Robviously
-
Posts
7,112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Robviously
-
-
I'm really hoping this trade means the Sabres are totally sold on Marcus Foligno's NHL future. If not, we might be the softest team in the league.
-
Ugh, I don't know at all.
-
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
Big deal brewing. Hearing BUF's Zack Kassian is going to VAN.
WHAT?
-
Leaving aside Stafford's performanc/contract/other issues, did anyone notice last night in the 2nd period, shortly after Philly tied it, when Lindy was yelling at Stafford on the bench and Stafford was kinda yelling back & kinda blowing him off (or at least it appeared that way on TV)?
He's either gotta be healthy-scratched or traded ASAP.
Darcy doesn't know what ASAP means.
-
Does Stafford have to go if he scores six goals in the next five games?
Definitely. For once, we might be able to trade a guy when his stock is high. Unfortunately, if he ever scores six goals in five games again (probably in his next contract year), Darcy will take it as a sign that he's "untouchable" in trade talks.
Do players on other teams in Stafford cap hit range, who are also underachieving, have to go too?
I don't really care what the other teams do. I just want the Sabres to lose their lazy underachievers. We're never going to get anywhere waiting for Stafford to lead us there.
-
If Stafford ends up in Detroit or Vancouver, and scores an average of 30-35 goals and wins a Cup in the next 3 years.....what will people say?
If Roy ends up on a team with some natural leaders and a coach who is respected, and puts up an 80 point pace the rest of the year and suddenly plays the puck hard.....what will people say?
:doh: Are we really supposed to never make a trade again because it might blow up in our face?
-
That's part of the fun for me. Like a Sabres soap opera. Believe me something's coming and it ain't me.
:unsure:
-
Are you trying to say that if this team makes that move and misses the playoffs you won't say a negative thing about it because you are "ok with it"? Please...
The only negative thing I could say about it is that we moved those players too late. Stafford clearly should have been moved earlier in 2011 when his value was at an all-time high. Roy should have been moved earlier than that.
Regier overvalues his own players. We never trade anyone when their value is highest. If he were an investor, his strategy would be "Sell Low, Buy High" and he'd be broke.
I think the fans have come to terms with the fact that the (then promising) core we were left with after Black Sunday isn't going to succeed. I wish our GM could do the same.
When we won a ######-ton of games in 2006-2007 - do you know who the biggest complainer was around here? PA (shocking, I know). Why? We weren't winning "the right way"....
Based on how the playoffs went, wasn't he exactly right? That team *wasn't* built to win in the playoffs. We overpowered a team that wasn't close to us in talent (Islanders), struggled against the Rangers, and then were absolutely no match for Ottawa.
If anything, PA was one of the few people thinking clearly when he watched that 2007 team.
-
Kassian making Staff expendable?
I'm trying to remember a Sabres player who made dump and chase look so effective or who was harder to take off the puck once he had it.
Kassian is making a lot of guys look bad.
-
If by putting them in a better financial situation means freeing up cap space, I guess this is somewhat believable. The loss of Stafford could easily be replaced. I am beating a dead horse in regards to this, but I don't know what they do at center for the remainder of this season if Roy is traded....
"no mas" Leino
Luke Adam who Lindy is using more at wing than center
Hecht who is injured again, but wasn't a center to begin with
Gaustad
McCormick
Luke Adam is a mystery to me. The team seemed great when he was centering Vanek and Pominville. Seeing as how we totally suck now, why can't we put him back there and see how it works?
It's completely ridiculous that we have a 26 year old AHLer centering our two best players. (It also says something about how little faith Ruff has in Roy that he'll do anything to keep he and Vanek apart now.)
What do the Sabres do at center if they trade Roy? I don't care. I know we're never winning a Stanley Cup with floaters like Roy and Stafford on the roster. If we can clear them out and add to the new core (led by Myers, Kassian, etc.), that's a big win for our franchise.
-
FWIW, I was reading ESPN Insider earlier today, and they had a post about Stafford and Roy in the Rumors section. Apparantly the Toronto Sun is reporting that the Sabres are willing to listen to offers about Derek Roy and Drew Stafford. Sabres are interested in in draft picks, and prospects in order to put them in a better "financial situation". (I would of posted the link, but I am unclear of the protocal in regards to posting links to paid websites on Sabrespace.)
It goes on to say that potential suitors would be teams looking to make a playoff push, and in need of an affordable top 6 forward. The Detroit Red Wings were listed specifically.
Please, please, please let this be true.
