nfreeman Posted November 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I'm not taking anything away from the victory but the shootout is a sissyboy way to win and Bettman is a sissy who's probably never even played the game. Perhaps, but I'd rather have a shootout win (or a shootout loss) than a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I'm not taking anything away from the victory but the shootout is a sissyboy way to win and Bettman is a sissy who's probably never even played the game. oookay.. and your suggestion to end games is what? and how is it newer than anything that has already been discussed/tried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 After the Calgary goal Vanek was benched, not sure about Stafford. Calgary scored 1:04 into the game. Vanek wasn't benched after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Perhaps, but I'd rather have a shootout win (or a shootout loss) than a tie. I'm as old schools as anyone. I have no problem at all with the shootout. Hinging the outcome by stripping it down to the bare basics of the game , the skill of the shooter versus the skill of the goalie, seems like the fairest way to determine a outcome of a game after 65 minutes. If I had to change anything it would the loser point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ForTripping Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Well, considering that you only have about 218 posts on here, I have to wonder how much time you spend on here. Sorry about the "below the beltline" jab, but it's only fitting when you might have missed the post where I said that my wife convinced me to renew my NHL Center Ice package for Dish Network. Fans can have the option to tune out when the product is obviously less than satisfactory. One only needs to pay a trip to One Bills Drive to see how much the fans have grown disgusted with the way things are going in Jauronland (yeah, I know, wrong thread, right tangent). FWIW, we weren't expecting OBS (Our Beloved Sabres) to perform the way they have up to this point. Needless to say, I am pleasantly surprised for the most part, but I am still "not counting my chicks until they hatch" - and I can't expect much until Craig Rivet hoists the Stanley Cup over his head as a Sabre. Sorry for only a few posts, I have a life. As for misssing your renewal post, I usually try to ignore your tongue wagging, you usually go on and on about your religion,your politics and your youthful universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I saw Vanek and Stafford only had 10 and 12 minutes TOI. Did they get benched because they decided not to show up again? I only heard the Calgary broadcast and they never mentioned it. I don't think either player was benched. The second period saw the Sabres killing 6 minutes of penalties, and those are 6 minutes of the game where neither Vanek or Stafford play as they don't play the PK. I don't want to make this a post about why is Vanek not on the PK, but since Lindy does not skate him on the PK and the Sabres got into some major penalty trouble in the second, that is likely why both players' TOI was low last night. Personally, I thought both Stafford and Vanek skated hard and played with a lot of hustle, just the scoring chances didn't come. That's okay, so long as they are putting in the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I don't think either player was benched. The second period saw the Sabres killing 6 minutes of penalties, and those are 6 minutes of the game where neither Vanek or Stafford play as they don't play the PK. I don't want to make this a post about why is Vanek not on the PK, but since Lindy does not skate him on the PK and the Sabres got into some major penalty trouble in the second, that is likely why both players' TOI was low last night. Personally, I thought both Stafford and Vanek skated hard and played with a lot of hustle, just the scoring chances didn't come. That's okay, so long as they are putting in the effort. You have no problem with your 40-goal scorer who makes almost $7 million a year being something like 179th in ice time among NHL forwards? Put another way: what if Matt Ellis led the league in ice time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 You have no problem with your 40-goal scorer who makes almost $7 million a year being something like 179th in ice time among NHL forwards? Put another way: what if Matt Ellis led the league in ice time? I like Ellis; so I wouldn't mind that. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I like Ellis; so I wouldn't mind that. :) MATT. Not Milt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbossy Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Ask Roy. :w00t: I saw Vanek and Stafford only had 10 and 12 minutes TOI. Did they get benched because they decided not to show up again? I only heard the Calgary broadcast and they never mentioned it. penalties. IMO Vanek got taken out by their defense more than Ruff. You have no problem with your 40-goal scorer who makes almost $7 million a year being something like 179th in ice time among NHL forwards? Put another way: what if Matt Ellis led the league in ice time? See: Briere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 :w00t: penalties. IMO Vanek got taken out by their defense more than Ruff. See: Briere. The penalty killing time factor continues to ring very hollow. Briere has never scored 40 goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I don't think either player was benched. The second period saw the Sabres killing 6 minutes of penalties, and those are 6 minutes of the game where neither Vanek or Stafford play as they don't play the PK. I don't want to make this a post about why is Vanek not on the PK, but since Lindy does not skate him on the PK and the Sabres got into some major penalty trouble in the second, that is likely why both players' TOI was low last night. Personally, I thought both Stafford and Vanek skated hard and played with a lot of hustle, just the scoring chances didn't come. That's okay, so long as they are putting in the effort. Hey, at least those 6 minutes didn't belong to him like the Edmonton game. