cdexchange Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 You should never live on the laurels of what you have now when you can recognize an issues. You can be happy with the standings as they stand now and look back on them when the Sabres either miss the playoffs or are exiting first round. You ignore the minor issues now and they become bigger and bigger until it is too late. You've convinced me. We should definitely fire Ruff right now, even though we are in first place AND are 6-2-2 in our last ten games, because we might start sucking later in the season. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Fixed. C'mon, the Sabres have also been playing good team D all year. They're not giving up alot of quality chances, and they haven't had trouble holding onto a lead like last year. There's no way you can discount the D entirely. Where do they rank on shots against and takeaways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Where do they rank on shots against and takeaways? They rank right about in the middle in shots against, not sure about takeaways. They also have a 100% winning percentage when leading after 2 periods, in case you wanted me to reciprocate by throwing out a relatively minor stat that happens to support my assertion. More importantly, I watch the games and to me it's fairly obvious that the D is playing well this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric in Akron Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 You've convinced me. We should definitely fire Ruff right now, even though we are in first place AND are 6-2-2 in our last ten games, because we might start sucking later in the season. :doh: I don't think I said fire Lindy, I think a change needs to occur. Shake up the top 6 by a couple trades... Let's face it, these guys are not burying quality chances (and they do get some odd man rushes). They just can't finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 They rank right about in the middle in shots against, not sure about takeaways. They also have a 100% winning percentage when leading after 2 periods, in case you wanted me to reciprocate by throwing out a relatively minor stat that happens to support my assertion. More importantly, I watch the games and to me it's fairly obvious that the D is playing well this year. I have a feeling if Miller was having, for him, an average year, we'd be talking about the defense more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 I don't think I said fire Lindy, I think a change needs to occur. Shake up the top 6 by a couple trades... OK, but you quoted my post which was 100% about firing Ruff, so naturally I assumed that's what you meant by "making changes". Thanks for clarifying. Let's face it, these guys are not burying quality chances (and they do get some odd man rushes). They just can't finish. No question about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 It is Lindy Ruff. Period, end of conversation. I mean, really people, facts speak alot louder than guessing. Take a look at the rafters in HSBC Arena, I don't see any Stanley Cup banners up there. 11 years is wwwwwwwaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy to much time for 1 guy to be at the helm without anything other than the "we almost did it" verbage being bantered about. It is time for Lindy to go, same with Darcy Reiger. To win and win it all will take another duo. Darcy and Lindy have not done it, I see nothing, not one thing that points to a successful Cup run. They had their chance with Drury/Briere to run for the Cup, fell short 2 years in a row. They then dismantled that Cup contending team for what ever reason. The point is, its time for them to go. You wouldn't keep your job if you weren't achieving the goals set by your companies owner, why should it be any different for them, a job is a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbossy Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Darcy, yes. Lindy no. Darcy puts the team together and Lindy coaches. Lindy seems to be on top of the game to game action. Darcy WAS the trendsetter NOW he's just following the rest of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 It is Lindy Ruff. Period, end of conversation. I mean, really people, facts speak alot louder than guessing. Take a look at the rafters in HSBC Arena, I don't see any Stanley Cup banners up there. 