Calvin Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Right, because that type of player is always available and easy to acquire. No you halfwit, because you have to go out and spend to acquire one of them, they don't just fall out of the sky. DO you even follow the conversations on this board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. These guys are pretty impartial, unlike the Ducks pair. I actually enjoyed the commentators yesterday, they were impartial, knowledgeable and not interminably dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Fairly happy I guess. Those are the points we used to lose. Exciting game to watch, no problems staying awake for that one. Can we please keep the puck it when it gets tossed back to the point? Kings kept those in all night. Rivet gets his first of the year, this should help him along. Pommers with his 300th consecutive game. Wow. Craig Ramsay had 776, holy sh!t. That's because when we got the puck there was someone right there to challenge the point man. In Lindy's system the points are completely uncovered with our wingers in no-man's land. It's a problem when we win. It's a bigger one when we lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 No you halfwit, because you have to go out and spend to acquire one of them, they don't just fall out of the sky. DO you even follow the conversations on this board? Halfwit? Not a complete wit? Sorry, I'm new here. What are we talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Bingo...at least do something different. The entire SO against the Islanders, he played everything the same - seemed too deep in the net and the scorers deked him pretty easily. I don't remember the last time someone just shot the puck past him...it's all been forehand to backhand or vice versa. The announcer said it last night - Miller's strength is positioning and footwork more so than his athleticism. Once he gets out too far or back too deep in the crease, it doesn't seem like he's quick enough to recover. This makes NO sense. The old saying is that when the goalie is out of the net you deke - when he deep in the net you shoot. Having Miller play further out increases the player's ability to deke - not reduce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 No you halfwit, because you have to go out and spend to acquire one of them, they don't just fall out of the sky. For this year, it's not a matter of spending, it's a matter of finding one that another team is willing to trade away and being willing to give up what it will take (picks, prospects, players.) In the offseason, you can pay for it if you have the cap space and such a player is available. Last year, Saku Koivu and Mike Cammalleri were pretty much the only two that I can think of who met that criteria. Our team is already a little too much on the small/soft side as it is. Plus, the Sabres didn't have nearly enough available cap space (once they re-signed Connolly) to bring in either of those two without getting rid of someone else with an inflated contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlecap Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 LA's tying goal was a side-to side pass with an unlucky bounce off a Sabres defenseman right to Smyth. Too bad Stafford couldn't simply cover Smyth on that play...it was a crucial time in the game to be caught like that. Shootouts are yet another manufactured rule by the Bettman administration. (I can't wait until they leave office) If you're a team who ties alot in regulation, (Sabres) then picking up a shoot-out specialist, like a Jussi Jokinen or Rob Schremp or a even a Kotalik, might be a good way to get a half-dozen cheap wins, as long as they're not too flawed as players. Sounds like Kotalik is on the outs with the Rangers to me... http://rangers.lohudblogs.com/2010/01/21/its-go-time-5/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 might be a good way to get a half-dozen cheap wins, as long as they're not too flawed as players. Sounds like Kotalik is on the outs with the Rangers to me... It won't get you a half-dozen cheap wins, especially not over the remainder of the season. Those guys make maybe 2/3 of their SO attempts, so at best, you get two thirds of the points that you would have lost. That means, we'd need 9 more SOs. Then, there's the fact that in a game like last night, even if that player makes it, they're still just tied at the end of three (even worse is a game where you lost 2-0.) Roughly speaking, let's say that tied means they are 50/50 to win after that. Then, you'll need a lot more than just 9 SOs to get 6 cheap wins. They've only been in seven this year and only lost five. Even if that player didn't cost them any points along the way, you're probably looking 2 more points than they have. Now, Jussi Jokinen is an interesting one. I actually started a thread about how I was surprised that nobody, including the Sabres, picked him up off of waivers (Carolina traded for him after he cleared to dump some salary.) He is strong on faceoffs and decent offensively (including being very strong in the SO.) He ended up being a beast (3 GWG) for Carolina in the playoffs last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Daughty complained about being interfered with before Vanek's goal, but he'll be lucky if the league doesn't look at what he did afterwords: Two-handed baseball swings with the stick usually aren't looked upon to well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 It won't get you a half-dozen cheap wins, especially not over the remainder of the season. Those guys make maybe 2/3 of their SO attempts, so at best, you get two thirds of the points that you would have lost. That means, we'd need 9 more SOs. Then, there's the fact that in a game like last night, even if that player makes it, they're still just tied at the end of three (even worse is a game where you lost 2-0.) Roughly speaking, let's say that tied means they are 50/50 to win after that. Then, you'll need a lot more than just 9 SOs to get 6 cheap wins. They've only been in seven this year and only lost five. Even if that player didn't cost them any points along the way, you're probably looking 2 more points than they have. Yes...especially the bolded part. