I think we're going to have a good year. We should be good for at least a playoff spot and if things go well we could actually take the division. The NorthEast pretty much sucks and only Boston is really in our way there.
I also believe it. Have that feeling that everything will click this year. My only problem is the injury factor. Which to me is much closer to the style we play than the unlucky factor. We'll see about that this year. But if "lucky", we'll have a great and fun year. Problem is that other teams are made for the same type of fun.
I also believe it. Have that feeling that everything will click this year. My only problem is the injury factor. Which to me is much closer to the style we play than the unlucky factor. We'll see about that this year. But if "lucky", we'll have a great and fun year. Problem is that other teams are made for the same type of fun.
Agree 100%. But with that being said, this year we're bigger, we have way more depth, we're younger, a ton of cap space and we have a lot more options in Hamilton. My only knock (again...) is that we need to get grittier and a player who can protect our talent. If only Henry could be our 7th d instead of Spacek I would be one happy camper.
Agree 100%. But with that being said, this year we're bigger, we have way more depth, we're younger, a ton of cap space and we have a lot more options in Hamilton. My only knock (again...) is that we need to get grittier and a player who can protect our talent. If only Henry could be our 7th d instead of Spacek I would be one happy camper.
That would be terrible. Seriously, I get the knocks on Spacek, but that is just crazy. Henry is terrible and that is why he hasn't had a consistent stint in the nhl in 6 years! He couldn't even beat Nash for a callup last where the injuries ate our defense.
That would be terrible. Seriously, I get the knocks on Spacek, but that is just crazy. Henry is terrible and that is why he hasn't had a consistent stint in the nhl in 6 years! He couldn't even beat Nash for a callup last where the injuries ate our defense.
Alex Henry wouldnt have a specific role while Nash brought stability to a D core that needed it when he got called-up, that's the difference. Mind you, I thought Henry played a sound, defensive reliable game in Hamilton last season in the games that I watched. Is there that much of a difference between Carkner an Henry? Weber could play regular minutes with Gill. Spacek on the other hand simply has no specific job in Montreal anymore, even his shot on the pp sucks now.
Alex Henry wouldnt have a specific role while Nash brought stability to a D core that needed it when he got called-up, that's the difference. Mind you, I thought Henry played a sound, defensive reliable game in Hamilton last season in the games that I watched. Is there that much of a difference between Carkner an Henry? Weber could play regular minutes with Gill. Spacek on the other hand simply has no specific job in Montreal anymore, even his shot on the pp sucks now.
Not only will henry not be replacing spacek as our 7th dman, but spacek will never be our 7th dman. He's 6th at least.
Alex Henry wouldnt have a specific role while Nash brought stability to a D core that needed it when he got called-up, that's the difference.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxpac
Mind you, I thought Henry played a sound, defensive reliable game in Hamilton last season in the games that I watched. Is there that much of a difference between Carkner an Henry? Weber could play regular minutes with Gill. Spacek on the other hand simply has no specific job in Montreal anymore, even his shot on the pp sucks now.
Spacek is extremely underrated around these boards. You thinking Henry would be a better option than him as the 7th D is the perfect proof. That would be stupid.
Last edited by Private Encounter: 09-11-2011 at 09:26 PM.
I think we're going to have a good year. We should be good for at least a playoff spot and if things go well we could actually take the division. The NorthEast pretty much sucks and only Boston is really in our way there.
A lot of people are saying the Sabres will be the team to beat in the Northeast. It will be interesting to see how their losses and additions play out.
A lot of people are saying the Sabres will be the team to beat in the Northeast. It will be interesting to see how their losses and additions play out.
Bos, Buff and the Habs are all gonna fight it out for the division title...injuries will be the key...
What the? Think about it for a minute, when Nash got called up we had Markov, Gorges and I think Gill too all injured. The last thing that we needed was a big slowish defender who could drop the gloves. If our d pairings were to look something like..
Markov-Gorges
Emelin-Subban
gill-Weber
Then What the heck is Nash suppose to bring to this team ad the 7th D that we don't have? Henry could be inserted against specific teams (Toronto, Boston, Philly, Ottawa) and I'm pretty sure he won't mind sitting out for most of the games, compared to a Brendan Nash who's still developing his game.
What the? Think about it for a minute, when Nash got called up we had Markov, Gorges and I think Gill too all injured. The last thing that we needed was a big slowish defender who could drop the gloves. If our d pairings were to look something like..
