PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Q&A on his web site... http://www.thomasvanek.at/index.php?id=2&L=1 Question: How important were your 2 shorthanded goals at the beginning of the season? TV: I wouldn't say terribly important but they showed everybody that I'm also able to play on the penalty kill-unit. I don't know why I didn't get that chance after the first quarter of the season. So that's one of my big goals for next season: Make the pk-unit again and stay there! Question: What's your opinion on the Penguins winning the Stanley Cup? TV: I think the really deserved it. They were trailing us in the standings in February and brought in a new coach to turn things around. In the playoffs they were simply the best teams, always playing constantly strong. --- Now, either Lindy communicates very poorly with Thomas, or Thomas is too sensitive to come out and admit the reason he was taken off the PK. I sense there are some simmering issues between the two. As for the second question, I'm not necessarily reading too much into it. But it can certainly be taken as a slam on Ruff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Q&A on his web site... http://www.thomasvanek.at/index.php?id=2&L=1 Question: How important were your 2 shorthanded goals at the beginning of the season? TV: I wouldn't say terribly important but they showed everybody that I'm also able to play on the penalty kill-unit. I don't know why I didn't get that chance after the first quarter of the season. So that's one of my big goals for next season: Make the pk-unit again and stay there! Question: What's your opinion on the Penguins winning the Stanley Cup? TV: I think the really deserved it. They were trailing us in the standings in February and brought in a new coach to turn things around. In the playoffs they were simply the best teams, always playing constantly strong. --- Now, either Lindy communicates very poorly with Thomas, or Thomas is too sensitive to come out and admit the reason he was taken off the PK. I sense there are some simmering issues between the two. As for the second question, I'm not necessarily reading too much into it. But it can certainly be taken as a slam on Ruff. I see these as two politically correct statements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I see these as two politically correct statements His or mine? How so? I don't think his bringing up his PK "benching" and the successful coaching change in Pittsburgh, while mentioning how the Pens were behind the Sabres in the standings at the time, is all that safe or careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregkash Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I like those answers. He used the first one to say he's gonna make that motivate him. Then the second one was just fact. Pitts was below us, they did make a coaching change, and then they played much better. I don't see a slam on Ruff here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_Dudley Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Q&A on his web site... http://www.thomasvanek.at/index.php?id=2&L=1 Question: How important were your 2 shorthanded goals at the beginning of the season? TV: I wouldn't say terribly important but they showed everybody that I'm also able to play on the penalty kill-unit. I don't know why I didn't get that chance after the first quarter of the season. So that's one of my big goals for next season: Make the pk-unit again and stay there! Question: What's your opinion on the Penguins winning the Stanley Cup? TV: I think the really deserved it. They were trailing us in the standings in February and brought in a new coach to turn things around. In the playoffs they were simply the best teams, always playing constantly strong. --- Now, either Lindy communicates very poorly with Thomas, or Thomas is too sensitive to come out and admit the reason he was taken off the PK. I sense there are some simmering issues between the two. As for the second question, I'm not necessarily reading too much into it. But it can certainly be taken as a slam on Ruff. Okay I'll give you the first point and raise you this Q/A with him and agree it could be further supported by it; Question: Did you have any meetings with Ruff and Regier after the regular season? TV: Yeah, we talked a bit, but nothing substantial. It?s hard to analyze why you didn?t achieve your goals so close to being eliminated from the post-season. Everybody in the organization was still too disappointed. Your second point on the coaching slam IMO is not quite there, it's too general and doesn't fully support your premise however it doesn't rule it out either.... However rose colored glasses do shade an interpretation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 His or mine? How so? I don't think his bringing up his PK "benching" and the successful coaching change in Pittsburgh, while mentioning how the Pens were behind the Sabres in the standings at the time, is all that safe or careful. I think you're reading the lines between the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I like those answers. He used the first one to say he's gonna make that motivate him. Then the second