Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Bait. I get it. It's true though. And one of the reasons bringing up Briere so much is valid. People want to get excited about and for me to trust the exact same machine that let those guys walk for an average difference of $750,000 each in negotiations, yet somehow found $5.3 for Pominville, $4.5 for Connolly, $3.5 for Hecht, and the Max/Al/Hank show...then had to overpay Vanek by $2 million because they lost control of the situation. Can you find one positive long term deal on this roster other than restricted players.....other than Roy? Everyone else either makes par, or is overpaid. You can argue that Drury would have been a mistake, but on a whole, Briere/Drury/Campbell/Dumont for $18 would have been a giant net win. Not to mention a Grier with gas in the tank, a young and cheap Pyatt, and heck, even McKee could have been done at $2.5 mil. It's a history.....when you fight over a few hundred thousand on a franchise guy and let him walk for 0 in return.....it deserves to be worn like a scarlet letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 You could have Briere, Dumont, Drury, Campbell, and Lydman on your team right now for $21 million...and for the last 4 years. Only Dumont fits any of those players you claim you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightrider Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 http://www.nhl.com/i...wName=timeOnIce Yeah it was the hits stat I was looking for. See the GDT for the stats I put together. Phew, they're the same!:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james duncan Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 All year Briere has been saying his numbers reflect being on Philly's third line...and defenses inability to match lines...and has compared the situation to Buffalo in 07. So imagine.... Van Riemsdyk,Giroux,Powe Zherdev,Richards Versteeg Briere, Leino, Hartnell What line do you stop? Please! Stop stating facts and logic already! It makes it much more difficult to dump on Vanek with those in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Please! Stop stating facts and logic already! It makes it much more difficult to dump on Vanek with those in the way. Here's the thing...... X says he has faith in Darcy and he needs to be given time to mold the team. Darcy was in control of the President's Trophy team in '07 which included Briere. Philly was the laughingstock of the league with 56 points. Briere goes to Philly. Suddenly overnight they are in the playoffs and the Sabres go from 1st in the league to nowhere. 2 years later Briere is on a Cup team and the Sabres are close to nowhere. This year....who knows...but the trend continues. So, the point becomes.....you can't defend Regier and claim Briere is just a blip on a good team. Darcy was in control of his own destiny with the #1 roster in the NHL and in negotiations with Briere. He has had control this entire time while he sat back and watched Philly head to the top tier of the league under leadership of Briere. In football terms, there was 1 minute to go, 3rd and 1 on the Philly 6 yard line, and Darcy up by 6. He ran it up the middle, fumbled, and watched Philly run it back for a TD. In reality Darcy probably would have gone for a FG on 3rd down....but that's besides the point. Bringing up both the success of Philly, and what Briere has meant to them is perfectly valid given the total opposite directions these teams have gone since his departure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Here's the thing...... X says he has faith in Darcy and he needs to be given time to mold the team. Darcy was in control of the President's Trophy team in '07 which included Briere. Philly was the laughingstock of the league with 56 points. Briere goes to Philly. Suddenly overnight they are in the playoffs and the Sabres go from 1st in the league to nowhere. 2 years later Briere is on a Cup team and the Sabres are close to nowhere. This year....who knows...but the trend continues. So, the point becomes.....you can't defend Regier and claim Briere is just a blip on a good team. Darcy was in control of his own destiny with the #1 roster in the NHL and in negotiations with Briere. He has had control this entire time while he sat back and watched Philly head to the top tier of the league under leadership of Briere. In football terms, there was 1 minute to go, 3rd and 1 on the Philly 6 yard line, and Darcy up by 6. He ran it up the middle, fumbled, and watched Philly run it back for a TD. In reality Darcy probably would have gone for a FG on 3rd down....but that's besides the point. Bringing up both the success of Philly, and what Briere has meant to them is perfectly valid given the total opposite directions these teams have gone since his departure. In context the comparison was between Briere and Vanek.......I made no such claims. On the contrary...I've been saying that Philly is completely loaded. Briere is certainly part of being "completely loaded" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 In context the comparison was between Briere and Vanek.......I made no such claims. On the contrary...I've been saying that Philly is completely loaded. Briere is certainly part of being "completely loaded" Right...3rd line player. I'm looking at the big picture. In a world of multiple points, one shivs the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 It's true though. And one of the reasons bringing up Briere so much is valid. People want to get excited about and for me to trust the exact same machine that let those guys walk for an average difference of $750,000 each in negotiations, yet somehow found $5.3 for Pominville, $4.5 for Connolly, $3.5 for Hecht, and the Max/Al/Hank show...then had to overpay Vanek by $2 million because they lost control of the situation. Can you find one positive long term deal on this roster other than restricted players.....other than Roy? Everyone else either makes par, or is overpaid. You can argue that Drury would have been a mistake, but on a whole, Briere/Drury/Campbell/Dumont for $18 would have been a giant net