Claude_Verret Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 Doesn't matter. The Senators took the season series from the Sabres that year, too, but what happened in the quarterfinals? Beat me to it. Sabres were 3-5 against the Sens that year. Notably going 0-3 in their first three against them, being outscored 21-5 in the process. I didn't realize it at the time but looking back the Canes really did have a great team. The amount of speed they brought offensively was just epic. People decry the Sabres for benefiting from the lockout rule changes but Carolina was the real beneficiary. And Brind A'mour was a fricken horse. Jagr-esque. Yes they did, highlighting their good fortune is in no way meant to take away from the fact that they had a great team that year as well. I think the Sabres and Canes were pretty evenly matched that year, with the historic injury bug that hit the Sabres swinging the series in their favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 Beat me to it. Sabres were 3-5 against the Sens that year. Notably going 0-3 in their first three against them, being outscored 21-5 in the process. When they finally beat the Sens that year, it was a great regular-season game. Dominik was in net for Ottawa. The Sabres won in the shootout on Vanek's first usage of the around-the-world move. Better days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 I didn't realize it at the time but looking back the Canes really did have a great team. The amount of speed they brought offensively was just epic. People decry the Sabres for benefiting from the lockout rule changes but Carolina was the real beneficiary. And Brind A'mour was a fricken horse. Jagr-esque. Doesn't matter. The Senators took the season series from the Sabres that year, too, but what happened in the quarterfinals? Seems like Eleven missed the point. The Canes out scored the Sabres on the season. Canes had a 40+ goal, three 30+ goal and two 20 goal scorers. The Sabres had one 30+ and five 20+ goal scores. Sabres look back on that Sabres team as an offensive juggernaut, the Canes were a little better even though the Sabres may been more balanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 If the Canes were clearly the better team, why did they need seven games and a puck over the glass to beat a team that was using the Rochester Americans defence corps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 Seems like Eleven missed the point. The Canes out scored the Sabres on the season. Canes had a 40+ goal, three 30+ goal and two 20 goal scorers. The Sabres had one 30+ and five 20+ goal scores. Sabres look back on that Sabres team as an offensive juggernaut, the Canes were a little better even though the Sabres may been more balanced. If the Canes were clearly the better team, why did they need seven games and a puck over the glass to beat a team that was using the Rochester Americans defence corps? I'm pretty sure I got the point, as did dudacek. That's why they actually play the playoff series, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 If the Canes were clearly the better team, why did they need seven games and a puck over the glass to beat a team that was using the Rochester Americans defence corps? You're assuming what happened in the series is what the Canes "needed" to win the series. It's like the Hull foot in the crease. There is this automatic assumption that Sabres would have gone on to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 You're assuming what happened in the series is what the Canes "needed" to win the series. It's like the Hull foot in the crease. There is this automatic assumption that Sabres would have gone on to win. I definitely make no such assumption when it comes to the Dallas series. I can't even say whether the Sabres would have won Game 6. But Buffalo would have won that series against Carolina had the roster not been decimated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 You're assuming what happened in the series is what the Canes "needed" to win the series. It's like the Hull foot in the crease. There is this automatic assumption that Sabres would have gone on to win. And you're avoiding the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 People tend to focus on losing McKee for game 7, but IMO losing Tallinder in game three is way overlooked. The guy was having a Lidstrom-esque playoffs up to that point and was eating up 25 minutes a game. As we all know he was never the same after that injury. I think I went back and looked at one point and Fitzpatrick/Janik/Jillson/Paetsch were something like a combined -6 for the series. Anyone who says having to play those guys didn't matter is either a Canes fan or in denial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 I definitely make no such assumption when it comes to the Dallas series. I can't even say whether the Sabres would have won Game 6. But Buffalo would have won that series against Carolina had the roster not been decimated. They still had Campbell for game 7. They also had Briere, Drury. Dumont, Roy and Pominville. The Sabres lost the series because they went 0-4 on the power play in game seven while not recording 1 shot on the power play not because of injuries. And you're avoiding the question. I did answer the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Also, Lindy tended to lose the big ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 They still had Campbell for game 7. They also had Briere, Drury. Dumont, Roy and Pominville. The Sabres lost the series because they went 0-4 on the power play in game seven while not recording 1 shot on the power play not because of injuries. So the fact that Campbell took two penalties in game 7, especially the crucial one that led to the game winning goal in the the third, could in no way be related to the fact that he was forced to play 26+ minutes in games 5-7 when he normally was logging around 17? If the Sabres won a playoff series with the other team suffering a decimated blueline, you'd be the first one on here telling everyone to take the victory with a huge grain of salt. Don't try so hard to be a contrarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 "They still had Campbell." That's almost hilarious. Did you expect him to play all 60 minutes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 They still had Campbell for game 7. They also had Briere, Drury. Dumont, Roy and Pominville. The Sabres lost the series because they went 0-4 on the power play in game seven while not recording 1 shot on the power play not because of injuries. i never realized all thous players played D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 What happened to Bills Football Mondays? Even though I like hockey much more than football, I'd rather hear more about yesterday than listen to these two ######os today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 "They still had Campbell." That's almost hilarious. Did you expect him to play all 60 minutes? That's especially hilarious when you consider that if they had a healthy blueline, Soupy would have been seated squarely on the bench for most of the 3rd period with the Sabres protecting a one goal lead in game 7 on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Peters - "Leino can be elite..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Peters - "Leino can be elite..." Sure, Andy. He's the next Gretzky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Peters - "Leino can be elite..." That whooshing sound is the last remaining hope I had for Leino rushing out the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) Peters - "Leino can be elite..." Well, at least post the rest of his sentence. "Leino can be elite, I'm not saying he will be, but he can be. He can be a solid two way player." You can bust on Peters for being Peters just about all of the time, with no effort required. Edited August 12, 2013 by IKnowPhysics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Well, at least post the rest of his sentence. "Leino can be elite, I'm not saying he will be, but he can be. He can be a solid two way player." You can bust on Peters for being Peters just about all of the time, with no effort required. Yea as much fun as it is to bust on Peter's, he wasn't saying Leino is superman or something. I think it was more about how Leino can play when he is in shape and on his game. A way he has not played in Buffalo except for a very short period of time last season. Leino is an interesting story line going into this year that I am actually very keen to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Well, at least post the rest of his sentence. "Leino can be elite, I'm not saying he will be, but he can be. He can be a solid two way player." You can bust on Peters for being Peters just about all of the time, with no effort required. What other context do you need? If he had any significant qualifiers I wouldn't have bothered. His point was simply that Leino could be an elite player...period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Well, at least post the rest of his sentence. "Leino can be elite, I'm not saying he will be, but he can be. He can be a solid two way player." You can bust on Peters for being Peters just about all of the time, with no effort required. I can come to two conclusions about Peters' statement taken as a whole: 1) He doesn't know what elite is 2) He thinks good two-way players are elite (...which seemingly reinforces conslusion #1) He's right that Leino could be a good player, but to use elite in any relation to that is hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 He does that a lot. The qualifier to Peters' statement is that he's Peters. "Grigorenko has elite talent... Stafford is a very good player..." It goes on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Peters has elite steroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.