They were a road weary team, just got back from a long west coast journey, and then immediately faced with back to backs. One of those two teams is significantly weaker than the other.
Shouldn't the coach have started Enroth vs. the Hurricanes and saved his ace for the Bruins? His team would certainly be more tired vs. the Bruins, and they are more talented, so why not put your best vs. the better of the two to increase your odds of winning?
Another major question I have about his tactics is the lack of a full on trapping system. You got a one goal lead on the road. Your backup in net, and nothing going on the fore-check. Why on earth wouldn't they go into a trap and try to increase the score with counter attacks? A 1-2-2 or even a 1-3-1 would have done the trick.
I'm not a know it all, I'm not a coach but these things seem odd to me and I don't understand why Ruff chose to do it the way he did. It's not the first time he's started Miller against the weaker of the two teams in back to backs.
I don't think Miller would have made a difference. The first two goals weren't Enroth's fault at all...in fact I thought besides those bounces he had a solid game.
Now...if we're talking about the team playing more confident in front of Miller, that's a different story.
They were a road weary team, just got back from a long west coast journey, and then immediately faced with back to backs. One of those two teams is significantly weaker than the other.
Shouldn't the coach have started Enroth vs. the Hurricanes and saved his ace for the Bruins? His team would certainly be more tired vs. the Bruins, and they are more talented, so why not put your best vs. the better of the two to increase your odds of winning?
Another major question I have about his tactics is the lack of a full on trapping system. You got a one goal lead on the road. Your backup in net, and nothing going on the fore-check. Why on earth wouldn't they go into a trap and try to increase the score with counter attacks? A 1-2-2 or even a 1-3-1 would have done the trick.
I'm not a know it all, I'm not a coach but these things seem odd to me and I don't understand why Ruff chose to do it the way he did. It's not the first time he's started Miller against the weaker of the two teams in back to backs.
Do you honestly think Miller would've made a difference in the outcome of the Bruins game?
They scored 1 goal.... again.
Enroth kept them in it...
Lots of things to criticize lindy about, but i don't think this is it.
If we started enroth against the canes this same thread would have been made if we lost it.
I don't think so. Prevailing wisdom is the you start your backup against weaker teams. There was actually a Buffalo News poll before the games where the fans mostly voted for Enroth v. Canes. People usually forgive a coach when he adopts prevailing wisdom and it doesn't work out.
I don't think so. Prevailing wisdom is the you start your backup against weaker teams. There was actually a Buffalo News poll before the games where the fans mostly voted for Enroth v. Canes. People usually forgive a coach when he adopts prevailing wisdom and it doesn't work out.
The LAST thing I want is my head coach listening to a Buffalo News poll to decide who to play when. That's pointless to even bring it up.
The LAST thing I want is my head coach listening to a Buffalo News poll to decide who to play when. That's pointless to even bring it up.
I don't want him taking his cues from online polls either. I brought it up to rebut the idea that people would complain just as much no matter which decision he made, as a little bit of evidence that he was bucking prevailing wisdom that you start your backup against worse teams. Don't read more into my comments than is there.
I don't think so. Prevailing wisdom is the you start your backup against weaker teams. There was actually a Buffalo News poll before the games where the fans mostly voted for Enroth v. Canes. People usually forgive a coach when he adopts prevailing wisdom and it doesn't work out.
I could argue that it's better to make sure you get 2 points in the winningable game and take your chances starting your backup in a game you are more likely to lose everything even with the starter.
And last night proved that point, sabres don't win with Miller back there anyways.
I could argue that it's better to make sure you get 2 points in the winningable game and take your chances starting your backup in a game you are more likely to lose everything even with the starter.
And last night proved that point, sabres don't win with Miller back there anyways.
Yes, you could. And that would also be bucking prevailing wisdom. Which is fine, but people tend to be less forgiving if it doesn't work out. That's all I'm saying.
I don't want him taking his cues from online polls either. I brought it up to rebut the idea that people would complain just as much no matter which decision he made, as a little bit of evidence that he was bucking prevailing wisdom that you start your backup against worse teams. Don't read more into my comments than is there.
Yes, you could. And that would also be bucking prevailing wisdom. Which is fine, but people tend to be less forgiving if it doesn't work out. That's all I'm saying.
And I'm saying it doesn't matter, because there are people who thought miller/enroth in that order was ok, and if enroth played the first game and lost they would be the ones making the thread.
