X. Benedict Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Lemaire? I think you mean Jacques Martin, he is the Habs head coach. Not sure where Jacques Lemaire is, NJ maybe? Sniff one Jacques you've sniffed them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Sniff one Jacques you've sniffed them all. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Sniff one Jacques you've sniffed them all. McHoggoff!!! I couldn't think of that earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korab rules Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 So now that's a valid excuse to not give Ruff any credit? I'm not saying that I disagree necessarily, I'm only asking because I seem to recall you discounting that as an excuse when the Sabres found themselves in that situation in game seven ECF 2006, correct? Good post - don't hold your breath waiting for a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I think his ability to exploit weaknesses is a big reason he's been so good in the playoffs (looking past last year) First Round Record: 5-2 Second Round Record: 4-1 Until they get to the Conference Finals and run up against a (usually) vastly more talented team, he can learn and destroy over a seven game series. Lindy's also won the first game, on the road no less, three times in huge series: 98 ECF in Washington, 99 SCF in Dallas and 06 ECF in Carolina and lost all series in six games. It tells me the other coach made the adjustments and took Lindy to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Lindy's also won the first game, on the road no less, three times in huge series: 98 ECF in Washington, 99 SCF in Dallas and 06 ECF in Carolina and lost all series in six games. It tells me the other coach made the adjustments and took Lindy to school. Carolina/Buffalo in 2006 went to seven games. Should I bother looking up the other two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Lindy's also won the first game, on the road no less, three times in huge series: 98 ECF in Washington, 99 SCF in Dallas and 06 ECF in Carolina and lost all series in six games. It tells me the other coach made the adjustments and took Lindy to school. I could point to the last line in my post... or, I could write this: Sabres lost the Carolina Series because of Carolina's adjustments to our 9th/10th Defensemen. Sabres lost the Dallas Series because of Dallas's adjustment to new rules invented during the game. Sabres lost the Washington Series because of Washington's adjustments to a first year head caoch. And then agree with you completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Carolina/Buffalo in 2006 went to seven games. Should I bother looking up the other two? Thanks. :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I could point to the last line in my post... or, I could write this: Sabres lost the Carolina Series because of Carolina's adjustments to our 9th/10th Defensemen. Sabres lost the Dallas Series because of Dallas's adjustment to new rules invented during the game. Sabres lost the Washington Series because of Washington's adjustments to a first year head caoch. And then agree with you completely. :thumbsup: But that is nonsense in PA's world. Everything that goes wrong with the Sabres must fit neatly into the blame Miller and/or Ruff doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I could point to the last line in my post... or, I could write this: Sabres lost the Carolina Series because of Carolina's adjustments to our 9th/10th Defensemen. Sabres lost the Dallas Series because of Dallas's adjustment to new rules invented during the game. Sabres lost the Washington Series because of Washington's adjustments to a first year head caoch. And then agree with you completely. 3. Sounds like you're admitting Ruff wasn't good enough then to win a Cup. No disagreement there. 2. is ludicrous. Both teams knew about the rule clarification issued in March. There were no rules invented during the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 3. Sounds like you're admitting Ruff wasn't good enough then to win a Cup. No disagreement there. 2. is ludicrous. Both teams knew about the rule clarification issued in March. There were no rules invented during the series. Really? You want to show me where headbutts were legal prior to the finals that year? And backing up to the Caps series, the biggest thing that benefitted the Caps and the thing that changed the series was Kerry Frasier's blatent disregard for the rules in Game 2. Would the Caps have won the series had Frasier not awarded Bondra a goal and swallowed his whistle whenever a Cap player took liberties and the linesmen actually been able to call an icing? Perhaps. But I don't like their chances heading back to Buffalo down 2 games to zip without having scored in the series. (Without Bondra getting awarded a goal at the end of the 2nd, I don't see the Caps scoring in the 3rd of that game.) No way the Sabres beat Detroit that year, but I also don't see any way they get swept by them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calti Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Between Cousteau and Marlin Perkins, those were years of my Sunday nights. with the beginning of the show showing old marlin wrestling that boa in the swamp.. you gotta be 50 to remember that stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Really? You want to show me where headbutts were legal prior to the finals that year? And backing up to the Caps series, the biggest thing that benefitted the Caps and the thing that changed the series was Kerry Frasier's blatent disregard for the rules in Game 2. Would the Caps have won the series had Frasier not awarded Bondra a goal and swallowed his whistle whenever a Cap player took liberties and the linesmen actually been able to call an icing? Perhaps. But I don't like their chances heading back to Buffalo down 2 games to zip without having scored in the series. (Without Bondra getting awarded a goal at the end of the 2nd, I don't see the Caps scoring in the 3rd of that game.) No way the Sabres beat Detroit that year, but I also don't see any way they get swept by them either. I took the poster as suggesting there was no memo. The clarification to the rule was there. It was incorrectly applied to Hull's goal. But it existed. If I misread the poster, sorry. Taro, you know that sounds like a lot of sour grapes. Every franchise has a list of those atrocities, and when we hear them, we cry "whiner!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR HOLLIDAY Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I took the poster as suggesting there was no memo. The clarification to the rule was there. It was incorrectly applied to Hull's goal. But it existed. If I misread the poster, sorry. Taro, you know that sounds like a lot of sour grapes. Every franchise has a list of those atrocities, and when we hear them, we cry "whiner!" Taro T > PA......... :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 3. Sounds like you're admitting Ruff wasn't good enough then to win a Cup. No disagreement there. 2. is ludicrous. Both teams knew about the rule clarification issued in March. There were no rules invented during the series. 3. Yes I am admitting that it is unlikely a rookie coach has the chops to win the Stanley Cup. T 2. Your interpretation of this clarification is based on the idea that an individual player's possession of the puck continues during a shot, through the rebound and until another skater touches the puck. The "possession" referenced by Lewis in his explanation is the Shot-Rebound-Shot-Goal gives an assist to the first shooter because the team never lost possession. Clearly this rule was never meant to insinuate that the original shooter maintains possession of the puck until it hits the stick of the second shooter. I was in the sixth row on that side of the ice when this happened. I hated the crease rule, but I didn't need a replay to see that this was a bad goal. We can, however, blame that series on Miller. When Miller was 16 in 1996, he had a terrible case of acne and purchased a lot of Oxy products from the Mentholatum Company, a division of GlaxoSmithKline. Tom Hicks' Hicks Muse investment firm was heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry, and the extra revenue from Miller's purchases allowed the Stars to afford signing Ed Belfour. Belfour made hundreds of saves in the playoffs that year, all of which would have been prevented if Miller would have just had clear skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I took the poster as suggesting there was no memo. The clarification to the rule was there. It was incorrectly applied to Hull's goal. But it existed. If I misread the poster, sorry. I posted before I saw this. It takes a while to write a post with a 3-year-old mashing the keys every 30 seconds or so. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Ahhhh the game within the game. Nice catch X. On a side note, who else is madddddddddddd excited that the Sabres could be in 8th when the clock strikes midnight tonight (or likely 10:45)?! I, like many fans had pretty much written the season off in mid November. This run has been a huge bonus. Make the playoffs and who knows? :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 We can, however, blame that series on Miller. When Miller was 16 in 1996, he had a terrible case of acne and purchased a lot of Oxy products from the Mentholatum Company, a division of GlaxoSmithKline. Tom Hicks' Hicks Muse investment firm was heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry, and the extra revenue from Miller's purchases allowed the Stars to afford signing Ed Belfour. Belfour made hundreds of saves in the playoffs that year, all of which would have been prevented if Miller would have just had clear skin. Well done, sir. :clapping: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Taro T > PA......... :beer: No sh*t! But come on, don't you think there are Houston Oilers fans still complaining about Don Beebe stepping out of bounds before scoring in the Comeback Game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I think his ability to exploit weaknesses is a big reason he's been so good in the playoffs (looking past last year) First Round Record: 5-2 Second Round Record: 4-1 Until they get to the Conference Finals and run up against a (usually) vastly more talented team, he can learn and destroy over a seven game series. Too bad his "ability" hasn't been able to get the team into the playoffs more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 2. Your interpretation of this clarification is based on the idea that an individual player's possession of the puck continues during a shot, through the rebound and until another skater touches the puck. The "possession" referenced by Lewis in his explanation is the Shot-Rebound-Shot-Goal gives an assist to the first shooter because the team never lost possession. Clearly this rule was never meant to insinuate that the original shooter maintains possession of the puck until it hits the stick of the second shooter. I was in the sixth row on that side of the ice when this happened. I hated the crease rule, but I didn't need a replay to see that this was a bad goal. It was all about control, not possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Between Cousteau and Marlin Perkins, those were years of my Sunday nights. Don't forget Jim. as in, watch as Jim wrestles that anaconda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I took the poster as suggesting there was no memo. The clarification to the rule was there. It was incorrectly applied to Hull's goal. But it existed. If I misread the poster, sorry. Taro, you know that sounds like a lot of sour grapes. Every franchise has a list of those atrocities, and when we hear them, we cry "whiner!" Sorry if I'm sounding a little dense here, but are you saying that Hull's "goal" should not have counted (as in no-goal)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Sorry if I'm sounding a little dense here, but are you saying that Hull's "goal" should not have counted (as in no-goal)? Right. No goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Right. No goal. So, then (humor me here, please) are you saying that Hull's "no goal" goal is somehow Lindy's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.