one was just fact. Pitts was below us, they did make a coaching change, and then they played much better. I don't see a slam on Ruff here. i'd take Lindy over Therrien any time.. no questions there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Okay I'll give you the first point and raise you this Q/A with him and agree it could be further supported by it; Question: Did you have any meetings with Ruff and Regier after the regular season? TV: Yeah, we talked a bit, but nothing substantial. It's hard to analyze why you didn't achieve your goals so close to being eliminated from the post-season. Everybody in the organization was still too disappointed. Your second point on the coaching slam IMO is not quite there, it's too general and doesn't fully support your premise however it doesn't rule it out either.... However rose colored glasses do shade an interpretation.. It wasn't my premise per se that it was a slam. I think it could be interpreted as one. I like words. Maybe slam is too strong. How about a jab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 It wasn't my premise per se that it was a slam. I think it could be interpreted as one. I like words. Maybe slam is too strong. How about a jab? Maybe a poke? :chris: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Maybe a poke? :chris: Maybe. Or a needle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Maybe. Or a needle. I think it proves, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that Vanek hates Ruff and wants him gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I think it proves, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that Vanek hates Ruff and wants him gone. Damn that sarcasm sensor -- now I gotta go into the shop. Gonna be 300 bucks if it's a nickel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Q&A on his web site... http://www.thomasvanek.at/index.php?id=2&L=1 Question: How important were your 2 shorthanded goals at the beginning of the season? TV: I wouldn't say terribly important but they showed everybody that I'm also able to play on the penalty kill-unit. I don't know why I didn't get that chance after the first quarter of the season. So that's one of my big goals for next season: Make the pk-unit again and stay there! Question: What's your opinion on the Penguins winning the Stanley Cup? TV: I think the really deserved it. They were trailing us in the standings in February and brought in a new coach to turn things around. In the playoffs they were simply the best teams, always playing constantly strong. --- Now, either Lindy communicates very poorly with Thomas, or Thomas is too sensitive to come out and admit the reason he was taken off the PK. I sense there are some simmering issues between the two. As for the second question, I'm not necessarily reading too much into it. But it can certainly be taken as a slam on Ruff. No player wants to lose ice-time. No player wants to publicly disrespect his coach. It is a good thing he wants to be on the PK unit. But Connolly and Roy on the PK are a much better choice than Vanek and Paille With Vanek and Paille they surprised with some goals...but pairing Vanek and Paille pretty much conceded the draw in the defensive zone. Vanek basically has to be the best penalty killer on the team that doesn't take faceoffs to be on that unit. He just didn't want to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Maybe. Or a needle. Subtle tap? But anyway, I can see how someone might read something into that, especially when you pick out two random questions and then move them next to each other. You should be writing for some newspaper doing stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamRoller72 Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Q&A on his web site... http://www.thomasvanek.at/index.php?id=2&L=1 Question: How important were your 2 shorthanded goals at the beginning of the season? TV: I wouldn't say terribly important but they showed everybody that I'm also able to play on the penalty kill-unit. I don't know why I didn't get that chance after the first quarter of the season. So that's one of my big goals for next season: Make the pk-unit again and stay there! Question: What's your opinion on the Penguins winning the Stanley Cup? TV: I think the really deserved it. They were trailing us in the standings in February and brought in a new coach to turn things around. In the playoffs they were simply the best teams, always playing constantly strong. --- Now, either Lindy communicates very poorly with Thomas, or Thomas is too sensitive to come out and admit the reason he was taken off the PK. I sense there are some simmering issues between the two. As for the second question, I'm not necessarily reading too much into it. But it can certainly be taken as a slam on Ruff. There's no "slam" on Ruff implied or otherwise. TV's answer was just stating an obvious fact. Bylsma took over and the Pens reached their potential culminating with a Stanley Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 No player wants to lose ice-time. No player wants to publicly disrespect his coach. It is a good thing he wants to be on the PK unit. But Connolly and Roy on the PK are a much better choice than Vanek and Paille With Vanek and Paille they surprised with some goals...but pairing Vanek and Paille pretty much conceded the draw in the defensive zone. Vanek basically has to be the best penalty killer on the team that doesn't take faceoffs to be on that unit. He just didn't want to explain it. Lindy said he thought Vanek could be the best two-way player in the game. Wouldn't that necessarily make him good enough to kill penalties on the Sabres? