Jump to content

SwampD

Member
  • Posts

    32,745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SwampD

  1. 54 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

    Loser points give you too much imo.

    I really think the league needs to look at a 3,2,1 system. 3 points for a regulation win. 2 points for an OT win and 1 point for the OT loss. I think that might put it back on track for .500 actually meaning .500

    but maybe not. I'm just speculating. 

    Who cares, really? It just doesn’t matter. It’s not like the Sabres would make the playoffs if points system were different. 

  2. 4 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

    While I am at it, I'll let him know my thoughts on 3v3 OT and shootouts.

    3 hours ago, JohnC said:

    I recognize that I'm in the minority here but 3v3 in OT is terrific/fun to watch. And to antagonize the members even more is that the shootouts are not only dramatic but also entertaining. It's to our advantage to get to the shootouts because we have players who excel in that format. 

    2 hours ago, msw2112 said:

    It is fun and almost a guilty pleasure.  It's probably not the best or fairest way to hand out a valuable extra point, but I agree that it's very fast and dramatic to watch.  Gets the heart pumping a little bit faster.  And after a string of OT losses, maybe it's starting to swing in the Sabres' favor.  They do have the speed and offensive skill to succeed in OT and shootouts, and with mobile defensemen like Dahlin, Power, and Byrum, it should give them an advantage, as these guys can (theoretically....) defend, but also have speed and offensive skill to jump into the play in the offensive zone.  Most teams have a guy or two of that ilk, but the Sabres have 3.  Kesselring may also fall into that category when he returns.  It's ironic that the guy with the recent OT game winner is Samuelsson, who is NOT that type of player.

    I love 3 on 3 OT.

    I hate the shootout.

    I’m also okay with ties.

     

  3. 1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

    What are you talking about?  That was Mike Mularkey, not Dick Jauron.  That's when all we had to do is beat the Steelers backups at home in the final game when they rested everyone, and we would have made the playoffs and we choked it.

    Jauron went 7-9 three straight seasons and then was fired in the middle of his 4th year at 3-6.

    In his entire coaching career, he had one magical season in his 3rd year with the Bears where the defense and special teams propelled them to a 13-3 record with abysmal QB play and winning close games in improbable ways every week and then never repeated it again, following that season with a 4-12 record. His overall record as an NFL HC was 60-82, an abysmal .423 winning percentage.

    His one playoff game was an absolute ass kicking at home against the Eagles where they lost 33-19,  were outgained yardage wise 336-184 and had 4 turnovers.

     

    You are absolutely correct. I was thinking of Mike Mularkey. I guess my brain tried to erase the memory of Jauron.

  4. 1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

    Huh?  The dude would punt from the other teams 35 if he had the chance. He coached not to lose rather than to win most games.

    During the drought, he was the one coach that actually had a winning record (9-7, but still) when he got fired.

×
×
  • Create New...