Marvelo Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 I think it was pretty clear 4 shifts in that Buffalo's skaters had no legs. Roy had no burst. Hecht had no legs. Grier's knee is shot. Ennis-Gerbe-Vanek-Boyes-Stafford-Mancari-Gaustad-McCormick Ruff had no choice but to throw out lines that hadn't worked together all year. Sad end. But like chess...you are limited when the major pieces come off the board. I contend the Flyers were out to hurt our big guys, targeting Pominville, Vanek and Connolly. I haven't heard anyone say Van Riemsdyk left the ice and kicked Pominville on purpose but I'm here to say it. Nothing personal, they just wanted to take our guys out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Montador had a horrible series but he was good for us for most of this season and led the team in plus/minus. Not that you're suggesting it, but no matter what he meant to the team through the season, I can't envision a scenario where the team re-signs a guy who was a healthy scratch in game 7 of a playoff series. That ship has sailed. I contend the Flyers were out to hurt our big guys, targeting Pominville, Vanek and Connolly. I haven't heard anyone say Van Riemsdyk left the ice and kicked Pominville on purpose but I'm here to say it. Nothing personal, they just wanted to take our guys out. I can't believe I'm responding to this, but that assumption about JVR is absolutely ludicrous. We're better than this. Let's not throw ridiculous statements like that one around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Not that you're suggesting it, but no matter what he meant to the team through the season, I can't envision a scenario where the team re-signs a guy who was a healthy scratch in game 7 of a playoff series. That ship has sailed. I don't think it's impossible but my guess is that they'll try to sign a bigger name for the blueline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 I contend the Flyers were out to hurt our big guys, targeting Pominville, Vanek and Connolly. I haven't heard anyone say Van Riemsdyk left the ice and kicked Pominville on purpose but I'm here to say it. Nothing personal, they just wanted to take our guys out. No doubt they want to knock guys out.....war of attrition... However I think kicking someone on purpose is unthinkable..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 I think it was pretty clear 4 shifts in that Buffalo's skaters had no legs. Roy had no burst. Hecht had no legs. Grier's knee is shot. wasn't sure if you were offering this to support paul hamilton's (and vogl's) self-styled theory that the team was out of gas, etc. the guys you mention above had no jump, couldn't skate -- but that was because of injuries and time away. hamilton (and vogl) appear to have been talking about "out of gas" with respect to the skaters who'd been active since the new year (and had been ground to a fine dust, it was implied). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 wasn't sure if you were offering this to support paul hamilton's (and vogl's) self-styled theory that the team was out of gas, etc. the guys you mention above had no jump, couldn't skate -- but that was because of injuries and time away. hamilton (and vogl) appear to have been talking about "out of gas" with respect to the skaters who'd been active since the new year (and had been ground to a fine dust, it was implied). I'm not sure what Hamilton saw because I hadn't listened...I just think that Roy and Hecht were clearly not skating. Which pretty much scuttled the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 No doubt they want to knock guys out.....war of attrition... However I think kicking someone on purpose is unthinkable..... I don't put anything past the Flyers. In the replay it looks like he has a backwards kicking motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 No doubt they want to knock guys out.....war of attrition... However I think kicking someone on purpose is unthinkable..... {Not Saying I agree that it was on purpose} For most teams i would agree, but for the Flyers, its a possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 {Not Saying I agree that it was on purpose} For most teams i would agree, but for the Flyers, its a possibility Just a missed check is the most reasonable explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Norman Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Lindy's strategy the whole series was to play defensively first and attempt to be opportunistic offensively. And it ALMOST worked. We never really attempted to sustain a forecheck, nor to generate scoring chances to the degree I believe we were capable of. The primary focus was to collapse everyone between the circles and clear away people and rebounds from in front of Miller, and rely on Ryan to make a few key stops along the way. Watch the two shutouts and that's exactly what happened. For anyone that has