hopeleslyobvious Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Well said! :lol: :lol: How can it be well said? He slanted the facts for his argument. Sure he only had 1:30 ice time in 2 of the games, but he had over 6 against Montreal. He wasn't a liability on the ice, I thought he looked pretty good on the forecheck, and his hustling drew a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I'll admit, Peters is not as fleet of foot as Soupy, or hell even Mair, hel even goose is faster than him, but he was a beast around the net the other night in Montreal. I remember in particular one play where he manhandled the defensemen crashing the net and drew a penalty because of it. I'm not going to sing his praises, but he is not a liability on the ice, and he works his ass off. Blue collar if I ever saw it. When Peters starts playing 10 minutes a game or so, I'll stop considering him a liability. I don't care how much weight he has lost or how he is so much faster. As long as Peters A$$ is nailed to the bench in the 3rd period and in crucial situations, I will be a non-believer. That being said, I will watch his 3 shifts a game and try to see the positives in his game that some are touting. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 When Peters starts playing 10 minutes a game or so, I'll stop considering him a liability. I don't care how much weight he has lost or how he is so much faster. As long as Peters A$$ is nailed to the bench in the 3rd period and in crucial situations, I will be a non-believer. That being said, I will watch his 3 shifts a game and try to see the positives in his game that some are touting. ;) Or we just could be saying that there are no other options financially and he's not as bad as some like to point out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Or we just could be saying that there are no other options financially and he's not as bad as some like to point out. I agree, I don't think he has looked out of place out there at all. Granted I wouldn't be comfortable playing him against other team's #1 units or something, but until we clear up the financial situation just let him go out there are play, maybe entertain us with a fight, throw a hit, etc....I don't think anyone on here can argue that they don't appreciate his physical presence/the line of Peters-Gaustad-Mair...very entertaining thus far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I agree, I don't think he has looked out of place out there at all. Granted I wouldn't be comfortable playing him against other team's #1 units or something, but until we clear up the financial situation just let him go out there are play, maybe entertain us with a fight, throw a hit, etc....I don't think anyone on here can argue that they don't appreciate his physical presence/the line of Peters-Gaustad-Mair...very entertaining thus far Mair, Gaustad and Hecht led to a goal. Mair, Gaustad and Kotalik had substained pressure in the offensive zone. Let's not take away from the work Mair and Gaustad do night in and night out just to try to prop up Peters. You put an actual hockey player on the ice with Mair and Gaustad and you will have a fourth line that you can roll out for more then 1:30 a game. Hell, they might actualy be able to chip in with a goal here or there. I guess that it's a horrible decision to have Vanek in the lineup this year then. Talk about a waste. The guy makes stupid plays all the time that lead to goals. Of course, if we're going by your logic, the simple fact that Vanek "was not good enough to step foot on the ice" in the playoffs means that Ruff and Regier probably should either just cut him or sit him. It doesn't matter if he came to camp in better shape and worked out hard over the summer. He didn't play in the playoffs last year, and therefore shouldn't be playing in the regular season this year. Peters wishes he could show the amount of talent on his best shift that Vanek shows on his worst. I will agree Vanek needs to work on his game. But he is also only 22 years old with all the potential you can fit into one hockey player. Unlike Peters, who will never make a difference, Vanek can be as good or as great as he wants to be. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Mair, Gaustad and Hecht led to a goal. Mair, Gaustad and Kotalik had substained pressure in the offensive zone. Let's not take away from the work Mair and Gaustad do night in and night out just to try to prop up Peters. You put an actual hockey player on the ice with Mair and Gaustad and you will have a fourth line that you can roll out for more then 1:30 a game. Hell, they might actualy be able to chip in with a goal here or there. Peters wishes he could show the amount of talent on his best shift that Vanek shows on his worst. I will agree Vanek needs to work on his game. But he is also only 22 years old with all the potential you can fit into one hockey player. Unlike Peters, who will never make a difference, Vanek can be as good or as great as he wants to be. ;) What about Peters time in the Montreal game? He played more than 1:30, and if I remember right drew a penalty as he was driving to the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 What about Peters time in the Montreal game? He played more than 1:30, and if I remember right drew a penalty as he was driving to the net. The penalty came against Ottawa. I'm sure if Christoph Schubert knew who he was playing against he would have just let him crash into the end boards then taken the puck. I have to ask. Did you buy a lot of Andrew Peters merchandise that you still need to sell or something? We have probably wasted more time typing about Peters then Peters will play throughout his NHL career. :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 The penalty came against Ottawa. I'm sure if Christoph Schubert knew who he was playing against he would have just let him crash into the end boards then taken the puck. I have to ask. Did you buy a lot of Andrew Peters merchandise that you still need to sell or something? We have probably wasted more time typing about Peters then Peters will play throughout his NHL career. :unsure: Hoo boy. Deluca's still the constant Peters pessimist. Nothing will persuade that guy otherwise. Leave him alone. He's going to complain about what Peters doesn't do (IHHO) -- even if he was placed in a corner like a little kid for "time out". I'm still waiting for Peters to drop the gloves this season (or any other Sabre, for that matter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 The penalty came against Ottawa. I'm sure if Christoph Schubert knew who he was playing against he would have just let him crash into the end boards then taken the puck. I have to ask. Did you buy a lot of Andrew Peters merchandise that you still need to sell or something? We have probably wasted more time typing about Peters then Peters will play throughout his NHL career. :unsure: My mistake on the penalty. Got my games mixed up, and wasn't about to go back and watch the recordings for this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 My mistake on the penalty. Got my games mixed up, and wasn't about to go back and watch the recordings for this thread. ESPN does 'play by play' for hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 ESPN does 'play by play' for hockey. