dudacek Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 How much energy do we put into Lehner talk? Is there a scenario where he returns? Why would he want to? Why would Botterill want him to? I think Lehner is a victim of Tyrod Taylor syndrome - good enough to win with under the right circumstances, but not good enough to be a saviour, or to win over the fans because of the stink of the losing that came before. If he continues to play the way he has the past month, what would you do with him? I really wanted them to win this game today. In a lost season, this one mattered. It was the last one that mattered. We've had plenty of games as of late where the effort has been there, but I really wanted that breakout performance today. That game where they come out and play like they know it matters more than just another regular season game. Instead we got a "normal" performance. That's just not going to move the needle for me emotionally. I needed more today. I think this is representative of most of the fan base. Objectively, we are better than we were in October, but that’s not good enough. Just start winning already. That is my concern, although I voiced it against a specific player. At some point someone has to step up in a big game. Or not. I think that in a nutshell is the hate against this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 So, the Sabres battled hard and got a point against a better team. I'll take it. This team is starting to come together. Yessir. Now we have to wait another 10 years for an outside game. Hopefully in Buffalo. Hopefully Eichel will still be in Buffalo in 2028. Doubtful. I am holding out hope for 75K fans in the Ralph sometime in the next 2 seasons for a Leafs-Sabres matchup. Winter Classic is probably not realistic, but I think it would be a very strong Stadium Series game. I agree. They had a ###### start today, but played very well after that. Points in eight of Lehner’s last 10 starts. And they were very much in the two they didn’t. If they were 4-1 in OT instead of 1-4 we’d be talking about the best stretch of Sabre hockey in years. As it is, we aren’t talented enough, but Phil has them playing together now in his system. Not going to fix this overnight. This too. We've been down this road many times. How to evaluate an "improving" team after they're out of the playoff race. Momentum has hardly ever carried forward to the next fall. The pressure is off and there's the question of what opponents are bringing ("looking past," backup goalies, etc.). Tricky spot for Botterill. I have to think he's going to more heavily weigh how some of the top players did when the season still could have been saved. And this. Good. Hopefully Lehner's recent play during regulation will be enough to steal a late first rounder from a desperate playoff team in late February. Lehner is a headcase and a choke artist, and I hope I never have to see him in a Sabres uniform again beyond February 26. And this. It's about the goals he allows, everyone. NHL goaltenders won't allow goals that he does. Lundqvist gobbles up every rebound. If Lehner could do that, overtime goal wouldn't have happened. Lundqvist wouldn't have allowed the first goal, either. No NHL goaltender would have allowed the 2nd goal. The only way we'll receive anything in return for Lehner is if a team is desperate for a goalie and has ###### goaltending scouts Overstated but a good amount of truthy stuff in here. You aren’t wrong in the first part. But Botterill’s been pretty clear on development being a huge plank in his plan. And there was a lot of stank that needed to be washed away. Optimistic use of past tense here. I will admit that it'd be unfair to put the overtime goal on Lehner, in isolation. I'd expect an NHL goaltender to control that rebound maybe a third (33.3%) of the time. Problem is, Lehner will control that rebound nearly 0% of the time. Honestly, I don't think a lot of the people defending Lehner know much about goaltending. But that's just IMHO :flirt: This is obnoxious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 I think we needed to hit the post more today. Another 2 or less goal for game. Just underwhelming. At least we go a point. We're not eliminated until we're eliminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 Photos and Video https://twitter.com/fischerphoto/status/947974854694850560 https://twitter.com/fischerphoto/status/947964751249887232 https://twitter.com/fischerphoto/status/947964712427425794 https://twitter.com/fischerphoto/status/947885020378750976 Every one of the Rags' goals was because a Sabre allowed someone to shoot the puck from within 8 feet of the net. Exactly Sabres on each goal back off way too much. Not Lehner the problem D was way too passive at key points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 i admit i got super worried when kane was laid out. i want them to trade him sooner than later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 (edited) Crossbar shot sooo close popped almost straight up in air. They had their chances plus D had space and even wingers to skate puck up instead of making