roy's lifestyle is catching up to and affecting his play on the ice. you see similar issues with mike richards and jeff carter (who LA for some reason thought it would be a good idea to reunite), and other players who have always had success until they hit the NHL. all three of these players have played for legitimate contenders early in their careers, and i think they all expected success at this level to come easily. we can pretend that the night lives of these guys is normal and chalk it up to "the lifestyle" but for certain players it does become an issue and there is no way it could positively effect any players on ice performance. would you do better at your job if you were showing up hungover half of the time? do you think you would keep your job, let alone be making four million dollars a year to do it? at a certain point you need to hold yourself to a higher standard and prioritize. when the co captains were here you didn't see them out on chippewa until (at least) 4. likewise for the guys on this year's team who have been the most consistent and dependable throughout the season.
i seem to recall roy making some comment after briere and drury left before the 07-08 season that "there's no reason we can't still be a playoff team" and infer they'd be back in the conference finals at least. i think at this point a lot of bad habits crept into his game, as well as his off ice lifestyle. roy is not the same player he was when he first broke into the league. while vanek and pominville have rounded out their games i think he has taken a few steps back. i don't want to be too harsh on him because of his leg injury, but there are a lot of nights where i don't really buy into his "effort," and for a guy who is supposed to be our top center and considers himself a scorer he has had a lot of difficulty finishing, something ruff has called him on publicly. i don't think mentally he is completely focused on playing the game that made him successful in the first place, and i think he has some confidence issues as well as he hasn't been able to will this team to victory the way he was always able to carry his teams up to the NHL level. i'm not ready to give up on him but i would like to see him at least acknowledge that his play has hurt this team at times and he needs to step it up and be a leader. his comments to the media leave a lot to be desired from a guy wearing a letter.
roy's lifestyle is catching up to and affecting his play on the ice. you see similar issues with mike richards and jeff carter (who LA for some reason thought it would be a good idea to reunite), and other players who have always had success until they hit the NHL. all three of these players have played for legitimate contenders early in their careers, and i think they all expected success at this level to come easily. we can pretend that the night lives of these guys is normal and chalk it up to "the lifestyle" but for certain players it does become an issue and there is no way it could positively effect any players on ice performance. would you do better at your job if you were showing up hungover half of the time? do you think you would keep your job, let alone be making four million dollars a year to do it? at a certain point you need to hold yourself to a higher standard and prioritize. when the co captains were here you didn't see them out on chippewa until (at least) 4. likewise for the guys on this year's team who have been the most consistent and dependable throughout the season.
i seem to recall roy making some comment after briere and drury left before the 07-08 season that "there's no reason we can't still be a playoff team" and infer they'd be back in the conference finals at least. i think at this point a lot of bad habits crept into his game, as well as his off ice lifestyle. roy is not the same player he was when he first broke into the league. while vanek and pominville have rounded out their games i think he has taken a few steps back. i don't want to be too harsh on him because of his leg injury, but there are a lot of nights where i don't really buy into his "effort," and for a guy who is supposed to be our top center and considers himself a scorer he has had a lot of difficulty finishing, something ruff has called him on publicly. i don't think mentally he is completely focused on playing the game that made him successful in the first place, and i think he has some confidence issues as well as he hasn't been able to will this team to victory the way he was always able to carry his teams up to the NHL level. i'm not ready to give up on him but i would like to see him at least acknowledge that his play has hurt this team at times and he needs to step it up and be a leader. his comments to the media leave a lot to be desired from a guy wearing a letter.
Could not agree more with this post. Also these guys are supposed to be world class athletes. Derek Roy going out every night and partying/drinking takes a toll on your physical body. Whenever I drink a lot I gain a few lbs and have to hit the gym hard to get rid of it. If you watched NHL 36 on Lidstrom you will see what separates world class talent from the average NHL player. It is a lifestyle and you have to live/breath hockey. Roy is not an example of this, just check out his 50 beds in his basement at his summer house...
No point in bothering to argue further if you cant accept that Bulldog knows people in the organization. I will ask you the same thing I will ask Josh, are you saying he is lying about it? Yes or No.