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 You have no problem with your 40-goal scorer who makes almost $7 million a year being something like 179th in ice time among NHL forwards? Put another way: what if Matt Ellis led the league in ice time? Unless you are talking trades, then my problem with the bolded part is not the problem that you are implying. Salary should have nothing to do with Lindy's decisions. Salaries are basically sunk costs at this point (again, unless you are talking trades) and Lindy has to put the players on the ice that he feels will give them the best chance to win. The 40-goal scorer part factors in more there. Now, it is a problem that we are paying a player $7 million that the coach doesn't feel he can give more ice time than 179th in the league, but that's Darcy's problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JujuFish Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Sorry for only a few posts, I have a life. Every time someone says something like this, I can't help but think of how much a life you likely don't have compared to some of the high-postcount users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Calgary scored 1:04 into the game. Vanek wasn't benched after that. Ok, but he wasn't getting a regular shift, especially for the remainder of the first period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Ok, but he wasn't getting a regular shift, especially for the remainder of the first period. It's hard to tell what the "new normal" is for Vanek. For most of this season he was around 15-18 minutes, but the last little while he's been well under 15 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 e-nig-ma /ə-n-gmə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nig-muh] –noun, plural -mas, -ma-ta /-mətə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-muh-tuh] 1. a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence or situation: His disappearance is an enigma that has given rise to much speculation. 2. a person of puzzling or contradictory character: To me he has always been an enigma, one minute completely insensitive, the next moved to tears. 3. a saying, question, picture, etc., containing a hidden meaning; riddle. 4. (initial capital letter) a German-built enciphering machine developed for commercial use in the early 1920s and later adapted and appropriated by German and other Axis powers for military use through World War II. ---- or ---- 5. a 7M Austrian Hockey player that plays 10-15 minutes per game and has potential to score 40 goals per season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 e-nig-ma /ə-n-gmə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nig-muh] –noun, plural -mas, -ma-ta /-mətə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-muh-tuh] 1. a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence or situation: His disappearance is an enigma that has given rise to much speculation. 2. a person of puzzling or contradictory character: To me he has always been an enigma, one minute completely insensitive, the next moved to tears. 3. a saying, question, picture, etc., containing a hidden meaning; riddle. 4. (initial capital letter) a German-built enciphering machine developed for commercial use in the early 1920s and later adapted and appropriated by German and other Axis powers for military use through World War II. ---- or ---- 5. a 7M Austrian Hockey player that plays 10-15 minutes per game and has potential to score 40 goals per season The word "potential" puzzles me. He HAS scored 40 goals, even when given modest ice time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 The word "potential" puzzles me. He HAS scored 40 goals, even when given modest ice time. It says potential per season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 It's hard to tell what the "new normal" is for Vanek. For most of this season he was around 15-18 minutes, but the last little while he's been well under 15 minutes. He's only been well under twice: last night (12:55) and the last Islanders game (11:47; though, strangely, one of his better games.) He was at 14:15 (under, but not well under) against Edmonton, but 17:26 and 15:20 in the two games prior to that. Definitely decreased, though, and I'm just nitpicking to be an @ss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I actually kind of liked Stafford's play last night, he had some good hustle going. Vanek was Vanek. Nothing note-worthy. I hardly noticed him when he was on the ice. I think one thing that is still a problem for this team is getting into the opposing zone. They really like to try and leg it in and teams just stack up the neutral zone and poke the puck away. The Sabres need to dump and chase more, because when they dump, no one chases. Except for Kaleta, and it's usually his own dump in. Hecht, Goose and Mair also had solid games. Myers looked a little dodgy at times, but played well overall. MacArthur was hitting again too, which was...weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 You have no problem with your 40-goal scorer who makes almost $7 million a year being something like 179th in ice time among NHL forwards? So what are you getting at? If Vanek plays 20 min per game instead of 15 min per game he'll score 50+? Maybe 60+? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Sorry for only a few posts, I have a life. As for misssing your renewal post, I usually try to ignore your tongue wagging, you usually go on and on about your religion,your politics and your youthful universe. Not to pat myself on the back, but I actually stayed on topic in this thread. If you got beef about what I say, PM me. There have been others who have talked to me about this in more tactful ways. As for the other topics you griped about that I bring up, I normally try to keep them in the OT threads such as Complaint Thursdays (where they originated in the first place). BTW, there are others who have been just as vocal as I have about these non-hockey topics and who have posted many more posts as I have on here. Do they not have a life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 You have no problem with your 40-goal scorer who makes almost $7 million a year being something like 179th in ice time among NHL forwards? Put another way: what if Matt Ellis led the league in ice time? You can thank Kevin Lowe for that offer sheet from a few years ago. Were it not for that, I think we all know that Vanek's paycheck would be about half to 3/4 of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 So what are you getting at? If Vanek plays 20 min per game instead of 15 min per game he'll score 50+? Maybe 60+? Maybe. With regular shorthanded ice time, for example, he might score four or five shorties. Heck, he got two last year in the first couple of games. Buffalo's been just a middle of the pack team in killing penalties the last couple of years, so it's hard to argue he wouldn't be worth a shot. Certainly someone on a mediocre PK unit could be replaced. I'd put more stock in the symbolism associated with that kind of commitment to him, and the wonders it could for his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.