Markov-Gorges
Emelin-Subban
gill-Weber
Then What the heck is Nash suppose to bring to this team ad the 7th D that we don't have? Henry could be inserted against specific teams (Toronto, Boston, Philly, Ottawa) and I'm pretty sure he won't mind sitting out for most of the games, compared to a Brendan Nash who's still developing his game.
It's not rocket science...
I thought you were talking about last year.
As for this season, Weber-Emelin are battling the last spot. Spacek is a regular, ahead of them, and rightfully so.
A lot of people are saying the Sabres will be the team to beat in the Northeast. It will be interesting to see how their losses and additions play out.
I remember the last time Sabres fans were this excited about their team. It was the summer Drury, Briere and Campbell all walked and the savior Tim Connolly was going to lead their team to 1st place and a cup.
Long story short if I'm not mistaking they missed the playoffs that year. I wouldn't buy into all the Sabres hype just yet. They may finish a strong team in the East but I doubt they have the fairytale start they're all imagining. With a revamped team like that there will be some speed bumps even as much as I respect Lindy Ruff as a coach.
Flyers and Sabres are the two teams that imo could honestly go either way.
What the? Think about it for a minute, when Nash got called up we had Markov, Gorges and I think Gill too all injured. The last thing that we needed was a big slowish defender who could drop the gloves. If our d pairings were to look something like..
Markov-Gorges
Emelin-Subban
gill-Weber
Then What the heck is Nash suppose to bring to this team ad the 7th D that we don't have? Henry could be inserted against specific teams (Toronto, Boston, Philly, Ottawa) and I'm pretty sure he won't mind sitting out for most of the games, compared to a Brendan Nash who's still developing his game.
It's not rocket science...
Alright fair enough but how does it all of the sudden make sense this year for Henry to come up?
With Weber, Emelin, even maybe Diaz all fighting for a spot? Nash is even ahead of the guy on the depth chart. Also what makes you think the habs management is going to bring a career AHLer up because of his size toughness or fighting ability when they have guys who are a much better fit for the finesse style of play like Diaz and Weber? Henry is a career AHLer for a reason, he's not an NHLer and I doubt he'll ever be. If he was skilled enough to be a big tough guy who can play hockey in the NHL he'd already be here ages ago.
Anyone else have a feeling if we're looking solid by deadline we may see one of the biggest trades happen of the last two decades?
There will be some quality pending UFA and cap space if all goes well.
If we're in good health and top 3 conference by deadline, we bloody well should go for it.
If we are not top 3, no, I would not trade a top young prospect just yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
Bos, Buff and the Habs are all gonna fight it out for the division title...injuries will be the key...
Which is why yet again, the Northeast division winner will be no. 3 conference.
We just beat the **** out of each other all year. Habs will take a high percentage of their losses in our division this year I think, but so will Boons and Sabres. Meaning less conference points for all.
I'd much prefer a 2 divisions system each conference, probably gain the Habs 4-6 points a year.
Can't wait until the Bruins fade in 2 years...but with our luck, Laffs will be pretty good by then...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury
I remember the last time Sabres fans were this excited about their team. It was the summer Drury, Briere and Campbell all walked and the savior Tim Connolly was going to lead their team to 1st place and a cup.
Long story short if I'm not mistaking they missed the playoffs that year. I wouldn't buy into all the Sabres hype just yet. They may finish a strong team in the East but I doubt they have the fairytale start they're all imagining. With a revamped team like that there will be some speed bumps even as much as I respect Lindy Ruff as a coach.
Flyers and Sabres are the two teams that imo could honestly go either way.
I respect your opinions, but I do not buy the 'team needs to gel' argument at all. Never. I think it is a cliche. Chemistry blah blah. I've never bought it. Ever. It actually really bugs me when people bring it up. It's absolutely false.
As a player, I could tell how a new guy played in one game, and I was far from a pro. It took absolutely no time to adjust to the guys on my line, we all knew perfectly what to do, and we were complete utter **** compared to very very experienced NHL players we are discussing.
Buff is scary, end of. It will take those guys 3 games to know each other, not 20.
We can only hope at least 3 of Buff players under perform due to injury, or addiction, or divorce, because 'Chemistry' will not be a problem for Buff...don't bother dreaming otherwise, not with NHL players.
Last edited by Mike8: 09-12-2011 at 11:15 AM.