Harrington and Vogl know people within the organization, and they've never said Roy is a cancer. And they both challenge fan biases about Roy, and others, in their chats. Are they wrong? Is Vogl lying when he's said in chats that he's never heard from a player that's taken issue with Roy as an individual? Yes or no--Is Vogl lying? (See what I did there?)
It's a case of confirmation bias. You hear something, it confirms what you believe, and you treat it as gospel, while discrediting or altogether disregarding the other beat guys who don't say the same things as Hamilton. Like Hamilton, you have a long history of pissing about Roy's off-the-ice exploits, so naturally you're going to credit anything that--even tangentially--supports your agenda.
E: I love it when the Faneks talk about other players' conditioning.
roy's lifestyle is catching up to and affecting his play on the ice. you see similar issues with mike richards and jeff carter (who LA for some reason thought it would be a good idea to reunite), and other players who have always had success until they hit the NHL. all three of these players have played for legitimate contenders early in their careers, and i think they all expected success at this level to come easily. we can pretend that the night lives of these guys is normal and chalk it up to "the lifestyle" but for certain players it does become an issue and there is no way it could positively effect any players on ice performance. would you do better at your job if you were showing up hungover half of the time? do you think you would keep your job, let alone be making four million dollars a year to do it? at a certain point you need to hold yourself to a higher standard and prioritize. when the co captains were here you didn't see them out on chippewa until (at least) 4. likewise for the guys on this year's team who have been the most consistent and dependable throughout the season.
i seem to recall roy making some comment after briere and drury left before the 07-08 season that "there's no reason we can't still be a playoff team" and infer they'd be back in the conference finals at least. i think at this point a lot of bad habits crept into his game, as well as his off ice lifestyle. roy is not the same player he was when he first broke into the league. while vanek and pominville have rounded out their games i think he has taken a few steps back. i don't want to be too harsh on him because of his leg injury, but there are a lot of nights where i don't really buy into his "effort," and for a guy who is supposed to be our top center and considers himself a scorer he has had a lot of difficulty finishing, something ruff has called him on publicly. i don't think mentally he is completely focused on playing the game that made him successful in the first place, and i think he has some confidence issues as well as he hasn't been able to will this team to victory the way he was always able to carry his teams up to the NHL level. i'm not ready to give up on him but i would like to see him at least acknowledge that his play has hurt this team at times and he needs to step it up and be a leader. his comments to the media leave a lot to be desired from a guy wearing a letter.
I find it amusing that some of the same people who can't wait to get rid of Roy were pining for the Sabres to acquire Jeff Carter. They're basically the same player with the same flaws on and off the ice.
What are people's thoughts on Nick Grossman, if Philly doesn't have the space to retain him? Could he be the replacement for Tallinder that brings out the best in Myers? Big, relatively mobile Swede, strong qualcomp/SHTOI numbers, looking good in his new digs in Philly (5 games, 4 assists, +5). He's also only 27. At the very least, I'd rather have him, or someone like him than Leopold.
I'm still for breaking up the core on general principal. Those 5 guys who got letters, they're the core. Management and coaching handed them the keys to the kingdom and said "Let's see what you can do."
The only one who's carried the load is Pominville. Gaustad is gone. The rest have been inconsistent (Vanek) or just passengers (Roy, Stafford). Making a lateral move for the sake of making a move usually isn't the preferred course but a lateral move involving any or all of the last 3 names there is probably necessary.
This has nothing to do with rumors, this has to do with results. The core as constituted is not good enough. Replace it from within or without, but do something.
I'm still for breaking up the core on general principal. Those 5 guys who got letters, they're the core. Management and coaching handed them the keys to the kingdom and said "Let's see what you can do."
The only one who's carried the load is Pominville. Gaustad is gone. The rest have been inconsistent (Vanek) or just passengers (Roy, Stafford). Making a lateral move for the sake of making a move usually isn't the preferred course but a lateral move involving any or all of the last 3 names there is probably necessary.
This has nothing to do with rumors, this has to do with results. The core as constituted is not good enough. Replace it from within or without, but do something.
I don't disagree with much of that. I think the only survivors of the Rochester Core should be Miller and Pominville--I don't consider Stafford a part of the Rochester Core, but that's me, and I could take or leave him.
Why are you not holding Miller to the same standard as Vanek?
