... Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) 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. Well, I guess it might be useful to add that he went into that little narrative after saying if the Sabres are going to get a UFA forward that will take away a rookie's roster slot, it'd better be an elite guy to pair with Vanek. Because Vanek is elite...and you know who else can be elite...(pickup Leino narrative)... Edited August 12, 2013 by sizzlemeister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 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. Resorting to the nonsensical so soon? Brian Campbell's first penalty happened a 1:46 of the first period, are you suggesting he was gassed after a minute and 46 seconds? Talk about trying too hard. "They still had Campbell." That's almost hilarious. Did you expect him to play all 60 minutes? He didn't need to. The Sabres had other d-men like Lydman who played 24:27 in game #7 after playing 27:41 in game #6. Not to mention one of the AHL d-men scored one of the two Sabre goals on the night. Even Fitzpatrick did a good job over his 44 minutes of ice time in games 6 & 7. i never realized all thous players played D And you'd be right. They do however play on the PP and manged no shots on four attempts including a crucial 2 minute power play with 4;35 left in the game. 82 game regular season and 4 rounds of best of seven, the road to the Stanley Cup is as much a game of attrition as it is anything else. In the end the Sabres broke down. The Canes played a tough 25 games and ended up hoisting the Stanley Cup. Maybe it's time for Sabre fans to grow up a bit and respect the effort. Maybe someday it will be the Sabres hoisting the Cup, I would hate to hear people crying about luck and injuries, it's just weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 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. Really? There is no saying the Sabres would even have a one goal lead going into the third period. If you want to offer a theoretical account of what may have happened in game seven you have to factor in that any theoretical changes of events would start at the opening face-off not just the third period. Let's use your logic. It the Sabres defense was healthy, than Fitzpatrick would not have been on the ice in OT of game #6 to pass the puck to Briere for the game winning goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 82 game regular season and 4 rounds of best of seven, the road to the Stanley Cup is as much a game of attrition as it is anything else. In the end the Sabres broke down. The Canes played a tough 25 games and ended up hoisting the Stanley Cup. Maybe it's time for Sabre fans to grow up a bit and respect the effort. Maybe someday it will be the Sabres hoisting the Cup, I would hate to hear people crying about luck and injuries, it's just weak. As someone on record as never having blamed injuries for the results of that series (I have always blamed Lindy's system :devil: ), I would almost agree with this if our last defensman didn't go down with a MFin staph infection. That's hardly succumbing to the rigors of playoff hockey. That really is just bad luck. On a more important note, do we really need to rehash the misery of the past? Isn't there enough to be miserable about right now with this team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 As someone on record as never having blamed injuries for the results of that series (I have always blamed Lindy's system :devil: ), I would almost agree with this if our last defensman didn't go down with a MFin staph infection. That's hardly succumbing to the rigors of playoff hockey. That really is just bad luck. On a more important note, do we really need to rehash the misery of the past? Isn't there enough to be miserable about right now with this team? The system is what got them into and kept them in that series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 The system is what got them into and kept them in that series. I thought it was the roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 I thought it was the roster. There was talent that fit the system then, and it was a hell of a system. Today's roster can't fit any NHL system--Ruff's, Rolston's, or whoever today's version of who the Sabres should hire might be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 ... the cosmic ballet goes on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Why can't it be both? The talent allowed the system to work while the system helped maximize the talent. Then when hugely important talent went down, the system made it harder to have replacements perform well. So the system helped reach, and helped lose, the conference finals. Note: I'm a "rosters win and lose games" guy, so I don't fully subscribe to the above theory, just tossing it out for discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Resorting to the nonsensical so soon? Brian Campbell's first penalty happened a 1:46 of the first period, are you suggesting he was gassed after a minute and 46 seconds? Talk about trying too hard. The extra ice time isn't only about fatigue, it's also about being forced to play guys in situations where they normally wouldn't play. In Campbell's case this means he had to play against other teams top lines, which in 2006 or now he isn't ideally suited for. But of course you already knew this. Really? There is no saying the Sabres would even have a one goal lead going into the third period. If you want to offer a theoretical account of what may have happened in game seven you have to factor