PASabreFan Posted February 12, 2018 Report Share Posted February 12, 2018 The Sabres have no spine and don’t stand up for each other O’Reilly and Eichel hate each other. Housley is a purse packer and a snowflake stroker. Lehner is the worst goalie in the NHL The Pegulas meddle too much The NHL hates Buffalo and rigged the lottery Whatever floats your boat. For me, it’s “we don’t have enough good players” You are the only sensible one! God love you. And the 2018 SabreSpace Strawman Awards goes toooooo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted February 12, 2018 Report Share Posted February 12, 2018 Fighting doesn't win hockey games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerreaultForever Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Say what you like about Boston but that is an example of the opposite. They always stand up for each other and it isn't always the big guys. I remember seeing little Tory Krug go after a guy after a hit on someone. It's not about old style hockey or being violent, it's about a feeling of unity, a culture where the team is a team and everyone does their job and plays their role as a group. Sabres haven't had that sort of feel since..................a long time ago. Why? No idea. It's not something you can build overnight. Maybe we have to accept a step backwards as they removed more talented individualists for some character leadership guys who can instill that attitude throughout the team? Our best teams always had solid leaders (Drury, Peca, Schoenfelt) and we definitely need a few of those now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 http://buffalonews.com/2018/02/11/mike-harrington-caution-is-the-right-approach-with-eichel/ The end of the previous playoff edition of the Sabres came the day Lucic ran Miller and the Sabres did nothing. In the last few games Okposo, Reinhart and Eichel were hit on less then honest plays and no one responded. Jack's former teammate, Grzelcyk, who hit both Reinhart and Jack should have been run through the boards by Nolan or someone else. I'm not advocating violence, but until the team learns to win they need to learn not to get pushed around. You can argue that they "showed" the Bruins by beating them without their best player, but that isn't a long term message. Standing up for yourself is. Also it isn't like the Bruins don't have a history of cheap shotting the Sabres (and not getting a response). Lucic on Miller, Boychuk on Vanek in the playoffs and now Grzelcyk on Reinhart and Eichel. If we aren't going to protect our best players, then we are doomed. Also don't tell me he wasn't trying to hurt Jack or Sam. Maybe he wasn't, be he showed reckless disregard for another player, not once but twice in the same game. Actually you are......."should have been run through the boards by Nolan or someone else" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kruppstahl Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Crosby has had a million cheap shots, and maybe 1 time his teammates have gone after the guy that did it Probably true, but that is Pittsburgh for you--a franchise I would rather not emulate among winning franchises. The Boston pack dog mentality is much more sound. You hit one of our guys, our entire team jumps on you without hesitation. Love that approach and Boston has always had it, despite the names changing over the years. I wish I knew how they pull that off. I think this current situation is overblown by Herrington however. It is not analogous to the Lucic incident. And for the record, I agree that did create the beginning of the end of the old Rochester Core. Actually you are......."should have been run through the boards by Nolan or someone else" And what is wrong with that? This is hockey, not international peace negotiations. The consistent absence of grit, toughness, competitiveness, and physicality from almost all regular season NHL games these days is a giant turnoff and the product suffers as a result. Fighting doesn't win hockey games The issue is most definitely not about "fighting" vs "not fighting" as an abstract concept in a vacuum. It is about "unified team that supports one another" vs "bunch of individuals collecting pay checks and managing their solo careers." I'm sure you see the difference. The Sabres have no spine and don’t stand up for each other O’Reilly and Eichel hate each other. Housley is a purse packer and a snowflake stroker. Lehner is the worst goalie in the NHL The Pegulas meddle too much The NHL hates Buffalo and rigged the lottery Whatever floats your boat. For me, it’s “we don’t have enough good players” More or less agree with you, but this year it has definitely been about more than just not enough players. The entire group has been disinterested most of the season and many key players played well below their potential for most of the season. Eichel has come on strong and Reinhart has a good groove going right now too, but it wasn't like that all season. This team has looked totally fractured or like a group that hates their HC or something like that all season long. Even when they find a way to put it together now, it doesn't usually stay that way for long; good periods are followed by bad periods; good games followed by a couple bad ones. The makeup of this team is flawed and it transcends talent level, though that needs improving as well. I just don't think what he calls for is the NHL in 2018. I'm all for violence and bloodshed, I just don't think the league is comprised of players who facilitate it. I think the type of teamwork and support Harrington talks about is available in the NHL these days. Though there is no argument about the fact that the traditional tough guy no longer exists in the league. He has been replaced by a much better hockey player and worse fighter, for the most part. There are very few guys in the league now who can't, at least a little, support a hockey-oriented slot in the lineup. This change has been