win. Not to mention a Grier with gas in the tank, a young and cheap Pyatt, and heck, even McKee could have been done at $2.5 mil. It's a history.....when you fight over a few hundred thousand on a franchise guy and let him walk for 0 in return.....it deserves to be worn like a scarlet letter. I agree with all of this except the bolded part. It's not the exact same machine. I of course have no proof, but I really believe that LQ and TG were heavily involved -- with a decidedly negative impact -- in the decisions on whom to keep and whom to let go during the crossroads periods of 2006-2007. There's plenty of reason to believe/hope that it's a fancy new machine. Here's the thing...... X says he has faith in Darcy and he needs to be given time to mold the team. Darcy was in control of the President's Trophy team in '07 which included Briere. Philly was the laughingstock of the league with 56 points. Briere goes to Philly. Suddenly overnight they are in the playoffs and the Sabres go from 1st in the league to nowhere. 2 years later Briere is on a Cup team and the Sabres are close to nowhere. This year....who knows...but the trend continues. So, the point becomes.....you can't defend Regier and claim Briere is just a blip on a good team. Darcy was in control of his own destiny with the #1 roster in the NHL and in negotiations with Briere. He has had control this entire time while he sat back and watched Philly head to the top tier of the league under leadership of Briere. In football terms, there was 1 minute to go, 3rd and 1 on the Philly 6 yard line, and Darcy up by 6. He ran it up the middle, fumbled, and watched Philly run it back for a TD. In reality Darcy probably would have gone for a FG on 3rd down....but that's besides the point. Bringing up both the success of Philly, and what Briere has meant to them is perfectly valid given the total opposite directions these teams have gone since his departure. Same goes for this one. No one here knows for sure, but there has been a lot to suggest that the key decisions (e.g. "Player X took us to arbitration? Screw him!") were made upstairs. We'll know more this summer. In any case, good posts today and good job refraining from ad hominem attacks despite others freely lobbing them around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Right...3rd line player. how irritating.....my point was never that Briere was/is "third line player." as derision, my point was that he is playing on the third line and teams CAN'T match him defensively. But I suspect you knew that. (Ruff has tried to free up Vanek in a similar way multiple times this year...daring people to put their best pair on Vanek-Gaustad-McCormick....but with Briere there is no need...Carter, Richard, VanReimsdyk, Giroux were skating on the first two lines...) anyway..carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 And that is without Carter. It may be unfair to ask Vanek to be a DOMINANT dominate player considering who has to play with. When you make $7 mil a year fairness goes out the window. He is paid to be the man offensively for the Sabres. As I said, he is a solid goal scorer just not a DOMINANT dominate presence. It will be up to Regier to get Vanek some help this off-season an hopefully take some pressure off. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss_The_Amerks Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 And that is without Carter. It may be unfair to ask Vanek to be a dominate player considering who has to play with. When you make $7 mil a year fairness goes out the window. He is paid to be the man offensively for the Sabres. As I said, he is a solid goal scorer just not a dominate presence. It will be up to Regier to get Vanek some help this off-season an hopefully take some pressure off. I disagree, if you have 3 huge stars, are you going to split them up, 3 separate lines full of nobodies but anticipate great success from all 3 lines? Nope, you need a supporting cast, one person cant do it, I don't care how good they are or how much you pay them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calti Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 It mattered this year. Not in term of salary but that Vanek was STILL inexplicably depended on to be a leader. I don't care if he gets 30 tap in goals a year, he's no where near the level of Briere and Richards, and they're nowhere near the level of a Crosby or Toews... so that's how far away we are from having an actual star on the team. true. we need a star or two.-and a couple of solid hardworking 2 way type players. stafford ,vanek,roy are good second liners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss_The_Amerks Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 true. we need a star or two.-and a couple of solid hardworking 2 way type players. stafford ,vanek,roy are good second liners. I still am having trouble giving up hope that TommyV, and even Roy can be 1st liners. Just need someone else to help put it all together. Some say I'm a dreamer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 That's exactly the point. He's willing to go there, but if he played with anger occasionally, he'd have more space in which to operate, and players who whack and chop away would know there would be retribution. As it stands now, he gets abused in front of the net because he lets it happen. It's not his personality and I'm not necessarily faulting him for that. But if it was his personality, he'd be a much more effective hockey player I'm no Vanek-basher, and I'll "even" go out on your limb and agree with you; his play is not the least effective of all the guys on the roster. But still, I gotta' call it the way I see it... First off, I don't mind that you disagree. Secondly I doubt he's getting whacked etc. because he 'let's it happen'. It's generally where we're on the PP and he's trying to screen the goalie. The D is chopping him to get him out of the tenders way to see the puck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalalalalaFontaine Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Agreed, Vanek was a much better offensive threat with