To expand:
Each drove the team to a playoff appearance.
Both have had exceptional and putrid halves to the season, corresponding with injuries.
Both have noticeable on-ice tics that drive their detractors nuts (the shrug vs the sigh).
Yet one should survive a culture change, and the other shouldn't. Why?
Last edited by struckbyaparkedcar: 03-10-2012 at 12:26 PM.
Why are you not holding Miller to the same standard as Vanek?
To expand:
Each drove the team to a playoff appearance.
Both have had exceptional and putrid halves to the season, corresponding with injuries.
Both have noticeable on-ice tics that drive their detractors nuts (the shrug vs the sigh).
Yet one should survive a culture change, and the other shouldn't. Why?
Because I think Vanek's woe-is-me attitude in the face of team and individual adversity is one of the major problems with this team, and is a big part of the reason this team is often thought of as a group of mental midgets, which him being one of the foremost of that group.
I firmly believe that if people truly want to change the culture in the room--rather than just using that reasoning as a pretext to getting rid of Roy--Vanek has to go, along with several others.
Wait, did you hear Miller's comments about the Thorburn goal the other night? And Vanek's the one responsible for the mental midgetry?
Seriously, this double standard is getting more absurd with each minute I think about it. The leading goal scorer in each of the team's last two playoff series is the reason that the team is a bunch of mental midgets, but the goaltender who blew consecutive three goal leads, then got himself pulled in game 7 of the Flyers series and also blew two separate two goal leads in game two of the Boston series has nothing to do with anything wrong with this team? Is this real life?
Last edited by struckbyaparkedcar: 03-10-2012 at 02:28 PM.
roy's lifestyle is catching up to and affecting his play on the ice. you see similar issues with mike richards and jeff carter (who LA for some reason thought it would be a good idea to reunite), and other players who have always had success until they hit the NHL. all three of these players have played for legitimate contenders early in their careers, and i think they all expected success at this level to come easily. we can pretend that the night lives of these guys is normal and chalk it up to "the lifestyle" but for certain players it does become an issue and there is no way it could positively effect any players on ice performance. would you do better at your job if you were showing up hungover half of the time? do you think you would keep your job, let alone be making four million dollars a year to do it? at a certain point you need to hold yourself to a higher standard and prioritize. when the co captains were here you didn't see them out on chippewa until (at least) 4. likewise for the guys on this year's team who have been the most consistent and dependable throughout the season.
i seem to recall roy making some comment after briere and drury left before the 07-08 season that "there's no reason we can't still be a playoff team" and infer they'd be back in the conference finals at least. i think at this point a lot of bad habits crept into his game, as well as his off ice lifestyle. roy is not the same player he was when he first broke into the league. while vanek and pominville have rounded out their games i think he has taken a few steps back. i don't want to be too harsh on him because of his leg injury, but there are a lot of nights where i don't really buy into his "effort," and for a guy who is supposed to be our top center and considers himself a scorer he has had a lot of difficulty finishing, something ruff has called him on publicly. i don't think mentally he is completely focused on playing the game that made him successful in the first place, and i think he has some confidence issues as well as he hasn't been able to will this team to victory the way he was always able to carry his teams up to the NHL level. i'm not ready to give up on him but i would like to see him at least acknowledge that his play has hurt this team at times and he needs to step it up and be a leader. his comments to the media leave a lot to be desired from a guy wearing a letter.
I agree with the fact that I think Roy needs to be more serious about his career if he's going to make this franchise successful. Let's not jump on him so quickly though. Last year he was PPG before his injury, while Vanek was suffering offensively. We don't really know anything about how hard Vanek trains, but honestly I don't think he trains that hard in the off season.
Wait, did you hear Miller's comments about the Thorburn goal the other night? And Vanek's the one responsible for the mental midgetry?
Seriously, this double standard is getting more absurd with each minute I think about it. The leading goal scorer in each of the team's last two playoff series is the reason that the team is a bunch of mental midgets, but the goaltender who blew consecutive three goal leads, then got himself pulled in game 7 of the Flyers series and also blew two separate two goal leads in game two of the Boston series has nothing to do with anything wrong with this team? Is this real life?
