FGD59 Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 Lindy has to emphasize hard work, because what other options does he have. But IMHO it seems to me the Sabres have too many of players with the same skill set. Defense - small mobile with not particularly hard shots. The Sabres do no not have the kind of D that when things go bad they are strong with the puck and can slow down the other team by being physical. Revit appears to be the exception, but of by virtue of the Luck O' The Buffalo is injured. Plus of best non-injured D is older and the NHL season is just remorseless when it comes to exposing age Forwards - Most are perfect complementary two way players. Great followers for team with 1 or 2 strong players at the top. This would be bad enough but there weakness on face-offs just kills a team that would like to use what speed it has and is just not that strong on the puck. The weakness on face-offs just exacerbates their problems on the PP which are otherwise a mystery to me. Goalies - Both look solid in their roles, but can only win in the play-offs with really good teams. They cannot carry a team ala a Hart-Level Hasek. No sin there, but neither are guys who can check a losing streak on their own In general it just seems to me when other teams go into one-on-one battles with the Sabres, the other player never has to worry about the hit. They are just have to make the play. So Buffalo is left with a team that doesn't yet have any aspect they can hang their hat on to turn aa game gone bad back in their favor. A better team wins more games in regulation. Is the season over no way, but I see a season closer to purgatory than paradise because ownership has a stategy that is largely draft and pray and I don't see the variety of skill sets to win they way we'd like. Put another way, Do they have to work harder then they did the last 2 games? ABSOLUTELY! but hard work alone won't solve their problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 One could have said each of these two years ago when they won the PT. Granted, the league was a little different then. Rivet is definite step in the right direction toward a more balanced D, but most of us would agree that we need one more physical guy. Weber will be there, but does need a little more time to develop. Having Paille, Kaleta, Mair, Gaustad and even Stafford and MacArthur play a more physical game will definitely help out. Vanek, though a little inconsistent still, is a top-level player. He may not be superstar level (maybe 5 guys in the league), but definitely top-level. If he continues to "work hard" on doing those little things more consistently, he will be great. Faceoffs have been a little weak this year, but having MacArthur and Ellis in place of Hecht (not great, but better than Mac) and Gaustad (59% last year) doesn't help. I would prefer to have a true second-line center with faceoff capabilities, of course. I agree that we needed more balance last year and that the changes over the summer haven't done quite enough yet. I will be interested to see what they do this summer when Max, Connolly, Kotalik and Spacek are all UFA's, and next year when Lydman and Tallinder are. I said this past summer that I thought we would be better this year than last, but that I also expect improvements made in each of the next two offseasons to build on our locked-in core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 I see it didn't take long for some to pull the parachute. 7-2-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 I see it didn't take long for some to pull the parachute. 7-2-2. Wait, the sky isn't falling?? :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGD59 Posted November 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 That is exactly why I posted now when things look fine on the surface. Wherever they end up in the standings Stanley Cup Contendrer is a phrase that will not be attached to this team this year. While its too easy to say Buffalo is cheap. I think they are incapable of drafting size with talent. Moreover, organizations win championships and based on how they reacted when so many of their post lock out decisions worked so well tells me this organization has a model too focused on the bottom line and not enough on winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 That is exactly why I posted now when things look fine on the surface. Wherever they end up in the standings Stanley Cup Contendrer is a phrase that will not be attached to this team this year. While its too easy to say Buffalo is cheap. I think they are incapable of drafting size with talent. Moreover, organizations win championships and based on how they reacted when so many of their post lock out decisions worked so well tells me this organization has a model too focused on the bottom line and not enough on winning. Nice post :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Moreover, organizations win championships and based on how they reacted when so many of their post lock out decisions worked so well tells me this organization has a model too focused on the bottom line and not enough on winning. Like when the spent to the cap to make a cup run in 2006-07? Like the $70 million worth of contracts that they gave out this year? The $88 million worth the year before? Like the $41+ million that they already have committed to just 14 players next season? They've had money tied up in a few wrong players over the last couple of years (arguably Connolly, Max, Tallinder and Lydman.) How much more than the nearly $3 million a player for each of those (~$12 million total) would they have had to spend on the right players to make this team a contender? I'd have put $5 million into a reliable, veteran second line center, $3 million into another Rivet-type defenseman, then $2 million each into a third-line right winger and a third-pair defenseman. There's your contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwcolour Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Like when the spent to the cap to make a cup run in 2006-07? Like the $70 million worth of contracts that they gave out this year? The $88 million worth the year before? Like the $41+ million that they already have committed to just 14 players next season? They've had money tied up in a few wrong players over the last couple of years (arguably Connolly, Max, Tallinder and Lydman.) How much more than the nearly $3 million a player for each of those (~$12 million total) would they have had to spend on the right players to make this team a contender? I'd have put $5 million into a reliable, veteran second line center, $3 million into another Rivet-type defenseman, then $2 million each into a third-line right winger and a third-pair defenseman. There's your contender. Amen, Lets not forget breaking the bank like we did to retain tommy Vanek... we have limits and cant spend Detroit Rwings money but we do what we can. Made a few mistakes but when we have a contender they try about as much as you could ask them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.