a better roster around him. But he needs to elevate his game in other areas to warrant his salary. If he doesn't score, he is invisible. He's not a small man and it wouldn't kill him to start throwing his body around a little. Until he can show more as a complete player, he will continue to be an enigma to this team. And no way worthy of the Captain "C"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I have joined the other side. Yep 15th in points, 17th in goals, with less average ice time per game than most above him on the list, one of the lowest goals to shot ratios in the league, all while playing on a team which had a horrible first 1/3 of the season and has yet to acquire a true number one center. Fifty goal, 100 pt potential with the right line. To summarize : Definitely not worth the money, needs to elevate his game, lead, get more physical, play a little dirty, and produce more in critical situations. Trade the bum. He is way over priced and a third liner at best. Maybe waivers will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I have joined the other side. Yep 15th in points, 17th in goals, with less average ice time per game than most above him on the list, one of the lowest goals to shot ratios in the league,all while playing on a team with no pp and which had a horrible first 1/3 of the season. Fifty goal, 100 pt potential with the right line. Definately not worth the money, needs to elevate his game,lead, get more physical, play a little dirty,and produce more in critical situations. Trade the bum. He is way over priced and a third liner at best. Just for the record, the powerplay finished 6th in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Just for the record, the powerplay finished 6th in the NHL. 6th by percentage. Middle of the pack by total pp goals. 19th if you look at ppgoals-SHGA. Percentage was higher because we didn't have as many pp opportunities. Vanek's goal totals would have been better if we had more opportunities (presumably). I would love to see a stat that looked at PP% when the game is tied or the team is down 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 6th by percentage. Middle of the pack by total pp goals. 19th if you look at ppgoals-SHGA. Percentage was higher because we didn't have as many pp opportunities. Vanek's goal totals would have been better if we had more opportunities (presumably). I'm not entirely sure where you're trying to go with that bolded line. If they had gotten more opportunities, they also would have scored more powerplay goals. How many more, who knows, but the numbers are what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Just for the record, the powerplay finished 6th in the NHL. For the record..i was correcting the pp brain hemorage when you posted..the stats Last Pommer fan seeks are probably available ...i know teams keep them. i will look and find a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I'm not entirely sure where you're trying to go with that bolded line. If they had gotten more opportunities, they also would have scored more powerplay goals. How many more, who knows, but the numbers are what they are. I was heading to the sentance that followed the bolded line. Trying to point out that there was something about the powerplay that affected vanek's goal totals. The fact that we were 21st in the league in pp opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I was heading to the sentance that followed the bolded line. Trying to point out that there was something about the powerplay that affected vanek's goal totals. The fact that we were 21st in the league in pp opportunities. I must be losing track of which thread is which at this point. I completely forgot that this was a rip on Vanek thread. Now your defense makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Here’s an analogy… Most hockey fans are like the players at the beginning of “Miracle”. High fiving each other after those end-to-end rushes in practice, but they are cross-eyed confused when Coach Brooks starts talking about flow, puck support, moving to open ice, creating options, etc… Briere did next to nothing in his defensive zone this series, nor was he particularly noticeable in breakouts or up the ice rushes. His corner work in the offensive zone was on par with anyone else's. But he receives a slap pass from Richards at the point and scores. He receives two passes from players winning battles behind the net and scores. And somehow he is the best player? :blink: Kudos to him for burying his chances, but holy cow, to not see the teamwork it takes in order to create those chances is mindboggling. Luckily for Briere - the Flyers seemed to have the puck in the Sabres zone forever. Imagine if Vanek got to play in the Flyers zone for as long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted April 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Come on sportsbuff you're better than this. Why is this thread called 'the bottom line'? Just trying to get more ppl looking at the thread? Not sure what Realtalk means either. Because the series came down to *brace for shocker* Danny Briere lighting us up in clutch, even-strength situations. He scored every big goal. Vanek got some powerplay goals, which don't get me wrong, those are important. But he wasn't nearly as big a factor as Briere or even Richards, who finished with no goals and 5 assists. Vanek was invisible 90% of even-strength play, and everytime he brought the puck into the zone he tried his old inside-outside-inside deke that has worked maybe once in his career. It's like he's using reverse psychology: "If I try the same move every single time i enter the zone, eventually somebody is going to expect me to do something else -- that's when I'll get em!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Luckily for Briere - the Flyers seemed to have the puck in the Sabres zone forever. Imagine if Vanek got to play in the Flyers zone for as long. you thought is a variation of the "one puck rule" nothing bad can happen if you keep the puck in the offensive zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.