Reason: merge
I respect your opinions, but I do not buy the 'team needs to gel' argument at all. Never. I think it is a cliche. Chemistry blah blah. I've never bought it. Ever. It actually really bugs me when people bring it up. It's absolutely false.
As a player, I could tell how a new guy played in one game, and I was far from a pro. It took absolutely no time to adjust to the guys on my line, we all knew perfectly what to do, and we were complete utter **** compared to very very experienced NHL players we are discussing.
Buff is scary, end of. It will take those guys 3 games to know each other, not 20.
We can only hope at least 3 of Buff players under perform due to injury, or addiction, or divorce, because 'Chemistry' will not be a problem for Buff...don't bother dreaming otherwise, not with NHL players.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. Chemistry is imo very much a real thing and is very much important and some players have it with one another and some players don't. I don't buy the whole "give them enough time" argument. I've seen first hand how players playing on the same line for an entire season didn't gel. I get that you're trying to say it either will happen or it won't happen and that it isn't a matter of time but a matter of right fit, but I think that's actually untrue.
I think it depends on the player. Some take time to build chemistry, some are more adaptable than others, some aren't as adaptable. Some are truly incapable of even buying into a system or playing with certain types of player. Not saying the guys they acquired are like that just saying time will tell.
Chemistry is very much important and some players are better than others at adapting. I don't see how you could try to disprove that really as we've seen it time and time again even with our own team. Sometimes you think a guy will be a great fit but for whatever reason he simply isn't. Some players take time to build chemistry and all I'm saying is they might get off to a slow start. If you don't think that's possible I really don't know what to say, playing pickup hockey with your friends and learning to play with someone after one game certainly isn't the same as building chemistry at the NHL level. The fact that you compare yourself building chemistry or learning to play with others also doesn't work because you might be better in adapting than some NHL players. They didn't get to where they are by being good at adapting though for some players it definitely plays a part, they got to where they are on talent and work ethic in most cases.
You say that you're far from a pro and you were able to do it. Just because you're good at adapting/building chemistry and didn't make it pro doesn't mean every pro who does make it is good at it. That's a farce in itself because just because you were able to do something doesn't mean a pro NHL player can. It's like saying "I had a great attitude and I didn't even make it pro, therefore all NHLers should have great attitudes". It just doesn't fit. Plenty of normal people can have skill sets even a lot of pros don't have they just didn't have the talent or work ethic (most of the time both) in order to make it big. Doesn't mean a person like you or I can't be better at adapting than they are, or have a better attitude, etc.
Bottom line is you can't base the whole situation on your personal experiences. Just because you were able to adapt quickly to new line mates doesn't mean everyone can and it certainly doesn't mean everyone plays a style that can easily mesh and easily gel with to the point of taking one game. Also it's a lot easier to adapt to different styles when you aren't playing at such a high level so it's hard to say it's relevant to the pro level anyways. We'll have to wait and see how Buffalo does. That being said we've seen it time and time again in the NHL. How did Sergei Samsonov do with Kovalev? Everyone thought they'd for sure click but they really were awful.
A lot of people are saying the Sabres will be the team to beat in the Northeast. It will be interesting to see how their losses and additions play out.
I'm just skeptical about clubs who make huge changes from one season to another. They have a goalie who is capable of carrying them and maybe their changes will work. We'll see. I think the Bruins are the team to be in the NE and I don't think they're unbeatable. If you want to compete for a Division Title, this is the division you want to be in.
I respect your opinions, but I do not buy the 'team needs to gel' argument at all. Never. I think it is a cliche. Chemistry blah blah. I've never bought it. Ever. It actually really bugs me when people bring it up. It's absolutely false.
As a player, I could tell how a new guy played in one game, and I was far from a pro.
You not being a pro might be the reason why you just don't know what chemistry is.
Chemistry is undeniable. Play with a player for 10years as opposed to 1 week, there will be an unbelievable difference. Is it important to the point where a team will need a full season to adapt? No. But it's certainly not a cliche.
There's also more to it than just natural chemistry between players. That chemistry needs to be applied to the full team and see how they all adapt to a new structured system, and the coach.
Finally there's the injury issue. Look at our team and how we struggled two years ago. Half of the team was new, the full team needed to learn a new system, a much more structured and strict one, but we also lost almost half of our squad at some point. End result, we looked like an unorganised and lost team for most of the year.
With a year's worth of experience, building chemistry, we looked like an entirely different team last year.