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Wings Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 This makes NO sense. The old saying is that when the goalie is out of the net you deke - when he deep in the net you shoot. Having Miller play further out increases the player's ability to deke - not reduce it. Sorry....hadn't finished my coffee yet....my bad. :oops: You're right. I was thinking that Miller was getting beat by the deke and somehow related it to be him being too deep. Even the analyst said during the shootout that Miller was starting too far out of the net. Back to my non-caffeinated world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Daughty complained about being interfered with before Vanek's goal, but he'll be lucky if the league doesn't look at what he did afterwords: Two-handed baseball swings with the stick usually aren't looked upon to well. I doubt he'll get anything for that, seeing the video again he clearly thought the better of it mid-swing, and took some force off. No doubt it stung all the same though. With regards to the interference - He and Vanek are fighting for position. Vanek gets the upper hand as the PK is getting low on gas and Doughty is off-balance, which is when he decides to take a dive even Mark Recchi would be proud of and hope for a call. I suppose we've seen those called sometimes and sometimes not, but my take on it is that he makes sure it isn't called by falling to the ice like he'd been gunned down at high noon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Sorry....hadn't finished my coffee yet....my bad. :oops: You're right. I was thinking that Miller was getting beat by the deke and somehow related it to be him being too deep. Even the analyst said during the shootout that Miller was starting too far out of the net. Back to my non-caffeinated world. Speaking of caffeine, I'm finishing a Diet Coke with a large bowl of Ryan Miller's Perry's ice cream. Dark chocolate, fudge chunks and raspberry pieces of some sort. The crash off this sugar rush is going to be epic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Speaking of caffeine, I'm finishing a Diet Coke with a large bowl of Ryan Miller's Perry's ice cream. Dark chocolate, fudge chunks and raspberry pieces of some sort. The crash off this sugar rush is going to be epic! Man! I just read the description on the Ryan Miller ice cream.. damn! How do I get this?? Perry's is not really available out here in Boston, and for sure the Miller ice cream wouldn't be sold here. Unfortunately Perry's don't have an online store either! Unless he goes and leads US to the gold no chance I get some of that.. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Man! I just read the description on the Ryan Miller ice cream.. damn! How do I get this?? Perry's is not really available out here in Boston, and for sure the Miller ice cream wouldn't be sold here. Unfortunately Perry's don't have an online store either! Unless he goes and leads US to the gold no chance I get some of that.. :( It's not that great. Extremely rich. Doesn't hold its texture, even on a cold day. But it works when you're in a sugar pinch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbossy Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 It's not that great. Extremely rich. Doesn't hold its texture, even on a cold day. But it works when you're in a sugar pinch. Because TG dumped in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Speaking of caffeine, I'm finishing a Diet Coke with a large bowl of Ryan Miller's Perry's ice cream. Dark chocolate, fudge chunks and raspberry pieces of some sort. The crash off this sugar rush is going to be epic! Good God. Are you also listening to Britney and texting your bff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bottlecap Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 I had to just laugh after Vanek scored. Myers kinda hit Vanek from behind to congratulate him and Vanek winced and stumbled around as though he was shot. Maybe V has a low threshold for pain. Myers has hit Vanek before, with shots too. Is he out to get Vanek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Good God. Are you also listening to Britney and texting your bff? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 I had to just laugh after Vanek scored. Myers kinda hit Vanek from behind to congratulate him and Vanek winced and stumbled around as though he was shot. Maybe V has a low threshold for pain. Myers has hit Vanek before, with shots too. Is he out to get Vanek? Did you not see the two-handed slash he took on the back of the leg from Doughty after he scored the goal? Look again. Should have been a penalty for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Did you not see the two-handed slash he took on the back of the leg from Doughty after he scored the goal? Look again. Should have been a penalty for sure. Any violent penalty incurred after a goal has been scored should incur an immediate game misconduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Good God. Are you also listening to Britney and texting your bff? y dnt u anser me How am I doing, chz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 How am I doing, chz? must... resist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 I doubt he'll get anything for that, seeing the video again he clearly thought the better of it mid-swing, and took some force off. No doubt it stung all the same though. With regards to the interference - He and Vanek are fighting for position. Vanek gets the upper hand as the PK is getting low on gas and Doughty is off-balance, which is when he decides to take a dive even Mark Recchi would be proud of and hope for a call. I suppose we've seen those called sometimes and sometimes not, but my take on it is that he makes sure it isn't called by falling to the ice like he'd been gunned down at high noon. No serious injury = no post-game league review. The NHL still hasn't learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.