11 years is wwwwwwwaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy to much time for 1 guy to be at the helm without anything other than the "we almost did it" verbage being bantered about. It is time for Lindy to go, same with Darcy Reiger. To win and win it all will take another duo. Darcy and Lindy have not done it, I see nothing, not one thing that points to a successful Cup run. They had their chance with Drury/Briere to run for the Cup, fell short 2 years in a row. They then dismantled that Cup contending team for what ever reason. The point is, its time for them to go it'll be time for them to go during the offseason if the Sabres underachieve again this year, or possibly during the season if the Sabres go on a major losing streak that is potentially playoff-threatening. You wouldn't keep your job if you weren't achieving the goals set by your companies owner, why should it be any different for them, a job is a job. Fixed. I agree with everything else in your post, we just disagree on the timing. They made the decision to bring Ruff back for this season. Now that the season is almost halfway over and our team is in first place in the division and 6-2-2 in their last ten, that means that for now he is in the process of achieving the goals set by the company's owner, to use your analogy. If/when the bottom falls out, then I'll be right there with ya, torch in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted December 27, 2009 Report Share Posted December 27, 2009 Fixed. I agree with everything else in your post, we just disagree on the timing. They made the decision to bring Ruff back for this season. Now that the season is almost halfway over and our team is in first place in the division and 6-2-2 in their last ten, that means that for now he is in the process of achieving the goals set by the company's owner, to use your analogy. If/when the bottom falls out, then I'll be right there with ya, torch in hand. Well cdexchange, you are right actually. The problem with that scenairio is if Ruff stays till the end of the season, we have 0 chance of signing Kovalchuck. As I have repeatedly stated, you want to compete with Wash. and Pitt. for the next 3 or 4 seasons, then make the trade (Vanek package for Kovalchuck). Someone else brought up Eric Staal, we can actually put together 2 package deals to get both players. This would deplete our top 2 lines, but hell, I would dismantle them on merit alone. You bring in Kovy and Staal you can bring in AHL talent along with a lesser trade to complete the reconfiguration of lines 1 & 2. The point is, you want to compete against these jaugernaughts, make the moves to do so. But ya, I can see where Ruff and Reiger will stay until the end of the season, I agree with you. Really sad though, Miller and the defense are ready now. Just another bad Karma situation I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Yes, Lindy stifles offensive talent. The numbers over 12 years back it up. Really, does that include the year the Sabres led the NHL in goals and had 26 more than the 2nd place team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Really, does that include the year the Sabres led the NHL in goals and had 26 more than the 2nd place team? Yes matter2003, it does. 1 out of 12, do the math. Where were the numbers for the remaining 11 seasons? Oh ya, thats right, wouldn't want to bring those up would we now. Face reality, Darcy and Lindy need to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Really, does that include the year the Sabres led the NHL in goals and had 26 more than the 2nd place team? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Yes matter2003, it does. 1 out of 12, do the math. Where were the numbers for the remaining 11 seasons? Oh ya, thats right, wouldn't want to bring those up would we now. Face reality, Darcy and Lindy need to go. They were 3rd in the East and 5th in the NHL in 2005-06 and 2nd in the East and 4th in the NHL in 2007-08 ... so, 3 out of 12. Edit: oops, 2007-08, too. Edit 2: 6th in the East and 10th in the NHL in 2003-04 and 7th in the East and 12th in the NHL 2008-09 isn't exactly terrible Edit 3: had to correct for those pesky SO GWG numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Yes matter2003, it does. 1 out of 12, do the math. Where were the numbers for the remaining 11 seasons? Oh ya, thats right, wouldn't want to bring those up would we now. Face reality, Darcy and Lindy need to go. Well, your argument is based on easily checkable statistics and when faced with the reality of your wrongness I am sure you will find some other point to argue. Here are where the Sabres rank in goals the last 12 years: 17 17 20 16 17 25 10 6 <---post lockout start 1 4 11 25 So I am to believe that a team ranking 6th, 1st, 4th and 11th in goals in the 4 full seasons after the lockout is being "stifled"? Give me a break. At least check your facts before you post such drivel, because I will check them for you if you don't. Even before the lockout, they were much more often in the middle of the pack than at the bottom if the NHL. The 25th in goals is where the Sabres are currently, leading their division with 50 points...guess Ruff decided that trying to outscore the other team wasn't working so well the past 2 years...can't argue with the results so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Well, your argument is based on easily checkable statistics and when faced with the reality of your wrongness I am sure you will find some other point to argue. Here are where the Sabres rank in