Chemistry is no myth. Doesn't make it the most important of things either.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. Chemistry is imo very much a real thing and is very much important and some players have it with one another and some players don't. I don't buy the whole "give them enough time" argument. I've seen first hand how players playing on the same line for an entire season didn't gel. I get that you're trying to say it either will happen or it won't happen and that it isn't a matter of time but a matter of right fit, but I think that's actually untrue.
I think it depends on the player. Some take time to build chemistry, some are more adaptable than others, some aren't as adaptable. Some are truly incapable of even buying into a system or playing with certain types of player. Not saying the guys they acquired are like that just saying time will tell.
Chemistry is very much important and some players are better than others at adapting. I don't see how you could try to disprove that really as we've seen it time and time again even with our own team. Sometimes you think a guy will be a great fit but for whatever reason he simply isn't. Some players take time to build chemistry and all I'm saying is they might get off to a slow start. If you don't think that's possible I really don't know what to say, playing pickup hockey with your friends and learning to play with someone after one game certainly isn't the same as building chemistry at the NHL level. The fact that you compare yourself building chemistry or learning to play with others also doesn't work because you might be better in adapting than some NHL players. They didn't get to where they are by being good at adapting though for some players it definitely plays a part, they got to where they are on talent and work ethic in most cases.
You say that you're far from a pro and you were able to do it. Just because you're good at adapting/building chemistry and didn't make it pro doesn't mean every pro who does make it is good at it. That's a farce in itself because just because you were able to do something doesn't mean a pro NHL player can. It's like saying "I had a great attitude and I didn't even make it pro, therefore all NHLers should have great attitudes". It just doesn't fit. Plenty of normal people can have skill sets even a lot of pros don't have they just didn't have the talent or work ethic (most of the time both) in order to make it big. Doesn't mean a person like you or I can't be better at adapting than they are, or have a better attitude, etc.
Bottom line is you can't base the whole situation on your personal experiences. Just because you were able to adapt quickly to new line mates doesn't mean everyone can and it certainly doesn't mean everyone plays a style that can easily mesh and easily gel with to the point of taking one game. Also it's a lot easier to adapt to different styles when you aren't playing at such a high level so it's hard to say it's relevant to the pro level anyways. We'll have to wait and see how Buffalo does. That being said we've seen it time and time again in the NHL. How did Sergei Samsonov do with Kovalev? Everyone thought they'd for sure click but they really were awful.
All very good points. I will back off of my too personal statements. It's always incorrect to argue from personal experience!
Even though as usual I agree with your valid points above, I would not assume the Sabres (why in 40 years have we not got an insulting nickname for them by the way? Jeez) will struggle just yet.
They worry me, mainly because of Myers and Miller...let alone the new guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E
You not being a pro might be the reason why you just don't know what chemistry is.
Chemistry is undeniable. Play with a player for 10years as opposed to 1 week, there will be an unbelievable difference. Is it important to the point where a team will need a full season to adapt? No. But it's certainly not a cliche.
There's also more to it than just natural chemistry between players. That chemistry needs to be applied to the full team and see how they all adapt to a new structured system, and the coach.
Finally there's the injury issue. Look at our team and how we struggled two years ago. Half of the team was new, the full team needed to learn a new system, a much more structured and strict one, but we also lost almost half of our squad at some point. End result, we looked like an unorganised and lost team for most of the year.
With a year's worth of experience, building chemistry, we looked like an entirely different team last year.
Chemistry is no myth. Doesn't make it the most important of things either.
Very good post. Seems I should shut my gob some times...I definitely buy overall team chemistry. No question. Makes you a great team not just a good one...
And your point about playing for a very long time together is interesting. Perhaps you did that. Being hack amateur, I never did. I never thought of that...damn, it would be nice to have some of the great guys I played with on our line for 5 years! True, must be phenomenal...
Let's hope that that the new Buff guys don't get more than a couple years together!
Last edited by Mike8: 09-12-2011 at 12:08 PM.
Reason: merge
All very good points. I will back off of my too personal statements. It's always incorrect to argue from personal experience!
Even though as usual I agree with your valid points above, I would not assume the Sabres (why in 40 years have we not got an insulting nickname for them by the way? Jeez) will struggle just yet.
They worry me, mainly because of Myers and Miller...let alone the new guys.
Maybe you'll turn out to be right. A lot of folks think the Sabres are going to be awesome. I'm personally not in that camp but those folks could turn out to be right. And you are absolutely correct that Miller could carry them higher than us in the standings and Myers looks great too so...
