sabresnutinphoenix Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Looks bad for our Sabres. That's what happens when you put together a team with too many fatcats, incumbents and small guys. There's no steam left for a final kick. I want to see some retaliation for the Miller injury. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I want Gomez, Drury or Lundquist to be taken out. If we can't come away with anything else, I totally agre with taking out one of those 3 guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Right on cue. EDIT:let me elaborate. PA, you need to take off your Old Grumpy Bastard hat. I could see the Refs saying that Knuble never touched it and it was Pominville that put it in. But they gave the goal to Knuble. You can see the puck change direction above the net. It was not inconclusive. I could see your point if they gave the goal to whoever shot it originally, but they gave the goal to Knuble. Doesn't make sense but I'm sure you'll tell me why I'm wrong. Here's my take.. There is no doubt in my mind from the replays that Knuble hit the puck with a high stick. Then in a spastic attempt to save a goal, Pominville hit it next. Lalime took a wild swipe at it and hit it after it went over the line. Even if he hit it before the direction of his stick was pushing it toward the goal. SO I thought it was Pominville's goal and Knuble was the last Flyer to touch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 If the guy high sticks it into the net off of Lalime, it shouldn't count as a goal. Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 I think what SwampD is saying which I agree with is that if the puck was not hit down by a high stick by Knuble, then Knuble never actually touched the puck. In that case, the goal should be credited to Giroux, not to Knuble. That is one argument. The other argument is that Knuble did touch the puck, but it was not above the crossbar/a highstick. The second argument I find highly unconvincing. Clearly, Knuble's stick is above the crossbar and I think the video replay clearly shows that. Whether he actually touched the puck with the high stick or not, is a completely different matter and I believe that is very much up for debate. So, for me, I can definitely buy the argument that Knuble did not touch the puck and hence it was not hit down with a high stick. However, if that is the argument and the logic that you are pursuing, then the scorekeeper in the arena cannot be giving credit to Knuble for the goal if he did not actually touch the puck, and hence Giroux should have gotten credit for the goal. By giving credit to Knuble you are saying that he definitively touched the puck, and if he did, the video evidence seems overwhelming that when he did touch the puck it would have been with a high stick, and hence a contradictory call. On its premise, I am not against the fact that the goal was called a goal, and even after replay, I am still okay with giving Philly the goal because the evidence is not conclusive as to whether Knuble touched the puck. But, if you are giving credit to Knuble, I think the evidence is overwhelming that his stick was above the crossbar. My whole problem with the goal and the aftermath was not that it was called a goal but that Knuble was given credit for it because if he's getting credit, it shouldn't be a goal and it's a contradictory call by Toronto. Or his stick could have first contacted the puck when the puck was below the level of the crossbar. I'd rather debate whether to modify the current rule to allow pucks to be high sticked into the net, or to go back to shoulder height. What is the historical basis anyway for not allowing high sticked goals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Are you sure about that? Yes. Rule 80.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ok, if the Sabres were to go 8-3, do you guys think the Sabres would have a good shot at making the playoffs? I have my 16 month old daughter in her jersey tonight and I'm wearing mine. I still have hope. Buffalo Sabres hockey just means too much... :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ok, if the Sabres were to go 8-3, do you guys think the Sabres would have a good shot at making the playoffs? I have my 16 month old daughter in her jersey tonight and I'm wearing mine. I still have hope. Buffalo Sabres hockey just means too much... :unsure: I'm not giving up until they are mathematically eliminated... Go Sabres.. Please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Buffalo stops another penalty shot .. A shorthanded penalty shot!!! sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 OMG Spacek just got used - his jock strap is at the blueline.... :thumbdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 1 for 23 on our PP now... Man it is really a long drought... Kaleta just took out Avery.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 well, so far, nothing that amazes me yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ugh.. Naslund.. Seeing eye goal... Looked like 4 on 2 Buffalo: New York: :censored: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ugh.. Naslund.. Seeing eye goal... Looked like 4 on 2 Buffalo: New York: :censored: That's what happens when the only forward backchecking is MacArthur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 sorry, that did not appear to be a great goal given up by Lalime.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 sorry, that did not appear to be a great goal given up by Lalime.... Yeah, that doesn't help either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROC Sabres Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 If anyone is looking for a place to take a nap, MSG is a great place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Someone needs to take out Avery..... he is a real POS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabresnutinphoenix Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 I feel like this is a death watch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Avery is getting away with murder....I don't if someone cheapshots him - I hate that MF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROC Sabres Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Someone needs to take out Avery..... he is a real POS I never realized he's such a little sh!t compared to everyone else. 5'10"??? The refs are taller than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 yes Harry, RJ already said Connolly hit the post...so you don't have to say "I think Connolly hit the post" Just shut up already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Avery is a side show. The Sabres are stupid enough to be distracted by him, because they don't have the talent or skills to make him irrelevant. Stupid play is a main characteristic of Darcy's teams, along with soft and lazy. If they can't do any better than 1 and 5 in their last six games, with the playoffs on the line, there's no hope for this team, which I guess I need to reiterate, is Darcy's team. Now, if by some chance the Sabres make the playoffs (and I win the Powerball lottery -- which are both equally probable), what good does it do the Sabres, or even the ownership. We all know they'd be one and done. The only question would be could they stretch the series out to five games. Replace Darcy with a real GM who knows how to build a real team with talent and dedication and drive then we can all reconvene next season with a realistic expectation of watching the Sabres in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabresnutinphoenix Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Does anyone feel like the Sabres are becoming like Darcy's former team?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 I just want to say that it is 1 - 0 and we hit 2 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Darcy's former team? -- the laughingstock Islanders -- hell yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.