bob_sauve28 Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 I chalk that up to being pre-conditioned to criticize Vanek whenever he passes and for fan's predilection for saying you should have done the opposite when something didn't woto complain. The defenseman did a good job of at least interrupting the flow of the play. Oh, he's brainwashed into hating Vanek? Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 I chalk that up to being pre-conditioned to criticize Vanek whenever he passes and for fan's predilection for saying you should have done the opposite when something didn't work. He had no momentum. He got spun around. He's flat-footed and he makes a backdoor pass. I'm not going to complain. The defenseman did a good job of at least interrupting the flow of the play. You think I'm pre-conditioned to criticize Vanek?! I mean, if it were Connolly or Stafford, sure. SDS, you're not reading many of my posts, apparently. I criticized Vanek because he made a poor play. In general, he's not on my ###### list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 What rebound was Roy going to pick up? :unsure: He was in no position to pickup any rebound. Vanek is taking way too long to make his wrong decisions. Had he shot it when he should have, Roy wouldn't have been past the net. On a side note, Ruff needs to get on these guys for skating past the net instead of to it. The past several games I've noticed several times where there were pucks there for the taking, just sitting in no-man's land in front of the net. Instead, guys would take their shot and then sulk behind the net when it didn't go in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 You think I'm pre-conditioned to criticize Vanek?! I mean, if it were Connolly or Stafford, sure. SDS, you're not reading many of my posts, apparently. I criticized Vanek because he made a poor play. In general, he's not on my ###### list. That was a generalization of all fans, not you specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 haha You had me for a second. I was about to explain the joke. You gotta say this -- Vanek the last two games has made some incredible moves to break in on goal. He just never seems to have anything left in the legs to do anything about it once he's in. There's life in Tom. It's a good sign. All in all, there's nothing wrong with the way this team has played the last three games. It's too bad they had to put themselves in the position they were in to finally wake up. :D I agree about Vanek. He is so much better when he keeps his feet moving, he just doesn't,.. often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 You think I'm pre-conditioned to criticize Vanek?! I mean, if it were Connolly or Stafford, sure. SDS, you're not reading many of my posts, apparently. I criticized Vanek because he made a poor play. In general, he's not on my ###### list. Ha ha! You don't even know we kiddnapped you in the middle of the night and forced you to listen to Ronan Tynan songs until you screamed you hated Vanek and loved big brother Lindey! Mission accomplished! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 Hold on. Didn't you think the hooking call on Leopold was cheap? Yeah, just seems like in general they're all over any hint of a stick penalty... but you rarely see interference calls even though if they really wanted to, they could call about 20 of 'em per game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 Vanek had a good game. - I know that sounds hard, but he was as strong on the puck as he's been all year. Hecht had a terrific game too. Leopold's penalty while chintzy, is a penalty, the refs have been pretty consistent with that crappy stick stuff. Interference is another matter....the Sabres interfere on entries as much as anyone else. It's just not called much. While losing sucks. The D-pairs are starting to get comfortable with each other. Although it is pretty clear the Rangers wanted Bulter in particular to play the puck behind the net. Interesting putting Roy on the point on the Umbrella on the powerplay and Myer on the right halfwall. Didn't work tonight, but gotta try something to spark that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 While losing sucks. The D-pairs are starting to get comfortable with each other. Although it is pretty clear the Rangers wanted Bulter in particular to play the puck behind the net.work tonight, but gotta try something to spark that. totally agree about the defense. They are looking much better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 Gotta agree with SDS on this one. Had Roy just tapped it in, everyone would be complimenting Vanek for stopping on a dime and putting the puck in a perfect position for Roy. He was a man possessed tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 Vanek had a good game. - I know that sounds hard, but he was as strong on the puck as he's been all year. Hecht had a terrific game too. Leopold's penalty while chintzy, is a penalty, the refs have been pretty consistent with that crappy stick stuff. Interference is another matter....the Sabres interfere on entries as much as anyone else. It's just not called much. While losing sucks. The D-pairs are starting to get comfortable with each other. Although it is pretty clear the Rangers wanted Bulter in particular to play the puck behind the net. Interesting putting Roy on the point on the Umbrella on the powerplay and Myer on the right halfwall. Didn't work tonight, but gotta try something to spark that. Good post, as always. Vanek has totally lost his mojo and can't bury it, but he still was pretty effective tonight. If he keeps playing like that, the goals will come. As for the D, the top 2 pairs have looked pretty good the last couple of games. I thought butler looked pretty shaky though, and Morrisson not much better. I wouldn't mind seeing Weber next game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 I chalk that up to being pre-conditioned to criticize Vanek whenever he passes and for fan's predilection for saying you should have done the opposite when something didn't work. He had no momentum. He got spun around. He's flat-footed and he makes a backdoor pass. I'm not going to complain. The defenseman did a good job of at least interrupting the flow of the play. That and he couldn't get the puck to settle before passing it to Roy. If he takes that shot, I'm willing to bet it sails high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 Damn, so Biron