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Subtle tap? But anyway, I can see how someone might read something into that, especially when you pick out two random questions and then move them next to each other. You should be writing for some newspaper doing stuff like that. Did you bother reading the interview? It's the order in which the questions appeared in the transcript on his official web site. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Lindy said he thought Vanek could be the best two-way player in the game. Wouldn't that necessarily make him good enough to kill penalties on the Sabres? Two-way with even strength is one thing, but Vanek can't take face-offs. Winning a draw cleanly on the kill burns 15-20 seconds of a 120 sec. minor. There are only two forwards on the kill at any one time, so it is hard to imagine him ever getting more time than Pomminstein at this point. Pomminstein can take a draw in a pinch...but it really it is better two have two guys that can do it out there in case one gets tossed. That's why getting Dominic Moore made so much sense.... Hecht-Connolly Roy-Gaustad Are all able to take a draw. Maybe they can send Vanek to the AHL for a season to play center like Tim Kennedy so he gets the knack of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VansTheMans Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Very interesting! Thanks for the heads up on this interview. Vanek seems to be a classy player. Here are two other interesting answers that give me hope in his continued development: Question: Would you say that your injury and Ryan Miller?s injury were the reason the Sabres missed the playoffs?TV: I?ve got no idea, but I think that our other goalies did play solidly in Ryan?s absence. It would be too easy and too cheap to say that we lost out because of a goalie?s mistake. Question: Was your comeback probably a bit too early? TV: Well, of course I?d have liked to have more time to practice. But it is what it is, and I was really eager to get back in the lineup. He seems to be grounded in reality and prepared to continue working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Well, if the implication is that Lindy is guilty of poor coaching for taking Vanek off the PK (which I expect it is given that this is one of PAFan's recurring themes), all I can say is that Lindy is far better equipped than any of us is to determine who the most effective penalty-killers are. He's also more motivated than anyone else to make the right call. As for Vanek's comments, they might've been complaints/shots at Lindy. That doesn't make them correct. It doesn't make vanek a bad guy either. Most star athletes aren't terribly humble or introspective. It's not unusual for vanek to think he should be playing more. But I don't think Vanek's 2nd half slump was Lindy's fault. It was Vanek's. If vanek were just given ice time without earning it, he would probably fail to reach his potential. With Lindy coaching Vanek and holding him accountable and not allowing him to take shortcuts, I expect him to get better every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Did you bother reading the interview? It's the order in which the questions appeared in the transcript on his official web site. Unbelievable. It wouldn't open for some reason. That and on quick glance I saw that --- inbetween the two questions. Sorry about that, I guess I've gone blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Two-way with even strength is one thing, but Vanek can't take face-offs.Winning a draw cleanly on the kill burns 15-20 seconds of a 120 sec. minor. There are only two forwards on the kill at any one time, so it is hard to imagine him ever getting more time than Pomminstein at this point. Pomminstein can take a draw in a pinch...but it really it is better two have two guys that can do it out there in case one gets tossed. That's why getting Dominic Moore made so much sense.... Hecht-Connolly Roy-Gaustad Are all able to take a draw. Maybe they can send Vanek to the AHL for a season to play center like Tim Kennedy so he gets the knack of it. I think you're putting a lot of emphasis on faceoffs. Pominville was second among forwards in shorthanded ice time behind Roy. Pominville took seven shorthanded faceoffs all season. Vanek got only 40-some shorthanded minutes all season and was never asked to take a faceoff. Alexandre Burrows of Vancouver averaged three minutes a night on the penalty kill, which would have placed him well ahead of Roy here in Buffalo. He's a winger. He had to take 13 draws all season. X., the question is begged: Why did Lindy decide to experiment with Vanek on the PK in the first 10 games if faceoffs are such a concern? It's