Did you watch the series? The team was absolutely terrible. Defensively we were dominated shift after shift after shift. Offensively, we scored because Philly's goaltenders couldn't stop a beach ball. We had no chance of winning that series if Philly's goaltending is average at best. Sure Miller blew 3 goal leads, but it doesn't help when your entire team doesn't know how to keep the puck away from the other team. He also posted 2 shutouts, and in those games it was because the team played well defensively plus Miller standing on his head. If Miller doesn't play out of his mind in our first two wins, and Philly's goaltending is decent, we get swept.
If, if, if. Miller wasn't spectacular in any of the losses, regardless of defensive play. The only game he actually stole was four, game one had as much to do with the success of the Buffalo trap than Miller's goaltending.
And that wasn't even my point. My point is that I don't understand how you can say that Vanek's attitude is "the biggest problem with the team (paraphrasing)" and then go on to say how your pouty, inconsistent goaltender who has his own on-ice attitude issues and questionable personal responsibility plus running beefs with the media should survive a culture change.
If, if, if. Miller wasn't spectacular in any of the losses, regardless of defensive play. The only game he actually stole was four, game one had as much to do with the success of the Buffalo trap than Miller's goaltending.
And that wasn't even my point. My point is that I don't understand how you can say that Vanek's attitude is "the biggest problem with the team (paraphrasing)" and then go on to say how your pouty, inconsistent goaltender who has his own on-ice attitude issues and questionable personal responsibility plus running beefs with the media should survive a culture change.
Psst.
Your bias is showing.
If you read Zips post..he said Vanek is one of many that are part of the problem.
Why didn't Vanek score another goal in those "3 goal blown games" against the Flyers? Why didn't he forecheck harder to keep the puck in the offensive zone?
Yadda Yadda Yadda. We get it. You hate Miller.
I trade Vanek over Miller for the simple fact that Vanek returns more to this organization. Work ethic has never been a question with Miller.. with Vanek it has.
If, if, if. Miller wasn't spectacular in any of the losses, regardless of defensive play. The only game he actually stole was four, game one had as much to do with the success of the Buffalo trap than Miller's goaltending.
And that wasn't even my point. My point is that I don't understand how you can say that Vanek's attitude is "the biggest problem with the team (paraphrasing)" and then go on to say how your pouty, inconsistent goaltender who has his own on-ice attitude issues and questionable personal responsibility plus running beefs with the media should survive a culture change.
Buffalo's "trap" in game 1 was impressive... considering the Flyers were able to throw 35 shots at us.
If, if, if. Miller wasn't spectacular in any of the losses, regardless of defensive play. The only game he actually stole was four, game one had as much to do with the success of the Buffalo trap than Miller's goaltending.
And that wasn't even my point. My point is that I don't understand how you can say that Vanek's attitude is "the biggest problem with the team (paraphrasing)" and then go on to say how your pouty, inconsistent goaltender who has his own on-ice attitude issues and questionable personal responsibility plus running beefs with the media should survive a culture change.
That's the fickle of nature of being a goalie, you're bound to have a bad game here or there. It is no question that Miller's performance is the most important thing to our success, that speaks volumes about how poorly we are offensively and defensively. I don't consider Miller an elite goaltender, I think he is above average, the only goalie I would consider elite is Lundqvist. Vanek is being paid 7.1 million dollars a year, to produce 70 points? C'mon, seriously? Who cares about having beef with the media? Sure Vanek doesn't ***** at the media as much as Miller, but if you're talking about a culture change, we can start by getting rid of our highest paid player who doesn't perform anywhere near his cap hit value-wise. Trading Miller would put us in the basement. Maybe we can draft MacKinnon by trading Miller??
That's the fickle of nature of being a goalie, you're bound to have a bad game here or there. It is no question that Miller's performance is the most important thing to our success, that speaks volumes about how poorly we are offensively and defensively. I don't consider Miller an elite goaltender, I think he is above average, the only goalie I would consider elite is Lundqvist. Vanek is being paid 7.1 million dollars a year, to produce 70 points? C'mon, seriously? Who cares about having beef with the media? Sure Vanek doesn't ***** at the media as much as Miller, but if you're talking about a culture change, we can start by getting rid of our highest paid player who doesn't perform anywhere near his cap hit value-wise. Trading Miller would put us in the basement. Maybe we can draft MacKinnon by trading Miller??
