LabattBlue Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Someone help me out with why Sekera is not on one of the two PP units? Play Pominville or Mancari down low and/or get the Marlboro Man off the PP. I also see they are going back to playing Gaustad on the PP which is also a joke. Sometimes I just don't get where the coaches are coming from when it comes to the PP. Why oh why did Arniel have to leave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 He did seem to have issues keeping the puck in the zone. Perhaps I'm over analyzing a couple of mistakes but there was a string of several PP's where he imploded nearly every time. That being said, if the PP units are struggling, I don't see why Reggie couldn't get another chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 He looks like our previous number 44 back there on the PP. 98% of his shots hit the glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Might be the only time he gets a rest is during PP they play him so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Someone help me out with why Sekera is not on one of the two PP units? Play Pominville or Mancari down low and/or get the Marlboro Man off the PP. I also see they are going back to playing Gaustad on the PP which is also a joke. Sometimes I just don't get where the coaches are coming from when it comes to the PP. Why oh why did Arniel have to leave! I know it's a different position but I saw Max on the PP against Montreal. Hey why not, right? He's earned it, right? Like Kalinin last year - cough up the puck, play poorly - hey, let's put him on the PP. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 This was the first game, so I doubts it has anything to do with why he isn't playing, but it's hard to think of Sekera and PP (yes, it was a PP, count the men on the ice, but the clock graphic wasn't working on MSG) without thinking of this: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Might be the only time he gets a rest is during PP they play him so much That's my thought... He leads the team (I think) in ice time... He needs a break and Pomminstein can play the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 That's my thought... He leads the team (I think) in ice time... He needs a break and Pomminstein can play the point. I haven't been able to watch too much lately (just 2 of the last 5 games), but I'd imagine that they want to give Mancari plenty of time back there too with that cannon he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 He did seem to have issues keeping the puck in the zone. Perhaps I'm over analyzing a couple of mistakes but there was a string of several PP's where he imploded nearly every time. That being said, if the PP units are struggling, I don't see why Reggie couldn't get another chance. This exactly what I was going to say before reading the posts. I have long been an advocate of playing Pominville down low, but as good as he has looked this year, Sekera has been a disappointment everytime he has gotten PP time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted December 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 I have long been an advocate of playing Pominville down low... I too have been on this bandwagon for as long as they have been playing Pominville on the point. I know I am in the minority on my other beef in regards to the PP, but Vanek is being wasted by standing him in front of the net. He is great with the puck both shooting and passing, so why take those talents away from the PP and instead have him trying to tip in pucks. Let Mancari, Stafford and Kotalik stand in front of the net. Can you imagine Vanek off to the side of the net hammering in goals ala Heatley. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 I too have been on this bandwagon for as long as they have been playing Pominville on the point. I know I am in the minority on my other beef in regards to the PP, but Vanek is being wasted by standing him in front of the net. He is great with the puck both shooting and passing, so why take those talents away from the PP and instead have him trying to tip in pucks. Let Mancari, Stafford and Kotalik stand in front of the net. Can you imagine Vanek off to the side of the net hammering in goals ala Heatley. :thumbsup: No, no, no and no. Quite clearly Vanek needs to be in front of the net for the tip-ins, lord knows having your 7 mill. guy there, getting crosschecked to smithereens every night, is the way to go. /Blatant sarcasm mode off Seriously though, Vanek in front of the net, I think is Ruff's way of telling Regier his team is too small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted December 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Seriously though, Vanek in front of the net, I think is Ruff's way of telling Regier his team is too small. If this is the case, Regier won't ever get the message. After all, look at Lindy's message about Max to DR? Another message that fell into the black hole as Darcy waits for the "new" NHL to return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 If this is the case, Regier won't ever get the message. After all, look at Lindy's message about Max to DR? Another message that fell into the black hole as Darcy waits for the "new" NHL to return. Maybe Lindy could fax DR the mess....ah, forget it -- too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 If this is the case, Regier won't ever get the message. After all, look at Lindy's message about Max to DR? Another message that fell into the black hole as Darcy waits for the "new" NHL to return. Sad but probably