difficult passes into traffic. Passing thru neutral zone is atrocious. Plus Sabres came out flat early on and didnt start skating till down 2-0. Really frustrating. Edited January 1, 2018 by Kottbullar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickompositör72 Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 Regarding Josefson on getting icetime in OT: Phil was rewarding him for having 2 great games. This is what a coach is supposed to do. Josefson has good speed, can play a shifty game, and make can some plays. He's not strong on the puck, but if the choice for 3C is between him and ERod, I'll take Josefson all day. Put Larrson at 4C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cityo'Rasmii Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 Regarding Josefson on getting icetime in OT: Phil was rewarding him for having 2 great games. This is what a coach is supposed to do. Josefson has good speed, can play a shifty game, and make can some plays. He's not strong on the puck, but if the choice for 3C is between him and ERod, I'll take Josefson all day. Put Larrson at 4C. makes sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 I don't see how Lehner can be blamed for any of the goals. First one the guy was wide open in the slot on a cross ice pass. Second one was a bouncing puck that went right on the dudes stick at side of net. And the third one was another loose puck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 So, a case of addition by subtraction? We’re going to be a better team with Ullmark and/or cheap free agent? That’s the direction I’d be leaning, but that’s putting a lot of eggs in Ullmark’s basket. We aren’t making the playoffs if he’s not ready. We aren’t getting a better goalie than Lehner in free agency and it doesn’t make sense to spend the assets it would take to get an upgrade - guys like Allen and Talbot and Jones and Gibson and Andersen and Bishop came with hefty price tags and have comparable numbers. Addition by subtraction is an oxymoron for a reason - are you really going to get better by losing an NHL-caliber player, to replace them with an unknown or even a worse player? Even if the unknown is a better player, if you kept both you could actually trade one for assets (cough Vancouver goalie situation a few years ago). Sure it might be true sometimes, but ultimately the better hockey player is the better hockey player, even if they are nuts off the ice. The fact is we know so little about the locker room, we can't make a call on who is a locker room cancer. But one thing is for sure, a team of Evander Kanes wins more games than a team of Matt Ellis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 Eagle, kids choir, first responders, jets, national anthem, American flag... Trump just finished.isn't that usually what happens when Trump finishes his bathroom routine every morning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) An area we don't get enough shots from ourselves. My take on the game......... Rangers did a phenomenal job of getting sticks in lanes and deflecting passes and shots. Typical Rags. Sabres need to learn this. Buffalo's passing was much sloppier than the Rangers. Rarely was a puck handled cleanly by a Sabre. It greatly affected my next point. Sabres didn't have the jump the Rangers had, and their breaks in on goal didn't seem as consistently dangerous as when the Rangers broke in on goal. See above. Jack still isn't coming up big on the biggest stages. This is what we tanked for. Robin's play was more than fine. Henrik wasn't stopping that winning goal either. Not that he ever was tested that grandly to know for sure. For the bolded, I think this post has merit as a counterpoint. That's why Girgs is fine for now, maybe, on Jacks line but need a sniper to bury that Jack is making plays. I know we all want him to score goals, and he needs to, but when guys aren't finishing his excellent set-ups, a BIG part of what makes Jack a game-breaker is neutered. Mittelstadt was the able to be the player of the game against Canada in part because for every slick assist he had, he had a Tkachuk or Bellows cashing. We got what we tanked for. We still need more talent. Edited January 2, 2018 by Bjorn Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) As long as Buffalo is reliably the #1 hockey ratings market in the USA, we are always in discussion for the Winter Classic. Expect it by 2023. Edited January 2, 2018 by PromoTheRobot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 Our power play is a way bigger problem than Lehner. Like by a lot. If it was only average to this point, we would be in playoff contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickompositör72 Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 I'd rather lose some by a lot, but win more, than "be in the game" and lose on a horrible goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted January 3, 2018 Report Share Posted January 3, 2018 I don't see how Lehner can be blamed for any of the goals. First one the guy was wide open in the slot on a cross ice pass. Second one was a bouncing puck that went