:14 AM
  #108
jlr
\m/o.o\m/
 
jlr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Given that you've candidly admitted your twisted desire for individuals within the Sabres organization to fail (Regier, Roy), which is sick in and of itself, I just don't see how you can be taken seriously on such matters.
What the **** does that even mean? That I'm supposed to blindly pledge my allegiance to every member of the front office even when they've shown themselves to be incompetent? Criticizing individual players and management is suddenly verboten?

I want the team to win. I don't think Regier and Roy (as examples) are contributing to that goal, other than looking out for their own best interests. Playing armchair psychologist on a hockey message board is pretty ****ing twisted if you really want to have that conversation. Give it a ****ing rest.

It's too bad my opinion of a player doesn't fluctuate up and down based on single game performances I guess? Roy made some great plays last night, and some absolutely horrible ones. Why, when he's played the same way for 3 years, should I be expected to ignore his flaws and bad habits and only look at the stat sheet?

I'm not questioning his work ethic. Or his talent. I'm questioning his fit as a scoring center on this team.

jlr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 10:14 AM
  #109
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
The double standard is obvious. When we were winning but Roy wasn't producing, it was "trade Roy and get someone in here who will produce." Now that he's producing and the team is cold, it's "Roy produces at the expense of winning." What a joke.

Roy is one of the primary reasons they took even one point last night.
Double standard? On HF? The deuce you say!

You are right about last night's game. Roy was good. He made three simply outstanding plays on the game-tying goal. That, of course, needs to happen more often than it has. The top 6 are producing, the bottom 6 are a blight right now. If the shake-up, for this season, happens, it should happen down there.

Did anyone else notice Matt Cullen massively over-staying his shifts last night? With all the scouts in the building there were a ton of Canes trying to put on a show to get traded. This pre-deadline stuff is always freaky... the borderline players on good teams tighten up out of fear of being traded, and the good players on crappy teams let it all hang out in the hopes of getting traded. At this point any point in the standings is a good point.

And I don't believe for a second that Regier isn't looking to upgrade his roster for this season. He absolutely is, he's just not going to tip his hand.

Ta,

joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 10:43 AM
  #110
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 19,094
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlr View Post
What the **** does that even mean? That I'm supposed to blindly pledge my allegiance to every member of the front office even when they've shown themselves to be incompetent? Criticizing individual players and management is suddenly verboten?
Look, we all have players we don't like on this team. But you've openly admitted that you hope Regier fails and you were subsequently called out for this position. I will never root for the failure of any player in this organization. I hope they all succeed. And despite my disdain for several roster players, I do my best to at least appear objective.

Roy was not a net negative last night. If you feel otherwise, we can agree to disagree. Starting with the Pittsburgh game, Roy has been playing better of late and is very low on the team's list of problems. Given what Roy brings to the table, he's an important piece for the team.

Quote:
And I don't believe for a second that Regier isn't looking to upgrade his roster for this season. He absolutely is, he's just not going to tip his hand.
Agreed. It's frightening how upset people get with his public statements. He says the same thing each and every time: nothing.

Zip15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2010, 11:04 AM
  #111
Corto
Faceless Man
 
Corto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Braavos
Country: Croatia
Posts: 13,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Agreed. It's frightening how upset people get with his public statements. He says the same thing each and every time: nothing.
I'm more upset with what he's done to improve teams during the seasons in years past.

From the bad teams in 02, 03, the mediocre ones in 08 and 09, to the Cup contenders in 01, 06, 07...
He's basically finished the season where he started.
Yeah, he had a couple of sweet moves a la Briere and Hecht in seasons where the guys were out of it anyway, but that was the exception, rather than the rule.

I like Regier. And I love Ruff.
But sometimes, Regier plays it too safe and too passive and lets the market dictate his moves for him.

Corto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.