goals the last 12 years: 17 17 20 16 17 25 10 6 <---post lockout start 1 4 11 25 So I am to believe that a team ranking 6th, 1st, 4th and 11th in goals in the 4 full seasons after the lockout is being "stifled"? Give me a break. At least check your facts before you post such nonsense, because I will check them for you if you don't. Even before the lockout, they were much more often in the middle of the pack than at the bottom if the NHL. The 25th in goals is where the Sabres are currently, leading their division with 50 points...guess Ruff decided that trying to outscore the other team wasn't working so well the past 2 years...can't argue with the results so far. Oh ya, right, some how, through out my time watching the Sabres, I forget just how much Drury/Briere contributed to the offense. So, just so you and I are clear, let me get this straight: 1. Outside of the season prior to the lockout every single season was in the "BOTTOM HALF" of the scoring pool, correct? 2. Since the departure of Drury/Briere the scoring pool for the Sabres has once again steadily marched down hill, is this also correct? 3. Outside of 2 seasons, the Buffalo Sabres have not had a "serious" scoring threat and have been effectively nuetralized by other teams, correct? 4. Ya, right, I'll buy into the "But we have a great goaltender and are 1st in our division" stipulation. PLEASE, SPARE ME. ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT BUFFALO HAS A CHANCE AGAINST PITT OR WASH COME PLAYOFF TIME, I REALLY.........REALLY..............REALLY WANT WHAT YOUR SMOKIN! WITHOUT A KOVALCHUCK TYPE PLAYER THIS TEAM CANNOT COMPETE WITH THAT FIREPOWER, end of conversation. Take it at face value, or live the 39 years I have lived, hope, without hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Oh ya, right, some how, through out my time watching the Sabres, I forget just how much Drury/Briere contributed to the offense. So, just so you and I are clear, let me get this straight: Neither was here in 2007-08 when they were second in the East and fourth in the NHL in goals for per game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Neither was here in 2007-08 when they were second in the East and fourth in the NHL in goals for per game. Which of course, will bring me back to the statement I have made time and time again. Scoring 6 goals in 12 games and 2 in 25 games won't win you much. Come on now, nuff said on this subject. The reality, whether or not fans want to admit it, is what it is. A trade is needed to bring in some "REAL" offensive firepower. This isn't some board game on a table at holiday time, this is a business. It makes complete sense to bring in the talent to finish or complete the task at hand. What is that task you ask? TO WIN A STANLEY CUP. I've been through the French Connection, Patty and Alex, Hasek and most recent, the Drury and Briere teams. So now, after much experience as a fan, I say again: The goaltending is ready, the defense is good, lets bring in the talent to "Finish The Job"! Scoring, whether or not fans wish to admist it, is the zenith of this sport. Why bother defending a team that refuses to make the changes necessary to a "REAL" competitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 They rank right about in the middle in shots against, not sure about takeaways. They also have a 100% winning percentage when leading after 2 periods, in case you wanted me to reciprocate by throwing out a relatively minor stat that happens to support my assertion. More importantly, I watch the games and to me it's fairly obvious that the D is playing well this year. 21st out of 30 teams is the middle? I consider that bottom third. Tonight they gave up 35 to a team averaging 29.4 per game. It's interesting you think stats like shots against, turn overs, takeaways and power plays are "relatively minor stats." The leading after two periods stat falls directly on Miller and his ability to close teams out this year. Again it is a stat that the Sabres do well in and Lindy has little influence on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Well, your argument is based on easily checkable statistics and when faced with the reality of your wrongness I am sure you will find some other point to argue. Here are where the Sabres rank in goals the last 12 years: 17 17 20 16 17 25 10 6 <---post lockout start 1 4 11 25 So I am to believe that a team ranking 6th, 1st, 4th and 11th in goals in the 4 full seasons after the lockout is being "stifled"? Give me a break. At least check your facts before you post such drivel, because I will check them for you if you don't. Even before the lockout, they were much more often in the middle of the pack than at the bottom if the NHL. The 25th in goals is where the Sabres are currently, leading their division with 50 points...guess Ruff decided that trying to outscore the other team wasn't working so well the past 2 years...can't argue with the results so far. Aha! This is the plan! Finish 