Except it isn't, really. Our offense carried us to the playoffs last year with Miller being inconsistent and injured down the stretch. Our offense, especially VAP was also the reason we were winning hockey games earlier in the season despite Miller's continued inconsistencies. When the offensive and defensive play of the team is and has been relatively constant since the losing streak (minus the Boston and Pittsburgh games) Miller is obviously going to be the difference maker, but the offense has buoyed this team, regardless of goaltending in the recent past.
Last edited by struckbyaparkedcar: 03-10-2012 at 03:59 PM.
You're judging attitude in the media. I'm judging attitude on the ice.
On the ice..Vaneks attitude sucks compared to Millers.
Even then.. I don't trade Vanek solely because of his "attitude" .. Id trade him to improve the team.
They're both pretty poor attitude-wise. Even on a soft goal Miller gives the death glare to his defenseman. I'd trade either to improve the team but I'm not going to trade either just to trade them.
You're judging attitude in the media. I'm judging attitude on the ice.
On the ice..Vaneks attitude sucks compared to Millers.
Even then.. I don't trade Vanek solely because of his "attitude" .. Id trade him to improve the team.
I think the worst of their attitudes are comparable.
And so would I. Zip thinks that trading Vanek is a crucial/necessary part of culture change with this team, yet does not feel the same way about Miller, and that specific divide is what I'm finding so baffling/arguing against.
Full disclosures:
I think Ruff is the biggest cultural issue with this team. I think Roy and Stafford are next, but they could find success on this team in lesser roles than they are currently (but something Lindy would never do). I'd trade them for the sake of "culture change" because they look just as disinterested as Vanek in vanish mode without the same top end or crunch time production.
I don't view Poms, Miller or Vanek as central problems to the roster. If moving any of them upgrades the top end of this team (IE, gets me back Kopitar, Getzlaf, etc or a bevy of top tier prospects to build around) I'd do it, but I don't view getting any of their contracts, attitudes or personalities off the team as reasons to put them on the block.
Because I think Vanek's woe-is-me attitude in the face of team and individual adversity is one of the major problems with this team, and is a big part of the reason this team is often thought of as a group of mental midgets, which him being one of the foremost of that group.
I firmly believe that if people truly want to change the culture in the room--rather than just using that reasoning as a pretext to getting rid of Roy--Vanek has to go, along with several others.
Lindy Ruff is responsible for the culture in the room and he should be the first to go. The names of the players have changed throughout his tenure but the Sabres always seem to have an inordinate number of headcases, players with inconsistent motivation, and underachievers. I'd like to see what these players can do with a different coach.
I think the worst of their attitudes are comparable.
And so would I. Zip thinks that trading Vanek is a crucial/necessary part of culture change with this team, yet does not feel the same way about Miller, and that specific divide is what I'm finding so baffling/arguing against.
Full disclosures:
I think Ruff is the biggest cultural issue with this team. I think Roy and Stafford are next, but they could find success on this team in lesser roles than they are currently (but something Lindy would never do). I'd trade them for the sake of "culture change" because they look just as disinterested as Vanek in vanish mode without the same top end or crunch time production.
I don't view Poms, Miller or Vanek as central problems to the roster. If moving any of them upgrades the top end of this team (IE, gets me back Kopitar, Getzlaf, etc or a bevy of top tier prospects to build around) I'd do it, but I don't view getting any of their contracts, attitudes or personalities off the team as reasons to put them on the block.
I see what you mean, and I agree, I was too lazy to read the whole argument.
I absolutely agree with you about Ruff. It's so much easier to just trade the coach and try and obtain success from that. Look at St Louis. Unfortunately our GM is in love with Ruff, and our owner is too. I would only move them for an upgrade or lateral trade that could help us in the long run. No sense in moving your best players for anything else.
The biggest issue with this team IMO is leadership. These were great players under Drury and Briere, but when the limelight is shown on them, they shrink up. Pominville has shown some leadership this year, but if we could really bring someone in who could really reinforce that locker room (like Drury) I think we'd be okay. They need to know someone is going to step up when it comes down to crunch time and follow that example, and as great as Pominville has been, I don't see that in him.
