thewookie1 Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Supposedly Hodgson wasn't even on the bench the entire 3rd period. Does Vanek seem to when Hodgson is on the ice with him only pass it to him? I don't know why Grigs was benched, he seemed to being coming along nicely. Stafford was uh.... ok I guess? Myers actually looks like he cares out there consistently, not quite Rookie Myers good yet but showing flashes of it. Zadorov seems to have triggered something in the Sabres roster: 1. Risto seems to be playing more offense and hitting people 2. Ott, Myers, and Grigs all seem to have woken up out of their slumber Foligno looks very good out there, he's doing everything but playing net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 While I love the reasoning behind the decision.... I can't help but feel our 3rd period could serve as a big "told ya so" from Hodgson to RR. Loving it too. Any "star" being benched on a team this bad, has no business whatsoever thinking in those terms. The team sucks, and while it might not be because of Hodgson, it sure as ###### isn't in spite of him, either. Anyone who floats on a team this bad deserves to sit. Endlessly. Should Hodgson be stupid enough to think otherwise, I hope he gets scratched from here to christmas. You pay cherry pickers $7.00 an hour, not $4.5 million a year..... Good for Rolston. Darcy can't be happy....and you know what, this is a nice FU from Rolston to Darcy. If you can't get me talent or guys that want to be here...I'll sit your prize signing. This is going to get juicy. My prediction is the whole thing implodes for good the Toronto weekend. Black and Pegula have NO clue what is about to happen. That arena is going to be 15,000 Toronto fans....and if the Sabres lay an egg, that will be the last straw. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 What a surprise that a team where the veterans seem to be going thru the motions, pull a fade in the 3rd and give up two goals late to lose. Any feel goods from the Panthers game on Friday were over-shadowed by this follow up loss, and the absolutely brutal and inexcusable stats this club is producing -After 13 games, Buffalo has the LEAGUE WORST stat for shots made, at 25.1, -Buffalo has the SECOND WORST in the league stat for shots allowed - 35.7 -Their differential is the WORST in the LEAGUE - at negative 10.6!!! - Tyler Myers is the 12th worst player in the entire NHL in +/-, at -7 Making it even worse, Chief Woodenlegs has only 2 points in 13 games. He's ineffective both defensively and offensively. Guy needs to be sat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 You pay cherry pickers $7.00 an hour, not $4.5 million a year..... Good for Rolston. Darcy can't be happy....and you know what, this is a nice FU from Rolston to Darcy. If you can't get me talent or guys that want to be here...I'll sit your prize signing. This is going to get juicy. My prediction is the whole thing implodes for good the Toronto weekend. Black and Pegula have NO clue what is about to happen. That arena is going to be 15,000 Toronto fans....and if the Sabres lay an egg, that will be the last straw. With all the talk about which players want to be here, it does make you wonder if Rolston wants to be here. I know it's one of only 30 head coaching positions in the NHL, he has to be wondering what he got himself into. Not saying I disagree with benching Hodgson. If he wants Hodgson to take over as the leader of this team, I think benching him for being weak for a few periods is good. My point was, if he's going to go that route, why the hell did it take this long for Stafford? I have never ever seen an athlete get away with going through the motions for so long while still having a job. Not sure what to make of your Toronto prediction. Rolston is finding out that Hodgson is just not that type of player. Hodgson is not a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 With all the talk about which players want to be here, it does make you wonder if Rolston wants to be here. I know it's one of only 30 head coaching positions in the NHL, he has to be wondering what he got himself into. Rolston is finding out that Hodgson is just not that type of player. Hodgson is not a leader. He's 23. How many players in the league are asked to take over as leaders under late 20's? Not sure why Hodgson is all of a sudden the new whipping boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Because he puts in about half the effort he needs to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Because he puts in about half the effort he needs to. ... as fans, there is a strong tendency to only look at the scoring statistics and ignore other aspects of the game. Just because CoHo is getting points doesn't mean he is giving effort or isn't a defensive liability. I haven't paid much attention this year, but last year he was horrific on the defensive end, which IMHO has a lot to do with effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Hodgson is becoming the most polarizing player on the team. Haters only see the lack of puck battle. Fans only see the stats. Truth is he is decent second-line centre with the head and hands to complement first-liners. He could be a very good second-line centre if he ups his compete level. He is still young enough to get better and maybe last night's benching can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 ... as fans, there is a strong tendency to only look at the scoring statistics and ignore other aspects of the game. Just because CoHo is getting points doesn't mean he is giving effort or isn't a defensive liability. I haven't paid much attention this year, but last year he was horrific on the defensive end, which IMHO has a lot to do with effort. There's a lot of good in Cohos game but its hard to ignore his weaknesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Every player has weaknesses, but it seems people are far more harsh on effort weaknesses than talent weaknesses. I'll say it again, if this team had a few more players sitting at 9 points, they'd also have a few more wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Every player has weaknesses, but it seems people are far more harsh on effort weaknesses than talent weaknesses. I'll say it again, if this team had a few more players sitting at 9 points, they'd also have a few more wins. If so, I think it's because effort is something you as a player have 100% control of yourself. You can choose to work hard or not. You can't choose to be talented or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 If so, I think it's because effort is something you as a player have 100% control of yourself. You can choose to work hard or not. You can't choose to be talented or not. I think you're right. On that note, I also think people overestimate how much certain players on their favorite team float relative to players on other teams who they don't get to watch for 82 games yearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 And sorry for stating the obvious but any team with a few more players with 9 points would have a few more wins. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 I think you're right. On that note, I also think people overestimate how much certain players on their favorite team float relative to players on other teams who they don't get to watch for 82 games yearly. QFT. "Floating" is perception. It doesn't take into account shift length, activity on shift, frequency of shifts and health. It is compounded by the fact that the game is viewed in a microcosm of following the puck live and the window that is the camera when viewed on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 QFT. "Floating" is perception. It doesn't take into account shift length, activity on shift, frequency of shifts and health. It is compounded by the fact that the game is viewed in a microcosm of following the puck live and the window that is the camera when viewed on TV. Most often it takes into account biased opinions of a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 While I haven't had a chance to really dissect Cody's game this year, last year he was far more guilty of defensive zone awareness than anything to do with effort. He just didn't understand where he needed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 While I haven't had a chance to really dissect Cody's game this year, last year he was far more guilty of defensive zone awareness than anything to do with effort. He just didn't understand where he needed to be. And while I'm no Cody apologist, floating in the defensive zone can in many cases be directly derived from not knowing how to play there. The logic behind this being, the coach tells you to stop putting yourself in bad situations on D, and as a result you end up being scared of over-comitting, and wind up doing nothing at all - You float. Of course, RR benching Cody last night probably is a strong indication that this isn't the case with Cody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 I like what Cody brings offensively but my guess is we'll still be talking about his defensive liabilities 2-3 years from now.I hope I'm wrong but I see no reason to sugarcoat someones deficiencies just because they are fairly good on one side of the puck. We'll see. I will add that its pretty easy to find fault when the team is dreadful and loses most games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Cody is infuriating to watch when he battles. Half the time he does an okay job, half the time he's weak weak weak. Larsson and Flynn are both similar sizes to Cody and they battled way harder and won more 50/50 pucks than Cody did last night. On the other hand, he's looking really good in the offensive zone. Carrying the puck, passing, and producing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Thomas Vantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Thomas Vantastic. I don't care if it never catches on, Vanek's nickname will always be The Austrian Rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 I don't think Hodgy's shortcomings this year are as simple as lack of defensive intensity/awareness. He's seemed OK to me in te defensive zone. To me, the main issue is that the "top line" has been almost completely ineffective. How many shifts this season has that line produced a sustained forecheck/cycle/series of shots on goal? Two? Maybe three? Vanek is mailing it in at this point. Hodgson seems to be following his lead. Great team construction, Darcy. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 I don't think Hodgy's shortcomings this year are as simple as lack of defensive intensity/awareness. He's seemed OK to me in te defensive zone. To me, the main issue is that the "top line" has been almost completely ineffective. How many shifts this season has that line produced a sustained forecheck/cycle/series of shots on goal? Two? Maybe three? Vanek is mailing it in at this point. Hodgson seems to be following his lead. Great team construction, Darcy. Thanks again. I don't think it has as much to do with anybody floating, or 'mailing it in'. This is similar to when the Sabres had that bad string of injuries two years ago. The Sabres' top line wasn't producing during that time and it wasn't because they were floating it was because of a lack of any secondary scoring. Without secondary scoring opposing teams can play there top defensive players against your one scoring line. That is what is happening now. Except that now we just have no secondary scoring period, at least two years ago the injuries were an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 I like what Cody brings offensively but my guess is we'll still be talking about his defensive liabilities 2-3 years from now.I hope I'm wrong but I see no reason to sugarcoat someones deficiencies just because they are fairly good on one side of the puck. We'll see. I will add that its pretty easy to find fault when the team is dreadful and loses most games. I agree with the bold--I just don't see him ever being better than mediocre defensively. And I don't have a problem with that at all...if he's our #2. In the ideal world he can get softer matchups and better offensive opportunities while minimizing his defensive responsibility. Of course, this relies on getting a true #1 in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 I agree with the bold--I just don't see him ever being better than mediocre defensively. And I don't have a problem with that at all...if he's our #2. In the ideal world he can get softer matchups and better offensive opportunities while minimizing his defensive responsibility. Of course, this relies on getting a true #1 in here. Yeah, not every high scorer is good on defense. I can't find myself criticizing the guy on the team with the most points. Sabres need to pair him with some good defensive players - unfortunately, the lines are crap this year, mostly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.