If they were trying to win both games, I agree that I thought he would go with Enroth vs Carolina at home and Miller vs Boston on the road. That would have been riskier as well though as there was a better chance they would lose both games. Playing Miller in the easier matchup makes it look like they wanted to make sure they got those 2 points and were willing to gamble with Enroth in the Boston game.
One reason why Ruff's decision worked out though is the Carolina game was a relatively easy game for Miller. Most of that game was played in the Carolina end and even though it was tight and went to OT, Miller was not asked to do too much. The Boston game would have been a lot more draining, both physically and mentally.
They took the lead late into the 2nd and got burned on a couple of errors/turnovers in their own zone. Enroth did fine and played well enough to at least get them a point or two if the offense/rest of team played better.
This wasn't a game anyone expected them to win and they got Miller some much needed rest. I can't fault Ruff for his decision here even though I think most probably would have gone the other way.
No matter what he does with his goaltenders, someone will find a way to complain about it. It's easy. Watch this.
Miller / Miller : "Ruff doesn't know how to manage his goaltenders!! If they make the playoffs they won't go anywhere because Miller will be tired!!"
Miller / Enroth : "Carolina sucks, so Ruff should have played Enroth there because it was the easier game to win. He's just hiding Miller from Boston!!"
Enroth / Miller : "Carolina sucks, so Ruff should have played Miller there since it would be a guaranteed win. They need all the points they can get!!"
Enroth / Enroth : "I can't believe we're paying Miller over $6M to sit on the bench! Ruff doesn't know what he's doing!"
No matter what he does with his goaltenders, someone will find a way to complain about it. It's easy. Watch this.
Miller / Miller : "Ruff doesn't know how to manage his goaltenders!! If they make the playoffs they won't go anywhere because Miller will be tired!!"
Miller / Enroth : "Carolina sucks, so Ruff should have played Enroth there because it was the easier game to win. He's just hiding Miller from Boston!!"
Enroth / Miller : "Carolina sucks, so Ruff should have played Miller there since it would be a guaranteed win. They need all the points they can get!!"
Enroth / Enroth : "I can't believe we're paying Miller over $6M to sit on the bench! Ruff doesn't know what he's doing!"
A: Ruff played Miller vs CAR and Enroth vs BOS
B: Teams play a road trap when leading
Don't say there's 'no logic' because you don't understand or don't agree.
I fail to see the logic of treating games like they're throw away games. Isn't the job of the coach to put his players into the best possible situations to win, in each and every game? Yes, it is. Based on his actions, Lindy Ruff sees some games as probable losses, and his attitude seems to border on surrender. Which is alarmingly UNHEALTHY.
Boston is a better team than Buffalo, we all understand that. The players do, the fans do, we get it. They are the champs. Due to the schedule (which is an entirely different conversation) the Sabres were the more tired of the two teams. Which usually means they wont have the same legs as the opposition in the third. Which in turn--and this seems to have eluded most of you in this thread--means that the Sabres would need to rely more heavily on their goal-tender to bail them out.
Logic would dictate that starting the sharper, more experienced, and more talented goal tender against the more difficult foe would increase the odds of success. But Lindy Ruff (and his fans) seem to think that you should put your cold goalie in there and just make sure you get the 2 points from the previous night.
It seems like a lot of people are totally cool with that approach. To me, I think the team should fight for every point and plan on winning every night. It sends a message to the players. "No nights off...Ever.". Maybe this is a snippet of the Ruff Philosophy that results in everybody taking nights off all year round?
As for the trap. I don't see a very good execution of a 1-2-2. For awhile they did a really good 1-3-1 but they haven't used that in months. Is that seriously a 1-2-2? It looks sloppy and out of place if it is.
Ruff made the right strategic decision. He got the points where he could. Putting Miller between the pipes in Boston would be like waving red meat in front of a hungry dog. The Bruins would have been crashing the crease at every opportunity. They would have created opportunities to do so. If Miller goes down, the Sabres are done. Enroth held down the fort long enough to give his team a chance and they let him down.
As for the trap. I don't see a very good execution of a 1-2-2. For awhile they did a really good 1-3-1 but they haven't used that in months. Is that seriously a 1-2-2? It looks sloppy and out of place if it is.
Why are you even blathering on about the trap? It was a 1-1 tie in the 3rd period. Of COURSE they weren't trapping then.