has now beaten us while playing for three different teams. Not bad considering none of them were for division teams. On a side note, had Vanek shot the puck and missed you'd all be crying because he didn't pass it....... you know it. :rolleyes: I think Vanek has played really well all year. I feel bad for him he doesn't have the numbers to show for it. He's certainly putting in much more effort than he did most of last year. If he doesn't get too down on himself and keeps playing the way he is, the goals will come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 Damn, so Biron has now beaten us while playing for three different teams. Not bad considering none of them were for division teams. On a side note, had Vanek shot the puck and missed you'd all be crying because he didn't pass it....... you know it. :rolleyes: I think Vanek has played really well all year. I feel bad for him he doesn't have the numbers to show for it. He's certainly putting in much more effort than he did most of last year. If he doesn't get too down on himself and keeps playing the way he is, the goals will come. He puts in a TON of effort; as I've said before, he's almost trying too hard. I actually think he's always put in a ton of effort. He should have shot the puck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 The only thing wrong with Vanek's pass was that Roy missed. Roy had a wide open net... After watching that play several times this morning, I think we are both right. Roy just chunked it, plain and simple, and if he had put it in we would be talking about what a great pass Vanek made. But I am also really frustrated watching Vanek this season in that he is not taking those shots. The puck didn't roll on him, it was completely settled, he just chose to pass. You only get so many opportunities to shoot on the goalie like that (especially with this team) and I wish he had the confidence to want to take that shot. I think our outrage (that's a little strong, let's say our miffedness) is directed more towards his body of work this season rather than just that particular play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 The next time the Sabres have a two on one break, Lindy needs to make a quick change. Off go Roy and Vanek, on go the corpse of Raymond Burr and the shell of a 1978 Pinto. Same results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 He's getting paid a lot of money to finish in those situations. Heck, Kovalchuk earned his money against us in OT. Vanek is heading towards the status of this teams number one all time bust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted November 12, 2010 Report Share Posted November 12, 2010 He's getting paid a lot of money to finish in those situations. Heck, Kovalchuk earned his money against us in OT. Vanek is heading towards the status of this teams number one all time bust He has 176 career goals in just over 400 games, including two 40-goal seasons. If he was our worst-ever bust, the rafters at HSBC Arena would be full of Stanley Cup Champion banners. If you want a terrible bust, try Artem Kruikov from the 2000 draft. We passed on Brooks Orpik to take him in the first round. He had concussion problems when we took him and never even played an NHL game. Now THAT is a candidate for all-time bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 He has 176 career goals in just over 400 games, including two 40-goal seasons. If he was our worst-ever bust, the rafters at HSBC Arena would be full of Stanley Cup Champion banners. If you want a terrible bust, try Artem Kruikov from the 2000 draft. We passed on Brooks Orpik to take him in the first round. He had concussion problems when we took him and never even played an NHL game. Now THAT is a candidate for all-time bust. He's not even close to Cyr-like. Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 He's getting paid a lot of money to finish in those situations. Heck, Kovalchuk earned his money against us in OT. Vanek is heading towards the status of this teams number one all time bust He has a long way to go to pass Connolly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 He has a long way to go to pass Connolly. Not a draft pick, but I'm fine with the characterization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Not a draft pick, but I'm fine with the characterization. Connolly cost the team a Captain and possibly a chance at the Stanley Cup. Vanek at best cost the Sabres the original draft pick and a bunch of Golisano's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 He has 176 career goals in just over 400 games, including two 40-goal seasons. If he was our worst-ever bust, the rafters at HSBC Arena would be full of Stanley Cup Champion banners. If you want a terrible bust, try Artem Kruikov from the 2000 draft. We passed on Brooks Orpik to take him in the first round. He had concussion problems when we took him and never even played an NHL game. Now THAT is a candidate for all-time bust. If there were more Vanek's we would have a Stanley Cup? :blink: Ohhh kay! Your comparison to that 2000 draft pick is problematical at best. Vanek isn't just some draft pick that didn't pan out. Those are a dime a dozen. He has a tremendous amount invested in him from this organization. We didn't waste a $10 million signing bonus and $7 mill a year {that's about right, isn't it?] plus gave up four first round draft picks--Edmontons picks no less!!-- for anyone else. Not to Cyr or Connolly. No, If Vanek doesn't somehow show he can score regularily again, he is, IMO, the biggest bust all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Connolly cost the team a Captain and possibly a chance at the Stanley Cup. Vanek at best cost the Sabres the original draft pick and a bunch of Golisano's money. Connolly did that??? Now, I'll say this, I would rather have Vanek than Connolly, but Vanek was really suppose to be the cornerstone of the forwards. Connolly was the often injured guy that always had potential and it never panned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Connolly did that??? Now, I'll say this, I would rather have Vanek than Connolly, but Vanek was really suppose to be the cornerstone of the forwards. Connolly was the often injured guy that always had potential and it never panned out. I am talking about the overall price to acquire the player. Connolly is as tied to the Peca situation as Vanek is being a top 5 draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts