Claude_Verret Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 I don't believe that is what happened for Chicago, Detroit, and Carolina. Those goalies played well. Their teams played extremely well. They didn't play like frnchise goalies. They didn't have to. What they didn't do is, they didn't get soft in the big games. You don't have to be playing like a franchise goalie to avoid soft goals. You just have to play to your ability. Didn't Ward win the Conn Smythe? I can't think of a better barometer to guage whether or not your goalie is playing at a franchise level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 My 2 cents: Strictly speaking, I don't think a franchise goalie is necessary to win a cup -- just someone who can deliver very good goaltending during a playoff run. However, I think a couple (or more) franchise PLAYERS are necessary to win a cup, and these can really be any position. Right now, Miller is the sabres' best player, followed by Myers and Vanek. If those 3 play at a franchise level (which none of them has this year), the Sabres can be real cup contenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Vanek sure did fire a shot across Ryan's bow. I can't remember the exact quote but something about letting in easy ones? Probably not an intentional shot but ad you said, Vanek never says anything too harsh in his interviews. I'd like to see a link to this...sounds interesting. Vanek shouldn't criticize anybody at this point. He misses plenty of chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Dance Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 What you need to win the Stanley Cup is a total team effort. Your goaltending can be just average IF your defense holds down shots on goal. Your goalie + defense can be just OK IF your offense scores 5+ goals/game. Last year, Philly's goaltending was certainly not all-world and the team wound up in the Finals. Hockey is, after all, a team sport. It's not how any one part of the team plays, it's how they work together. 'Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 I guess I really don't get the idea that good goaltending is easy to find... .If the playoffs started today, it's not like this bunch grows on trees. Loungo, Price, Bryzgalov, Fleury , Lundquist, Miller, Thomas, Niemi, Quick, Renne, Hiller, Crawford, Rolloson, Varlomov, Bobrovsky, Howard. If I'm Philly, I'm terrified that scoring goes cold in the playoffs, which it often does. Washington, I'm nervous about Varlomov. I actually think Tampa is a little surprised where they are, but Rolloson is the cagy vet in the B sports movie. Detroit is such a well oiled D that I'm feeling good about Lindstrom etc. in front of Howard... But other than those, the first 11 are great keepers. Crawford could be, and Howard could be in time, we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 I guess I really don't get the idea that good goaltending is easy to find... That is exactly my issue. When you have a known commodity like Ryan Miller there is a risk premium that you need to pay to have that peace of mind in my opinion. Under Pegula there is absolutely no reason to believe that you can't have Ryan Miller at his salary AND fill your other needs sufficiently as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 That is exactly my issue. When you have a known commodity like Ryan Miller there is a risk premium that you need to pay to have that peace of mind in my opinion. Under Pegula there is absolutely no reason to believe that you can't have Ryan Miller at his salary AND fill your other needs sufficiently as well. True. It's not like a Miller or a Luongo is a zero sum asset. Having one doesn't preclude the possibility of having a great center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted April 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 I'd like to see a link to this...sounds interesting. Vanek shouldn't criticize anybody at this point. He misses plenty of chances. Just go to the WGR audio vault and listen to Vanek's postage comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Just go to the WGR audio vault and listen to Vanek's postage comments. The "we didn't give 'em any freebie's" comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 My 2 cents: Strictly speaking, I don't think a franchise goalie is necessary to win a cup -- just someone who can deliver very good goaltending during a playoff run. However, I think a couple (or more) franchise PLAYERS are necessary to win a cup, and these can really be any position. Right now, Miller is the sabres' best player, followed by Myers and Vanek. If those 3 play at a franchise level (which none of them has this year), the Sabres can be real cup contenders. I agree with this sentiment. We've seen Miller play at a franchise level, so he has it in him. Vanek and Myers have yet to show franchise level performance. I think they both have it in them, but it needs to come out in a playoff season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Didn't Ward win the Conn Smythe? I can't think of a better barometer to guage whether or not your goalie is playing at a franchise level. Cam Ward may have been playing like a franchise goaltender in the 05-06 playoffs (not sure if that was really the case back then) but he was only a rookie who had played 28 games during the season. I believe Gerber started the playoffs as the #1. Can't find any game by game stats from back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 IMHO you just need a good goalie and for him to get on a hot streak come playoff time. Ideally I think the Philly/Chicago model gives you the best chance to win a cup. Many teams have been building teams like this. The core has to be your defense, they have to be good skaters and solid in all aspects of thier game. Then you have to have 2-3 elite 2way forwards that are gamechangers. Everything else you just have to get the most talent you can afford to fill out the roster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 IMHO you just need a good goalie and for him to get on a hot streak come playoff time. Ideally I think the Philly/Chicago model gives you the best chance to win a cup. Many teams have been building teams like this. The core has to be your defense, they have to be good skaters and solid in all aspects of thier game. Then you have to have 2-3 elite 2way forwards that are gamechangers. Everything else you just have to get the most talent you can afford to fill out the roster The Chicago model is the way to follow? Isn't that play horrible for several years to get very good young talented players; followed by overpaying for 1 'franchise' goalie; followed by overpaying for 2nd 'franchise' goalie; followed by bench 2nd franchise goalie and run w/ kid in net? It has obviously proven to be successful (they won), but I don't see it as being a viable model to emulate currently unless you're Edmonton. It also might be a '1 hit wonder' model as they aren't a certainty to make the playoffs this year (though I wouldn't bet against them making it) as all those kids had to eventually get paid which led to a lot of solid support pieces being jettisoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 We'll find out, won't we... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 I guess that depends on how you are defining "franchise" and I suspect mine will differ from yours. I would say that the Islanders don't have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 I would say that the Islanders don't have one. Now THAT is something we can agree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Now THAT is something we can agree on. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 What do all of these teams have in common? They have either drafted well throughout the draft (Detroit finding some top level guys late) or they have been drafting in the top 5 for a few years (Pittsburgh, Chicago, Carolina). All of those teams have Elite level talent elsewhere on the roster. Buffalo barely has guys that would be "top level" let alone "Elite" players outside of their goaltending. Theres no right or wrong way to build a team, the best way to do it is to get as much "top level" talent players as you can and play well. If you look at teams that are consistently good ever year, most of them all seem to have "franchise" goalies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 The Chicago model is the way to follow? Isn't that play horrible for several years to get very good young talented players; followed by overpaying for 1 'franchise' goalie; followed by overpaying for 2nd 'franchise' goalie; followed by bench 2nd franchise goalie and run w/ kid in net? It has obviously proven to be successful (they won), but I don't see it as being a viable model to emulate currently unless you're Edmonton. It also might be a '1 hit wonder' model as they aren't a certainty to make the playoffs this year (though I wouldn't bet against them making it) as all those kids had to eventually get paid which led to a lot of solid support pieces being jettisoned. I included Phily in there but sure lets focus on chicago. Yes the chicago model. Build from your defense out. Get 6 defensemen that skate good and have solid all around games with 2 being elite. get a couple elite 2 way forwards. The only thing chicago did badly is overpaying for crap goalies. Obiviously you don't just blindly do as they did, you manage your cap hits better for one. Also you don't have to play horrible for years and get good young talent. You can sign free agents. It's just a matter of courting the right ones and I think the Sabres are gonna be in the position to attract some good free agent interest now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.