going on for a very long time and it gets worse all the time. The absence of enforcers has created a casual approach to most games that is devoid of competitiveness and the product suffers as a result. I think it's fair to say that Harrington is often right when criticizing the on-ice results -- but literally anyone with eyes could do that. I also think he adds essentially zero value in terms of hockey analysis or knowledge of NHL dynamics or behind-the-scenes machinations at the Sabres. This weird rift that has existed between TBN and Pegula, almost from the very beginning, has resulted in the News reporters being shut out of the Bills and Sabres, or at least so it seems, and TBN's readers are the ones who suffer the most from it. There is very little juicy insider-knowledge sports reporting going on in WNY. Though to a certain extent that is b/c it is WNY and not a big city. In that sense, it's not going to change substantially even if things improve between the paper and Pegula. He barely touched him! I have no problems w/ Harrington btw. Yeah, I agree with this take. I don't think anyone needs to "go there" with this Eichel incident, and comparing it to the Lucic/Miller incident is simply misguided. I think that is just Harrington whipping a little click bait, b/c that sort of thing generates clicks, and reasoned, tempered, moderation does not. Except stick contact on his skate, then finishing his check. Mike is almost always right. People just don't like to hear the truth from an outsider. Inside the family, of course, we can bash them 10x worse than Mike does. Bills fans love to bash Bills sports writers; Sabres fans love to bash Sabres sports writers. I'm not sure what that is all about. Edited February 13, 2018 by Kruppstahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Say what you like about Boston but that is an example of the opposite. They always stand up for each other and it isn't always the big guys. I remember seeing little Tory Krug go after a guy after a hit on someone. It's not about old style hockey or being violent, it's about a feeling of unity, a culture where the team is a team and everyone does their job and plays their role as a group. Sabres haven't had that sort of feel since..................a long time ago. Why? No idea. It's not something you can build overnight. Maybe we have to accept a step backwards as they removed more talented individualists for some character leadership guys who can instill that attitude throughout the team? Our best teams always had solid leaders (Drury, Peca, Schoenfelt) and we definitely need a few of those now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Harrington is a blowfeld. His signature style is to ask dilapidated obvious questions with very little substance. His takes are as archaic as Paul Hamilton. But, this can be the case for so many middle markets. He does his "job", per say. I don't read him and if I can avoid it, I won't listen to his pedantic rants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Probably true, but that is Pittsburgh for you--a franchise I would rather not emulate among winning franchises. The Boston pack dog mentality is much more sound. You hit one of our guys, our entire team jumps on you without hesitation. Love that approach and Boston has always had it, despite the names changing over the years. I wish I knew how they pull that off. Pittsburgh has won 3 Cups and been to 4, Boston has won 1 and been to 2. You would rather be Boston though? Edited February 13, 2018 by Jokertecken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Harrington is a blowfeld. His signature style is to ask dilapidated obvious questions with very little substance. His takes are as archaic as Paul Hamilton. But, this can be the case for so many middle markets. He does his "job", per say. I don't read him and if I can avoid it, I won't listen to his pedantic rants. Edited February 13, 2018 by sabelvilhelm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Very nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 When our owner whined to the News that THEY (can you believe it?) were responsible for the state of the team when he bought it, Mike gave the obvious answer. When the Sabres were winning, the coverage was positive. The editor chimed in: We observe and comment, we don't cheerlead. You all will be ballwashing Mr. Harrington when the team is good. If the team is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 When our ###### owner whined to the News that THEY (can you believe it?) were responsible for the state of the team when he bought it, Mike gave the obvious answer. When the Sabres were winning, the coverage was positive. The editor chimed in: We observe and comment, we don't cheerlead. You all will be ballwashing Mr. Harrington when the team is good. If the team is good. Again, the problem with Harrington isn't that he's pointing out the team stinks. The problem is his insights into why they're bad are neither insightful nor accurate--he has no clue how to make valid causal inferences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Again, the problem with Harrington isn't that he's pointing out the team stinks. The problem is his insights into why they're bad are neither insightful nor accurate--he has no clue how to make valid causal inferences. This. I have no problem with him saying the team sucks. I have a problem with him trying to make his argument and sounding like some casual fan being interviewed off the street. "The Sabres were ghastly without Eichel in their 5-4 loss to Colorado. Like they have been much of the season at key bank center." It is sentences like that, that make me not want to read him. It offers no insight and it implies one thing but then ignored it a sentence later. The Sabres were bad without Eichel. The Sabres are bad at home just like they always are. Which is it? Why does it matter if they are always bad at home? Just say, the Sabres are bad at home