not like Vanek lost any key draws to make Ruff have second thoughts -- he didn't take any faceoffs. Overall, the Sabres killed 38 of 43 penalties the first 10 games (88%), so it doesn't sound like Vanek hurt the penalty killing. Then again maybe he was on for all five goals! The disconnect that irks me is Ruff saying he thought Vanek could be a top two-way player, giving him ample minutes on the penalty kill early in the season (almost half of Vanek's shorthanded time for the season came in the first 10 games), then pulling the plug. Apparently it still irks Vanek too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 It wouldn't open for some reason. That and on quick glance I saw that --- inbetween the two questions. Sorry about that, I guess I've gone blind. Stop "studying" spndchz's avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I think you're putting a lot of emphasis on faceoffs. Pominville was second among forwards in shorthanded ice time behind Roy. Pominville took seven shorthanded faceoffs all season. Vanek got only 40-some shorthanded minutes all season and was never asked to take a faceoff. Alexandre Burrows of Vancouver averaged three minutes a night on the penalty kill, which would have placed him well ahead of Roy here in Buffalo. He's a winger. He had to take 13 draws all season. X., the question is begged: Why did Lindy decide to experiment with Vanek on the PK in the first 10 games if faceoffs are such a concern? It's not like Vanek lost any key draws to make Ruff have second thoughts -- he didn't take any faceoffs. Overall, the Sabres killed 38 of 43 penalties the first 10 games (88%), so it doesn't sound like Vanek hurt the penalty killing. Then again maybe he was on for all five goals! The disconnect that irks me is Ruff saying he thought Vanek could be a top two-way player, giving him ample minutes on the penalty kill early in the season (almost half of Vanek's shorthanded time for the season came in the first 10 games), then pulling the plug. Apparently it still irks Vanek too. I've been arguing with you quite a bit lately, but this is a good post. Of course, you should probably consider (and mention) the possibility that Lindy determined that the other PKers were simply better at it than Vanek was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I think you're putting a lot of emphasis on faceoffs. Pominville was second among forwards in shorthanded ice time behind Roy. Pominville took seven shorthanded faceoffs all season. Vanek got only 40-some shorthanded minutes all season and was never asked to take a faceoff. Alexandre Burrows of Vancouver averaged three minutes a night on the penalty kill, which would have placed him well ahead of Roy here in Buffalo. He's a winger. He had to take 13 draws all season. X., the question is begged: Why did Lindy decide to experiment with Vanek on the PK in the first 10 games if faceoffs are such a concern? It's not like Vanek lost any key draws to make Ruff have second thoughts -- he didn't take any faceoffs. Overall, the Sabres killed 38 of 43 penalties the first 10 games (88%), so it doesn't sound like Vanek hurt the penalty killing. Then again maybe he was on for all five goals! The disconnect that irks me is Ruff saying he thought Vanek could be a top two-way player, giving him ample minutes on the penalty kill early in the season (almost half of Vanek's shorthanded time for the season came in the first 10 games), then pulling the plug. Apparently it still irks Vanek too. This is what I think goes into it..... Generally a team has 2 forwards on the PK at any one time. Generally a team has 2 main PK units....which means 4 forwards altogether. For each unit one of them must take the faceoff That leaves 2 who might not.... (if a guy gets thrown out then the second forward must take it.) It is better if all 4 can take a draw but not always necesssary..... So if you don't take faceoffs......that leaves 2 spots.....one was filled by Pomminstein a very good PK guy and actually a guy who can take a draw if he has to....checking quickly....he had to take a shorthanded draw in 7 games last year. Not what you want, but he can do it. it is better if all 4 PK forwards guys can take a draw, because that gives you more options as a coach esp. at home. Even better if one is a right handed shot to draw it to the corner on the forehand when the draw is to the goaltenders left. That person is Tim Connolly who missed the first 10 games .... Sure it is a little like baseball...you are playing percentages over the course of a season...but they make a difference. So Vanek was really competing with Pomminstein for ice time on the PK and with Paille - who was getting most of the second unit time when Connolly went out in December. So the question is really why Pomminstein and not Vanek on the PK....(that one seems obvious to me, Pomminstein is just better (and a R shot)) ..... Now if you are going to fault Ruff.....you can talk why Paille and not Vanek....but Ruff was splitting up some of that time between the two. After Vanek's jaw break, the discussion was pretty much over I could be totally wrong...but that's how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.