played organized hockey in their lives, you know how taxing it is to backcheck hard and also to get pounded along the boards in the defensive zone for long stretches. It is so much easier mentally and physically (not to mention more fun) to be on the offense, making plays, skating "downhill," and hemming the other team in their zone than it is to play in a defensive, "prevent the quality chances" mode. We played the ENTIRE series, IMO, following the defensive strategy. Were it not for some putrid goaltending on Philly's side, giving the illusion of some Sabres offense, I think Ruff's desire was to eke out 1-0 or 2-1 wins for every game in the series. Can you call it "playing not to lose?" I wouldn't take it that far, myself. When we got up two or three goals, the defensive strategy was even more prevalent. No attempt to really generate offense, just try to protect the lead. Compound that with a seemingly relentless Flyers forechecking attack, the Sabres' inability to consistently make head-man passes out of their zone, and the physical pounding we took as a result of all the defensive zone time, and, yeah, I believe we were really out of gas by the third period of Game Six. After having played on the defensive for so long in the series (a credit to Philly's forecheck, too), the Sabres didn't have anything left to give when we really did need offense. I was disappointed as hell when the team didn't come out with abandon to do nothing but put pucks on net and seize the series at home in Game Six. Lindy rolled the dice and lost in OT when the defensive strategy came up short and a golden opportunity to end it was lost. In retrospect, was it the right strategic priority to attempt to take away Philly's strength (their offense) or should the Sabres have attempted to exploit their weakness more (goaltending)? I think the Sabres attempted the former at the expense of the latter, big time. And, like I said, it almost worked, and it would have been genius had we closed the Flyers out after six. But it took the life out of the team in the process and that cost us in Game 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Lindy's strategy the whole series was to play defensively first and attempt to be opportunistic offensively. I have to disagree here. The Sabres weren't trying to shell, although Ruff did switch to 1-3-1 in the second periods... they fore-checked too mostly first and 3rd periods...they just couldn't get defense-men off the ice with the long changes in the 2nd periods and overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Enabler Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 General comments from an ex-pat listener to GR are that they frequently reeeeeaaaaach for conversation and storylines. I have been recently using a WGR app to see whats up. I like the pre-game interviews with coaches and players, obviously the RJ broadcasts, and the occasional knucklehead callers they take and cut off and say thank you to?!? why bother? They rarely have decent conversations with callers back and forth; maybe its just me. If and when I am in Buffalo regularly, I rarely listen; info is generally much cleaner to get online or on Sabrespace! :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 I think it was pretty clear 4 shifts in that Buffalo's skaters had no legs. Roy had no burst. Hecht had no legs. Grier's knee is shot. Ennis-Gerbe-Vanek-Boyes-Stafford-Mancari-Gaustad-McCormick Ruff had no choice but to throw out lines that hadn't worked together all year. Sad end. But like chess...you are limited when the major pieces come off the board. True, that 4 on 4 looked extremely bad. Fortunately, there was 1 Sabre (Miller) that could play that shift and 1 Phlyer (Giroux) that got a bad case of the oopsies. To me, the moment of the game that was bigger was the Briere hit on Niedermayer and the ensuing 0 shots on the pp. Prior to that, the Sabres had been knocking some of the Phlyers around (Danny into a goalpost, Leino into anything / one they could find). After that, they lost a lot of the fight (or Filly picked it up another notch). Throw in the goal w/ 18 ticks left, and they seemed to admit to themselves that the Phlyers were better. Gaustad seemed worn down to me. For the rest, it was simply a case of, player by player (except goalie) the Phlyers had the better one. That the team could have the lead in what would have been the deciding game w/ less than 10 to go says that Lindy did a pretty good job. And as rough as Monty looked at times, I would like to have seen him in the lineup because 5 noobs is at least 1 too many in a deciding game IMHO. (Though Lindy clearly saw playing Sekera rather than Montador as the lesser of 2 evils.