and no surprise with Eichel out that trend continued. His way is just a stupid way to write anything. The Sabres suck at home. They suck at home with or without Jack Eichel. There is no insight into why they suck at home just him saying they do. They rest of it is just as bad. I'm paraphrasing but "Eichel has had 2 majors injuries in 3 years, it is not good." Okay, why is it not good? He then starts to explain why he thinks the Sabres should have responded after the Eichel injury. He thinks they should have been more "agitated". That's fine, I agree I would have liked to see that. He lays out an argument for the team being soft. All of it is fine. Then he randomly tosses out a Phil Housley quote which he doesn't follow up on or even attempt to unpack. Just line about how the smaller point that it should have been a penalty is correct. The article ends with him pondering why Nolan did nothing and how the fans now have to deal with Eichel being out. It's just half assed writing. There is not argument or discussion. It just "The thing happened" "Random thought" "I don't like the original thing" 'Random Thought' "Coach said this" "Poor fans" It just reads like absolute trash with no insight into the team. There isn't an interview with Nolan asking him why he did nothing. There isn't an interview with anyone else not named Reinhart about why they aren't playing for eachother. There isn't even a question posed to Housley. We literally are not told what question prompted the Housley quote. He didn't write it down so I, the reader, would know. That is why I don't like reading him. His article is jumpy after the first section. It doesn't provide evidence. The quotes have no context. In the end he tries to interject some major point about the poor fans which isn't what he started arguing to begin with. We write better blog posts on this freaking website. If you think the team is soft then write an article with multiple examples and quotes from the team and coach demonstrating that. Don't start talking about the injury and then switch gears. Don't sorta ask is the team soft and then sorta answer. Right something real that actually adds something of use. Eichel got injured. The Sabres didn't respond. They should have responded. Housley didn't answer my question saying they should have gone after a Bruin. Woe is us the fans. There I summarized his article in a few sentences. I agree we are soft but this article did nothing but meander lazily through a half baked argument about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 So basically reading Harrington is like reading my posts with spellcheck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Pittsburgh has won 3 Cups and been to 4, Boston has won 1 and been to 2. You would rather be Boston though? Boston has 6 cups and Pittsburgh has 5. I suppose you mean recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Boston has 6 cups and Pittsburgh has 5. I suppose you mean recently. Yeah, Crosby was the focal point of the discussion, so post-Crosby Penguins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Yeah, Crosby was the focal point of the discussion, so post-Crosby Penguins Sorry about that. Was not up on all that discussion. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Sorry about that. Was not up on all that discussion. Carry on. :beer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 http://www.wgr550.com/articles/news/botterill-has-plan-which-includes-rochester This is Paul Hamilton. This piece reads well even if I disagree with some of his assessments. The article is about evaluating young players and the patient approach Botterill has taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Hamilton trying to write articles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 http://www.wgr550.com/articles/news/botterill-has-plan-which-includes-rochester This is Paul Hamilton. This piece reads well even if I disagree with some of his assessments. The article is about evaluating young players and the patient approach Botterill has taken. Doesn’t this article belong in the prospects thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Vegas does have a good beat reporter. So maybe Harrington can learn something from him. He barely touched him! I have no problems w/ Harrington btw. But his trip caused a very awkward fall along the boards for Jack. I'm not as upset about the hit itself (well, okay, I am) but I'm also very upset that no penalty was called on the play when it was clear that Jack went down because a stick got jammed into his skates.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 http://www.wgr550.com/articles/news/botterill-has-plan-which-includes-rochester This is Paul Hamilton. This piece reads well even if I disagree with some of his assessments. The article is about evaluating young players and the patient approach Botterill has taken. Pretty good article. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 Harrington = Blind squirrel and someting something.... nut. Or just plain Captain Obvious... never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woods-racer Posted February 13, 2018 Report Share Posted February 13, 2018 http://www.wgr550.com/articles/news/botterill-has-plan-which-includes-rochester This is Paul Hamilton. This piece reads well even if I disagree with some of his assessments. The article is about evaluating young players and the patient approach Botterill has taken. I read the article and concur that it is well written and seems unbiased. I have never heard PH say anything but a player gets better and it's best to be in the AHL before coming to the NHL. He has been a staunch advocated of *riding the bus and smelling the diesel exhaust* for as long as I can remember. It's not surprising that JB and PH have the same philosophy about player development, one would be hard pressed to find someone working in hockey that doesn't. 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.