-
Got a little misty seeing BillsRCursed's pic of Barnaby, Ray and May. Man, that's when we had grit, and Ted Nolan knew how to turn them loose. Oh well, that's a long gone era, but on a related note I can't believe the way Kassian is putting on a power forward clinic. He created tons of scoring chances last night.
I know Boyes is the popular choice to supplant Stafford's hibernation school of hockey, but Kassian is the player that I feel calls Staff out with his play night after night since his call up.
Kassian makes a lot of the older guys look bad. Another reason to make a trade soon is to clear out some of the veteran "passengers" before they have a chance to influence the young guys who play like they give a crap (i.e. Kassian, McNabb, etc.). Do you really want Roy and Stafford showing these guys the ropes in the NHL? No thanks.
-
Roy, Stafford and Ennis highlighted as sucking right now. They need to get their act together, quickly or be shown the door.
I wouldn't put Ennis in there. Though since Roy's "suck" is contagious, he'll probably be infected and sucking soon too.
I agree. Other than the OT goal play, Stafford does seem to not be loafing. But I don't think he's working as hard as he should be for loose pucks either.
And I wonder how much of Stafford's funk this season has to do with Derek Roy being here? IYR Staffords goal streaks last season came with Roy on the shelf.
Everyone's goal streaks last season came with Roy on the shelf. Funny thing, that.
-
Just wanted to chime in again this morning and say Stafford still sucks.
-
:o :doh:
-
Amen. I was SO hoping we'd trade him last year, or right after last year, when his value was at an all-time high. I just wasn't buying the "he figured it out" line about him suddenly having a terrific work ethic because that's what it takes to make it in the NHL. (Funny coincidence that he'd "figure it out" in a contract year.)
And I've never forgiven him for his "we've got other guys for that" line about fighting. You're either a hockey player on this team or you're not.
Also, can we just once trade a guy when his value is high? Just once? Darcy needs some foresight. Afinogenov led the team in points after 2006 but it was clear even then that he wasn't a guy we'd count on the a Cup run. Instead of trading him, we re-signed him and by the time he left, his value was basically zero. What are the chances Stafford is untradeable in a year or two?
-
no disrespect intended but for starters we are talking about zombies which don't exist which makes this a fantasy/sci-fi/horror series which has absolutely no basis in reality so to argue that zombies couldn't over run your military is about as crazy as the plot. Nothing makes sense and everything makes sense,its escapism and its really not meant to make you think. Of course the Zombies could over run your military because the writers wrote that into the plot.
The problem is that the show's logic doesn't work in its own universe. You know it's a show about zombies going in, so if you're watching it, your brain is not going to reject the idea that zombies could be real. But once you're watching it, you'll notice the zombies are all extremely slow and your brain is going to point out that these zombies really couldn't take over the world.
So the show wants us to buy that zombies destroyed most of the world and killed most of its population, but then they gave us zombies that really don't seem up to the task.
TV shows don't need to be realistic to be good, but they do need to make sense.
-
That's weird. Huge hit, great ratings, money rolling in, so fire all the writers? :blink:
The show is a big hit because of the concept (which is great, and the only reason I keep watching) and the strong pilot episode. The actual writing has been terrible.
Can anyone relate to any of these characters? Officer Rick just wanted to find his wife and son...and then he did....and then he abandoned them one episode later to go back into a city with millions of zombies. Andrea's only personality trait so far is that she really likes pointing a gun at other survivors, along with the baffling decision to hang out with her dead sister until she came back to life as a monster so that she could shoot her in the head. Merle, his brother, and Ed are all southern white guys so naturally they were all various degrees of racist hillbillies who hit women. T-Dog is a black guy so the only personality trait the writers could come up with for him was to have him named "T-Dog." They gave the black woman character about 1 line per episode before randomly having her decide she didn't want to live anymore. Oh, OK.
Then there's the part where nothing on the show makes sense. A bunch of hispanic guys decided to pretend they were gang members so that they could protect an old folks home in the middle of a city full of millions of zombies??? And somehow they're doing fine but the military was completely overrun? That big zombie attack on the campsite where the younger sister died -- did every character on the show forget they were living in a post-apocalyptic zombie nightmare? They were all just sitting around a campfire waiting to get attacked. Also, the first couple shows made a big deal about how sound attracts more zombies but the writers apparently forgot about that a few shows later. None of the gunshots from the campsite zombie attack seemed to attract any more zombies, nor did Andrea idiotically shooting her sister in the head the next day. And none of the characters even expressed any concern about that noise. Oh well.