in that any theoretical changes of events would start at the opening face-off not just the third period. Let's use your logic. It the Sabres defense was healthy, than Fitzpatrick would not have been on the ice in OT of game #6 to pass the puck to Briere for the game winning goal. Again, Campbell was forced into situations that he normally would not have been playing. Fitzpatrick also wouldn't have been on the ice on the top penalty kill line in game 7 with a healthy roster, or even half of a healthy one. Still, my point wasn't to call out specific situations and how they could have played out differently. A healthy Sabres blueline changes the dynamic of each and every shift, period, game and ultimately the series. The four lost d-men, you know the ones who had a combined +24 in the Philly and Ottawa series, the ones who had just contributed to the ousting of the regular seasons best team in five games, just MIGHT have made a difference over the four replacements who were a combined -6 in the ECF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Again, where does goaltending fit into this? Those schmucks did give Miller a lead going into the third and he allowed three goals from there on out. On 10 shots, so it wasn't an onslaught by any means. (Carolina had 28 in the game.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 82 game regular season and 4 rounds of best of seven, the road to the Stanley Cup is as much a game of attrition as it is anything else. In the end the Sabres broke down. The Canes played a tough 25 games and ended up hoisting the Stanley Cup. Maybe it's time for Sabre fans to grow up a bit and respect the effort. Maybe someday it will be the Sabres hoisting the Cup, I would hate to hear people crying about luck and injuries, it's just weak. I don't remember anyone here diminishing the Canes talent or disrespecting what they accomplished. Pointing out a historic and unprecedented rash of injuries and how it might have had an impact isn't crying about injuries. But again, I have no doubt if the situation were reversed you'd be among the first here to point out the asterisk next to the Sabres accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Ruff was here sixteen years, only won the cup once, and took a cup winner to the bottom of the division standings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Ruff was here sixteen years, only won the cup once, and took a cup winner to the bottom of the division standings. How did I miss that?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 How did I miss that?! Those "One Before I Die" kids are too young to be whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Again, where does goaltending fit into this? Those schmucks did give Miller a lead going into the third and he allowed three goals from there on out. On 10 shots, so it wasn't an onslaught by any means. (Carolina had 28 in the game.) I really wanted to stay out of this conversation since its ancient news but after this post I had to go to the video. How is Brind D'Amour not called for being in crease on 4th goal ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 I really wanted to stay out of this conversation since its ancient news but after this post I had to go to the video. How is Brind D'Amour not called for being in crease on 4th goal ? Probably because he was kitty footing his way out when the goal was scored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 I really wanted to stay out of this conversation since its ancient news but after this post I had to go to the video. How is Brind D'Amour not called for being in crease on 4th goal ? Didn't look like he was interfering with Miller's ability to play the puck. 'Twasn't 1999, after all. :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 Didn't look like he was interfering with Miller's ability to play the puck. 'Twasn't 1999, after all. :huh: That's right. Actually was a dumb question. In my defense, still on the hydrocodone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 13, 2013 Report Share Posted August 13, 2013 That's right. Actually was a dumb question. In my defense, still on the hydrocodone. That stuff is wonderful :wub: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 15, 2013 Report Share Posted August 15, 2013 Also, Lindy tended to lose the big ones. So, you're bored and you're looking to start something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 15, 2013 Report Share Posted August 15, 2013 So, you're bored and you're looking to start something? You wanna go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted August 19, 2013 Report Share Posted August 19, 2013 Peters condemning A-Rod and Ryan Braun on the radio today just has to be the very definition of chutzpah, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 19, 2013 Report Share Posted August 19, 2013 Peters condemning A-Rod and Ryan Braun on the radio today just has to be the very definition of chutzpah, no? I LOVED A-Rod getting hit with that pitch. Looks like more than just fans are pissed at him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted August 19, 2013 Report Share Posted August 19, 2013 I LOVED A-Rod getting hit with that pitch. Looks like more than just fans are pissed at him. Jim Rome (on immediately after SHH, otherwise I wouldn't listen at all) called that one the day after A-Rod came back last week. He had hoped he would be hit at his first at bat, but understood why he wasn't because that pitcher was also involved in a juicing scandal previously. 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.