very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 If this is the case, Regier won't ever get the message. After all, look at Lindy's message about Max to DR? Another message that fell into the black hole as Darcy waits for the "new" NHL to return. I know most will believe it when they see it, but they have been drafting bigger in recent years. The problem is that it takes so long to ever see any of these players. Which reminds me. Time to bump an old thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted December 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 I know most will believe it when they see it, but they have been drafting bigger in recent years. The problem is that it takes so long to ever see any of these players. Which reminds me. Time to bump an old thread. Big and tough are two different things. Except for Weber, "I'll believe it when I see it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Big and tough are two different things. Except for Weber, "I'll believe it when I see it". Well hopefully we can talk in 4 years. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted December 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Can Derek Roy(or anyone else for that matter) ever win a faceoff to begin a PP? I'd love to see a stat on how many times the puck ends up in the Sabres end of the ice within 10 seconds of a beginning of a PP, due to the faceoff being lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Can Derek Roy(or anyone else for that matter) ever win a faceoff to begin a PP? I'd love to see a stat on how many times the puck ends up in the Sabres end of the ice within 10 seconds of a beginning of a PP, due to the faceoff being lost. I haven't read the game thread, so I don't know if this was mentioned there or not. I'd say the biggest moment in yesterday's game that proves your point (it wasn't a powerplay though) was when they had pulled Miller but put him back in the net for a faceoff IN THE NASHVILLE ZONE. I've watched more hockey than I can every quantify, but I've never seen that done at any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 I haven't read the game thread, so I don't know if this was mentioned there or not. I'd say the biggest moment in yesterday's game that proves your point (it wasn't a powerplay though) was when they had pulled Miller but put him back in the net for a faceoff IN THE NASHVILLE ZONE. I've watched more hockey than I can every quantify, but I've never seen that done at any level. Miller stood at the blue line. I've seen that before. If you win the faceoff, the additional skater is in it very quickly. If not, Miller can back up to the net. Maybe it doesn't show faith, but even the leading faceoff guy in the league, Zigomanis, only wins 63% of the time. That's still a pretty big chance that you will lose it. As a team, Nashville was first or second (they said it last night, but I don't remember exactly which) in faceoffs, so the odds were even bigger. The Sabres did, in fact, win more faceoffs last night than Nashville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Miller stood at the blue line. I've seen that before. If you win the faceoff, the additional skater is in it very quickly. If not, Miller can back up to the net. Maybe it doesn't show faith, but even the leading faceoff guy in the league, Zigomanis, only wins 63% of the time. That's still a pretty big chance that you will lose it. As a team, Nashville was first or second (they said it last night, but I don't remember exactly which) in faceoffs, so the odds were even bigger. The Sabres did, in fact, win more faceoffs last night than Nashville. They'll start out at the blueline, but pretty much never after they've already been pulled. They're in complete desperation mode, but they're taking that extra skater out of position. To me, that move was a giant white flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted December 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 The Sabres did, in fact, win more faceoffs last night than Nashville. Its great they are winning neutral zone faceoffs(which is a big part of the total), but are they winning them when needed most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Can Derek Roy(or anyone else for that matter) ever win a faceoff to begin a PP? I'd love to see a stat on how many times the puck ends up in the Sabres end of the ice within 10 seconds of a beginning of a PP, due to the faceoff being lost. I have this same thought every PP... It sure seems like they lose a bunch of these face-offs.. It could be that we focus on the negative, but last night it seemed like they lost all the important faceoffs. I heard Harry at one point say the Sabres were ahead and I thought, really??? It must be how you parse a faceoff win. If a win is that you get your stick on it first and direct it, then I could see this. If a win is you get your stick on it and your guy gets the puck, then no way are we ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 2, 2008 Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Its great they are winning neutral zone faceoffs(which is a big part of the total), but are they winning them when needed most? Good point: Neutral zone: 8 of 11 (73%) Defensive zone: 7 of 12 (58%) Offensive zone: 9 of 23 (39%) I would argue that defensive zone faceoffs are the most important (prevent chances against), followed by offensive zone (create chances for), then neutral zone (start with the puck.) However, we had so many offensive zone faceoffs that we needed to win more of 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.