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 What really hurt was that they constatly allowed Briere to sit behind the net and come in beside the net untouched alot of the time. You can't let someone with his ability do that or your gonna get burned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 We played the ENTIRE series, IMO, following the defensive strategy. this was a very well-stated critique of what went down in this series. i don't know that i agree 100% with what you're saying, but it gives me a lot more respect for the "out of gas" angle that others have taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Lindy's strategy the whole series was to play defensively first and attempt to be opportunistic offensively. And it ALMOST worked. We never really attempted to sustain a forecheck, nor to generate scoring chances to the degree I believe we were capable of. The primary focus was to collapse everyone between the circles and clear away people and rebounds from in front of Miller, and rely on Ryan to make a few key stops along the way. Watch the two shutouts and that's exactly what happened. For anyone that has played organized hockey in their lives, you know how taxing it is to backcheck hard and also to get pounded along the boards in the defensive zone for long stretches. It is so much easier mentally and physically (not to mention more fun) to be on the offense, making plays, skating "downhill," and hemming the other team in their zone than it is to play in a defensive, "prevent the quality chances" mode. We played the ENTIRE series, IMO, following the defensive strategy. Were it not for some putrid goaltending on Philly's side, giving the illusion of some Sabres offense, I think Ruff's desire was to eke out 1-0 or 2-1 wins for every game in the series. Can you call it "playing not to lose?" I wouldn't take it that far, myself. When we got up two or three goals, the defensive strategy was even more prevalent. No attempt to really generate offense, just try to protect the lead. Compound that with a seemingly relentless Flyers forechecking attack, the Sabres' inability to consistently make head-man passes out of their zone, and the physical pounding we took as a result of all the defensive zone time, and, yeah, I believe we were really out of gas by the third period of Game Six. After having played on the defensive for so long in the series (a credit to Philly's forecheck, too), the Sabres didn't have anything left to give when we really did need offense. I was disappointed as hell when the team didn't come out with abandon to do nothing but put pucks on net and seize the series at home in Game Six. Lindy rolled the dice and lost in OT when the defensive strategy came up short and a golden opportunity to end it was lost. In retrospect, was it the right strategic priority to attempt to take away Philly's strength (their offense) or should the Sabres have attempted to exploit their weakness more (goaltending)? I think the Sabres attempted the former at the expense of the latter, big time. And, like I said, it almost worked, and it would have been genius had we closed the Flyers out after six. But it took the life out of the team in the process and that cost us in Game 7. What the Sabres did for long stretches of the 7 games was not a defensive strategy, defensive shell, neutral zone trap, left wing lock, 1-3-1 or anything like that. It was very simply....a failure to be able to get the puck out of the zone...over and over and over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Did Paul Hamilton suffer recent head trauma? In a conversation about Stafford he threw out $5 mil a year. That would make the Pominville, Connolly and Hecht contracts look like bargains. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 "The Sabres were out of gas the last two games". Does this guy really believe the stuff he says. How can they be out of gas during the first round of the playoffs and if they had won, how would they have gone any further if they were "out of gas". Bottom line...the team laid two eggs in games where they could have eliminated the Flyers. My worst fear coming into the series is what doomed the Sabres...Buffalo's defense(and the coaching staff) could not handle the Flyers forecheck. They sure looked out of gas to me. Just watch the Third Period of Game 6 again if you need proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 They sure looked out of gas to me. Just watch the Third Period of Game 6 again if you need proof. Playing badly or uninspired hockey does not equal being out of gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Did Paul Hamilton suffer recent head trauma? In a conversation about Stafford he threw out $5 mil a year. That would make the Pominville, Connolly and Hecht contracts look like bargains. :doh: Stafford will get around $5 million per if they lock him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Stafford will get around $5 million per if they lock him up. $5 mil based on a 25-30 game stretch? I know I can't be the only person who finds this idea insane. I know he had a highly prolific stretch of games but he followed it