Lastly, this show may have finally ruined slow zombies for me. I know they went out of their way to not have the running zombies from the 2004 Dawn of the Dead or 28 Days/Weeks Later but the zombies on this show are so slow that it's impossible to imagine them overrunning any law enforcement or military group. We saw some military guys bite it in the flashback at the start of the season finale when one guy was standing with his back to a door that a zombie burst through (he then accidentally shot his friends when attacked). Assuming the rest of the world's military is smart enough not to stand with their backs to doors in buildings full of zombies, I think I'd put my money on the living. At least running zombies make a rapid outbreak/fall of society seem plausible (see opening to 2004 Dawn of the Dead or all hell breaking loose in 28 Weeks Later).
Maybe the new writers can make this thing work. The first batch definitely didn't.
-
Brian Holzinger?
He would have scored 50 goals a year if he knew how to finish on breakaways. :worthy:
-
To all the people ready to throw Weber and Adam off a bridge I say this:
Remember how early in the year, and in years past, we hated connolly and stafford for their soft lacksadaisical(sp?) play? Remember how we hated the smurfs and wanted some of our biggger recent draft picks in the lineup? Remember how we hated Rivet's declining skills and toughness and prayed for a toughnosed defenseman to come in and be the sheriff? Remember how we wanted Ruff to bench those scrubs and play the young guys? Remember how we said we would rather live with the kids' mistakes than watch the same old guys playing the same old way?
Well, we have our wish. Adam is everything we have hoped for. He is big, uses his body a little (as he matures physically I think he will use it a lot more) and has been generating a ton of chances for himself and his linemates. Some people expressed concern with his speed early in the year, but I have never seen any evidence of this, and have heard no complaints since. With him playing, we have all quickly forgotten about tiny tim. He finally gets his first goal, the first of what is likely to be be many more this year, and then receives a BS double minor for a high stick against a guy who could win olympic gold in diving. I saw a welt, but no blood. Even if there is just a little blood, those are usually just 2:00.
Weber is that big tough sheriff of a defensemen we have all clamored for. He is young and improving. He hits, he fights, and he isn't slow as molasses. I thought last night was his best game of the year until he had that brain fart in the 3rd. Cut him some slack. He is only going to get better. As he said himself, he has to forget about it and move on. If he is constantly worried that making a mistake will land him in the press box or Portland, he will never improve. Accept some mistakes, even ones that cost us points, and let the kid grow and mature into a player you love.
Excellent post. I'm much happier watching the 20 year old and the 22 year old, even if they're going to make mistakes. They're going to get better.
-
Butler Weber minus 2
Plus/minus isn't telling the whole story here. Neither one of them had anything to do with that first goal -- it was just ridiculously soft and should never have happened. The second goal was all on Weber. It's another 'minus' for the other four guys on the ice (including Butler) but not their fault at all.
-
It's great that the rookies are learning lessons from their mistakes, but the expectations for the 2010-11 Sabres was supposed to be advancing past the first round of the playoffs, not getting the young guys experience while we struggle to reach .500 hockey.
I would have agreed with you right after we were eliminated last spring, but after our terrible summer of not-improving the team, my expectations for this season were pretty low.
The silver lining around this season, for me at least, is the introduction to Terry Pegulla. The sooner the Status Quo Quartet (Golisano, Quinn, Regier, Ruff) is eliminated from the picture, the sooner the Sabres can begin getting serious about the Stanley Cup. Not re-signing Connolly, Stafford, and Rivet means $10.3 million to use on a couple star forwards who can score clutch goals and help restore the dynamics of the locker room that left with the BIG TWO in the summer of 2007.
A fresh start with Pegula sounds amazing right now.
-
He sucks too. Chill man, I'm just messing with you. Just a shame to lose a point that way when this team has put themselves in the position they have.
I'm just saying most of our team sucks. At least a guy like Weber should improve (and, really, asking him to NOT make the worst passing decision in recent memory is not asking a ton. He should be able to learn that quickly.) I'm more frustrated that half our roster is veterans who used to be good but give us nothing now.
-
Forgot the part about how he sucks.
I think he's +7 for his career.
Also wasn't his fault that Ryan Miller let in one of his softest goals ever in the 1st. Are we throwing him under the bus too?
Kassian to Vancouver for Hodgson
in The Aud Club
Posted
That doesn't mean much though. After the initial handful of picks in the first round, the draft is a crapshoot, even in the first round. Kyle Beach was picked right before Myers and he's struggling away in the AHL right now.