zow2 Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think it is. Yes, Hasek was probably slightly better than the Miller/Biron combo now but that is offset by the 4 line depth of the 2006 team, speed and the ability to "Finish" on offense. Couple that with great special teams play and I believe we really have a legitimate chance to win the Stanley Cup this year. No funky stuff is needed. The only obstacle that might be better than Buffalo is Ottawa and they have somewhat come back to earth. The Rangers, Philly and Carolina are good but i believe are not better than Buffalo. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregkash Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 hasek slightly better? no offense, but hasek that year wasn't a brick wall... he was a steel reinforced, nasa approved heat deflection shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Of course this team is better than that one. To this point. Which doesn't mean very much. But, yeah, the 99 team was struggling well into March. I remember losing to Tampa badly at home, and the city was about to implode before the Sabres announced the acquisition of Stu Barnes right after the game. That turned things around, plus getting Rhett Warrener at the deadline. Crackers to go with Cheese. :) Wow, Matt Barnaby and Mike Wilson for Stu Barnes and Rhett Warrener! The Sabres lost just five of their last 17 games after the Barnes trade, yet still finished only nine games above .500 that season. In the playoffs, the just caught fire after Game 1 in Ottawa, thanks to Hasek. Perhaps all that should be a cautionary tale for Darcy. Stand pat at your peril. You always have to get better -- we might just run up against 2006's version of the 1999 Buffalo Sabres. The season starts now, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toddkaz Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 99 team was a lot better. One word Hasek. We had a good chance to win it all and until proven otherwise how can you even compare? Head to head this team would be lucky to get 2 past hasek in 99 nobody did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisted Wrister Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 ok lets compare rosters... Varada = Grier, and Grier is slumping badly. Tsyplakov, Rasmussen, Dixon Ward, Grosek, These guys wouldn't even sniff the ice with this team, I will give you Hasek over Miller, but I don't believe that makes up for the Speed and Skill of the current roster. It all depends on the scenerio as well.....this current roster in the 99 NHL would get outmuscled and slowed right down in the neutral zone, the 99 team in todays NHL would not be able to consistently stay with this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Sanderson Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 This team is better...that was a better than average team that had very good speed (for it's time) but drew very favorable matchups to get to the Finals. Hasek beat Ottawa by himself, but Boston and Toronto were complete pushovers. Luckily for Buffalo they were able to avoid NJ, Philly, and Pittsburgh that year, three teams that probably would've given them more trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toddkaz Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 okay you guys are seriously smoking dope. We haven't won anything and if we lose in the playoffs first or second round you will still say we are better? What makes them better now? What have we won? Dope smoke the Dope. Actually the person starting this thread is really in the dope we have one played 60 games and we are crowned better then stanley cup finalists? somebody get hte crack pipe away from that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Sanderson Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 okay you guys are seriously smoking dope. We haven't won anything and if we lose in the playoffs first or second round you will still say we are better? What makes them better now? What have we won? Dope smoke the Dope. Actually the person starting this thread is really in the dope we have one played 60 games and we are crowned better then stanley cup finalists? somebody get hte crack pipe away from that guy. You have to take threads like these in context man. I'm sure nobody who said this team is better EXPECTS them to make it to 14 wins in playoffs. Yeah, obviously that team has accomplished more so far than this one has, but player for player as a whole, and considering the competition the '99 team faced, it's reasonable to say. I think the 2003-2004 Sabres could have beaten the '99 Maple Leafs based on the way they played in that series vs. Buffalo. Hell, I think Buffalo still wins the series if Roloson plays every game instead of just the first 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 okay you guys are seriously smoking dope. We haven't won anything and if we lose in the playoffs first or second round you will still say we are better? What makes them better now? What have we won? Dope smoke the Dope. Actually the person starting this thread is really in the dope we have one played 60 games and we are crowned better then stanley cup finalists? somebody get hte crack pipe away from that guy. Isn't the point of this board to have discussions? The starter of this thread wanted to know how we thought this team compared to the 99 team. That seems like as good of topic for discussion as any to me. Saying that people can't discuss this is just foolish. Saying that objectively looking at the 99 team vs. this team is impossible because this team only played 60 games is equally as foolish. I mean realistically speaking, even if this team went to the finals, the only real way to know which team was better is to develop a time machine, send our team back to 99 and have them play a 7 game series. Unfortunately, this technology is not available right now, so we'll just have to stick to opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 hopeles... the technology is available! Don't you remember when Rick Jeanneret and Mike Robitaille broadcast on the radio a fictional game between the 99 and 75 teams? So cool! I wish I had taped it. I don't remember who won though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted March 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 okay you guys are seriously smoking dope. We haven't won anything and if we lose in the playoffs first or second round you will still say we are better? What makes them better now? What have we won? Dope smoke the Dope. Actually the person starting this thread is really in the dope we have one played 60 games and we are crowned better then stanley cup finalists? somebody get hte crack pipe away from that guy. Obviously the team could go in the tank over the next 20 games and this whole point would be moot. However, i'm an avid Sabres fan and like others mentioned, am curious what people think about this team? Even in '99, i never expected that team to come back when they were down. They were a team that got hot at the right time. This year has a different feel to it. These guys are really, really good and I think they compare favorably (talentwise) to the '99 Stanley Cup club. So keep smoking YOUR dope bud and realize that every thread isn't meant to be viewed and answered if it's not your cup of tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisted Wrister Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 okay you guys are seriously smoking dope. We haven't won anything and if we lose in the playoffs first or second round you will still say we are better? What makes them better now? What have we won? Dope smoke the Dope. Actually the person starting this thread is really in the dope we have one played 60 games and we are crowned better then stanley cup finalists? somebody get hte crack pipe away from that guy. Here's the thing....the best team doesn't always win....not to re-hash old stuff but the Bills in Super Bowl XXV were the better team and lost to the Giants......it is definetly a legit debate to discuss which team was better even if this team doesn't make the finals like you hang your hat on....i truly believe if you take this team and play the 99 team right now, this team would win a best of 7 series. If you fill your responses with intelligent arguments and keep the 7th grade dope smoking comments confined to your lunch table people would take you more serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toddkaz Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 oh sorry I don't meet your qualifications for seriousness. Put it this why if I was as colourful as most of you guys i might as well stair at the wall and watch paint dry. But what you are saying is the losing team is better then the winning team??? Well that makes a lot of sense? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisted Wrister Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 What i'm saying is the best team doesn't always win, sometimes the blind squirrel finds the nut.....crazy bounces, some no-name chump has the game of his life.....the Panthers have handed it to the Sabres this year so does that mean that the Panthers are a better team? absolutely not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.