25th in goals. We got em right where we want em. Brilliant. Oh yeah, Lindy also sucks at coaching the power play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 3. Outside of 2 seasons, the Buffalo Sabres have not had a "serious" scoring threat and have been effectively nuetralized by other teams, correct? what do u mean by "serious"? Like a guy who can score 40 goals in a season like Vanek? A couple of others that can get 30-35 like Roy and Pominville? Not sure what we are talking about here. I find it funny people who know hockey are raving about Vanek's defensive play this year and about how good he is playing in games even when he is not scoring, yet people who post on message boards somehow know more than all these people and say he sucks... I am pretty sure he hasn't forgotten how to score after getting 144 goals in his first 4 seasons. Obviously what he is being asked to do by Ruff is a little different this year, as it is for most of the team. I suppose we would rather watch them skate up and down the ice all night and trade odd man rush after odd man rush with the other team tho, even when it results in us missing the playoffs the last 2 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 The reality, whether or not fans want to admit it, is what it is. A trade is needed to bring in some "REAL" offensive firepower. This isn't some board game on a table at holiday time, this is a business. It makes complete sense to bring in the talent to finish or complete the task at hand. What is that task you ask? The argument was whether Lindy stifles offenses or not. So, if the only reason that LR/DR teams have had any sort of offense was that they had CD and DB for those particular years, is it Lindy's fault that he's only had players of that offensive caliber for a handful of seasons? They've had mid-tier talent on offense for most of the non-CD/DB seasons and, with the exception of 2002-03 when they were 12th in the East and 25th in the NHL, they've been middle of the pack, maybe slightly below, with a few well above average seasons in those years. I don't believe that anyone here actually believes that they don't need to acquire some more firepower on offense. The question is whether another coach could get more out the current lineup and any new acquisitions offensively without an offsetting reduction in defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 Aha! This is the plan! Finish 25th in goals. We got em right where we want em. Brilliant. Oh yeah, Lindy also sucks at coaching the power play. 25th in goals, but their +16 goal differential is among the best in the NHL(tied for 7th best in the league). You win games by scoring more than the other team---period. It doesn't matter if its 2-1 or 1-0 or 10-1 or 5-4. You don't get any bonus points for style... Miller has been the best goalie in the NHL and its in no small part because of the Sabres renewed commitment to defensive play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 21st out of 30 teams is the middle? I consider that bottom third. Tonight they gave up 35 to a team averaging 29.4 per game. It's interesting you think stats like shots against, turn overs, takeaways and power plays are "relatively minor stats." The leading after two periods stat falls directly on Miller and his ability to close teams out this year. Again it is a stat that the Sabres do well in and Lindy has little influence on. I completely agree, Miller has been the difference this season. You want to win a Stanley Cup, start thinking outside of the "Hockey Box". Start thinking major trades and minor ones, otherwise, you will have the feeling I have after 39 years. That of "Almosts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static70 Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 The argument was whether Lindy stifles offenses or not. So, if the only reason that LR/DR teams have had any sort of offense was that they had CD and DB for those particular years, is it Lindy's fault that he's only had players of that offensive caliber for a handful of seasons? They've had mid-tier talent on offense for most of the non-CD/DB seasons and, with the exception of 2002-03 when they were 12th in the East and 25th in the NHL, they've been middle of the pack, maybe slightly below, with a few well above average seasons in those years. I don't believe that anyone here actually believes that they don't need to acquire some more firepower on offense. The question is whether another coach could get more out the current lineup and any new acquisitions offensively without an offsetting reduction in defense. This too, I agree with. But, it must be stated, for clarity of fact, that when Lindy has had the talent to complete the task, he has failed. Granted, injuries, lack of performence and down right bad luck has contributed, but at the end of the day, 11 years without success is just that, 11 years without success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.