right on the dudes stick at side of net. And the third one was another loose puck. I went back and looked at the replays: First Ranger Goal (0:55 or so): Pass comes across and a Ranger is alone at the inside hash mark. Some D should have had him, BUT: Lehner was already down on his knees before the pass. He slides over in plenty of time to square up, but then tries to (somewhat awkwardly) get back to his skates and the puck goes through his legs. I put this 50/50 on Lehner, he's always down early and he'd have a better chance of stopping this on his skates. Make sure to watch the replay from the far end of the ice to see the big hole that opens up when Lehner tries to get back on his skates. Second Ranger Goal (1:17 or so): Ranger player skates down below the goal line, and seeing (?) Lehner isn't tight to the post tries to bank it off his skate. The puck gets through (but not in), where another Ranger gets a stick on it and it's in. There were Sabres D there that should have tied the scorer up. Again, 50/50. There's no reason for Lehner not have the post (and was down on his knees again). There was a ton of room for the Ranger to put the puck in directly over Lehner's pad directly had his back not been to the goal before the bank/pass to the eventual scorer. OT: Goal. This is mostly on the D, although Lehner could have done himself a favor by not leaving a rebound 6 feet from the open side of the net, and not leaving half the net open by being over by the right post. From the replay, it's tough to see exactly where the initial shot comes in, but it does bounce to the Lehner's left, so it's possible he overplayed it a bit and could have been closer to the center of the net. Sabres goals: the first, Lundqvist had Reinhart right on top of him as the screen shot comes in, and puck ended up on Sam's stick. I'm not sure too many GT's stop that regularly. The second was a shot through traffic that was placed perfectly top-corner. He could have had that one if he saw the puck earlier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL5pVR8HkWc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted January 3, 2018 Report Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) Shot came in from Lehner’s right.... couldnt tell what happened after that,was at far end of rink and there was a mad scramble. Edited January 3, 2018 by Kottbullar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 OK -- the Lehner posts (or most of them, anyway) have been moved to the Lehner thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 So, I've been wondering about this. If this was a home game for the Sabres, does that mean they got the gate? Seems like getting the proceeds from 41+K of expensive tickets must be a pretty good bump from the 19.2K (if you're lucky) cheaper seats they would have gotten, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 But how much does that come to really, after paying for the temporary ice rink and stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 So, I've been wondering about this. If this was a home game for the Sabres, does that mean they got the gate? Seems like getting the proceeds from 41+K of expensive tickets must be a pretty good bump from the 19.2K (if you're lucky) cheaper seats they would have gotten, no? The way the 1st WC worked was the NHL "bought" (for lack of a better word) the tix from the MMArena & then were in charge of the outdoor game (w/ tickets sales through the Sabres normal channels & additional ones). So, the Sabres & Pens got the normal ticket split & the rest went to the NHL's collective pie. Would assume that's still how it works but there could have been tweaks to the formula. Especially when one considers that the Sabres gave up a home game to play in hostile territory in what was SUPPOSED to be a borderline playoff year, would hope Brandon finagled extra lucre for his employers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 The way the 1st WC worked was the NHL "bought" (for lack of a better word) the tix from the MMArena & then were in charge of the outdoor game (w/ tickets sales through the Sabres normal channels & additional ones). So, the Sabres & Pens got the normal ticket split & the rest went to the NHL's collective pie. Would assume that's still how it works but there could have been tweaks to the formula. Especially when one considers that the Sabres gave up a home game to play in hostile territory in what was SUPPOSED to be a borderline playoff year, would hope Brandon finagled extra lucre for his employers. They also didn't get the concessions and had to pay for travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 They also didn't get the concessions and had to pay for travel. Would like to see the payoff being actually winning the lottery. (Edmonton seems to buy it every 3 years, why can't the Sabres do it for once. ;)) Unfortunately, Brandon probably was satisfied w/ another well's worth & settled at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 Brandon finagled extra lucre for his employers. I learnt a new word to-day. 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.