up with 1 goal and 2 assists in a 7 game series where the Flyers goaltenders were giving away goals like Halloween candy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 $5 mil based on a 25-30 game stretch? I know I can't be the only person who finds this idea insane. I know he had a highly prolific stretch of games but he followed it up with 1 goal and 2 assists in a 7 game series where the Flyers goaltenders were giving away goals like Halloween candy. For a RW 25 goals is a damn good season. Stafford had 31 in 62 games and is only 25. How much is he worth? Just for fun, give us a number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korab rules Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 $5 mil based on a 25-30 game stretch? I know I can't be the only person who finds this idea insane. I know he had a highly prolific stretch of games but he followed it up with 1 goal and 2 assists in a 7 game series where the Flyers goaltenders were giving away goals like Halloween candy. And who were his centers during that series? Its amazing we scored any goals with that lineup. For a team that is supposed to have 2 of the top 20 centers in the league, I'm not sure we had one in the top 75 during that series. Our center play was truly horrible. I'm not pleased with Stafford's play during that series, but the effort was there and he was getting shots on goal. If he sinks that shot in the 3rd period of game 6 he's a hero. For a RW 25 goals is a damn good season. Stafford had 31 in 62 games and is only 25. How much is he worth? Just for fun, give us a number. 5 mill per is too rich. His resume is too short. I can live with 4x4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 For a RW 25 goals is a damn good season. Stafford had 31 in 62 games and is only 25. How much is he worth? Just for fun, give us a number. He was on pace for 41 goals and 28 assists (69 points) for a full 82 game season (which, yes, I know is not the same thing as actually accomplishing those stats, thank you Tim Connolly). So, let's examine other forwards in that neighborhood: Player Age Goals Assists Points 2011-12 Salary Ryan Kesler 26 41 32 73 $5M Bobby Ryan 24 34 37 71 $5.6M Jeff Carter 26 36 30 66 $5.2M (average of front-loaded contract) Patrick Sharp 29 34 37 71 $4.2M Patrick Marleau 31 37 36 73 $6.9M Factor in some points about Stafford: -Career year in 2010-11. Other campaigns were not as impressive (only 14-20-34 in 71 games a year ago). -Restricted free agent. This is expected to be his last RFA contract. -Significant special teams ice time in 2010-11: 19 of his 52 points came on PP. I think the Sabres will/should/could/better offer him between $4.6M-$5.4M per year on a 3-4 year contract. It would lock him in at a good market rate for his production and it would extend our rights to him for a couple of years into his UFA. The Sabres would only get screwed if he went all Connolly on us, but you can't always predict that, and even then you can trade or buy out (maybe a more approachable option now with Pegula?). And who knows, if we're lucky, maybe the Sabres make most of Stafford's salary back in hat sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Stafford will get around $5 million per if they lock him up. I'm going to be sick. Not at your prediction, mind you, but at the thought of another Pommer-like contract for Pommer-like performance. $5 mil based on a 25-30 game stretch? I know I can't be the only person who finds this idea insane. I know he had a highly prolific stretch of games but he followed it up with 1 goal and 2 assists in a 7 game series where the Flyers goaltenders were giving away goals like Halloween candy. You aren't. And who were his centers during that series? Its amazing we scored any goals with that lineup. For a team that is supposed to have 2 of the top 20 centers in the league, I'm not sure we had one in the top 75 during that series. Our center play was truly horrible. I'm not pleased with Stafford's play during that series, but the effort was there and he was getting shots on goal. If he sinks that shot in the 3rd period of game 6 he's a hero. 5 mill per is too rich. His resume is too short. I can live with 4x4. There have been a lot of posts lately seeking to excuse poor performance by Sabre wingers due to lousy centers. Here's something: last season, Gaborik had 42-44-86 for the Rangers (in 76 games) with worse centers than the Sabres have. Great players produce despite non-great linemates. I am decidedly not OK with giving Stafford $5MM or even $4MM per year. He's a career underachiever who got hot for a stretch this year and then disappeared in crunch time. I'll admit that I liked his overall game much better this year than ever before, and that he is a 25-year-old forward with good size and good hands and improved maturity, but still, there is NFW I would give him a big long-term contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.