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Does this mean all of your posts in the future will be well researched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHAAAUGHT!!! Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 He looked "decent"? In 1:30 you can judge his forecheck? If he had a decent forecheck then he would have played more then 1:30. Or maybe if they weren't short-handed so much he would have gotten more ice time: "Ice time has come sparingly, with Peters totaling just over nine minutes in the three games because of the early season penalty-box parade. He doesn't play special teams, so on nights like Saturday - when Buffalo and Ottawa combined for 15 power plays - Peters isn't needed. But he played nine shifts and 6:25 against Montreal. He's working toward that, and more." http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20061...?tbd2056219.asp Now I'm sure your going to tell us how everyone on the team should be able to play special teams..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Or maybe if they weren't short-handed so much he would have gotten more ice time: "Ice time has come sparingly, with Peters totaling just over nine minutes in the three games because of the early season penalty-box parade. He doesn't play special teams, so on nights like Saturday - when Buffalo and Ottawa combined for 15 power plays - Peters isn't needed. But he played nine shifts and 6:25 against Montreal. He's working toward that, and more." http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20061...?tbd2056219.asp Now I'm sure your going to tell us how everyone on the team should be able to play special teams..... No. Just be able to play hockey. Which leaves Peters out ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topshelfcookies Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Vanek didn't play in the playoffs? We are talking '05-'06 aren't we? I could have sworn I saw him play in 6 games vs. the Phlyers, 2 vs. the Otters, and another 2 vs. the Canes. Heck, I even thought I saw him score a couple of goals. I guess I must be mistaken. (Where's the d'oh smiley when you really need it?) Thanks for the call-out Dave...I didn't really think that statement out I suppose. Yes, I completely realize that Vanek played in the playoffs. Really what I was doing was going for sarcasm to try and get at DeLuca for his Peter's bashing. For the record I like Vanek and Peters and support both of them playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Thanks for the call-out Dave...I didn't really think that statement out I suppose. Yes, I completely realize that Vanek played in the playoffs. Really what I was doing was going for sarcasm to try and get at DeLuca for his Peter's bashing. For the record I like Vanek and Peters and support both of them playing. Still waiting on Deluca's workout regiment that makes Peters' work this summer something to scoff at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Still waiting on Deluca's workout regiment that makes Peters' work this summer something to scoff at. What I do for a workout doesn't make the Sabres better. So in a way it's just like Peters. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Come on, there's always a place for Peters...the team even made him the players' union rep... Of course, if you are a conspiracy theorist (or a Peters basher) you might be making more out of Lindy's decision to work Paetsch out as a winger yesterday in practice (same article.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 Come on, there's always a place for Peters...the team even made him the players' union rep... Of course, if you are a conspiracy theorist (or a Peters basher) you might be making more out of Lindy's decision to work Paetsch out as a winger yesterday in practice (same article.) Didn't Campbell play as forward for a few shifts early in the year last year? I don't remember that going too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 I don't really remember that, but then again, I think he has always been a defenseman - Paetsch at least has some experience as a winger: Paetsch spent most of his first pro season at forward with the Rochester Americans. He could be used in a pinch, but Sabres coach Lindy Ruff said he hasn't delved into the possibilities beyond cursory thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 I don't really remember that, but then again, I think he has always been a defenseman - Paetsch at least has some experience as a winger: Paetsch spent most of his first pro season at forward with the Rochester Americans. He could be used in a pinch, but Sabres coach Lindy Ruff said he hasn't delved into the possibilities beyond cursory thought. I read that as well. I can't remember which game it was last year, but if I remember right, the Sabres dressed 7 defenseman, and Campbell took a shift or two at wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 OK, I said this in the Red Wings gameday thread, and I'll say it again here: DeLuca and all other Peters-bashers should step up and admit that the big fella added major value tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 I didn't see the game, but going on what everyone was saying, I'll give an "Atta Boy!" to Peters for sparking the Sabres tonight with his fight. Regardless of all the "he can be a 4th-line contributor, he's skating better/he sucks, should be in the press box" garbage that has gone on in this thread, being an enforcer is his role with the team, it is what he is most capable of doing, and he did his job well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 OK, I said this in the Red Wings gameday thread, and I'll say it again here: DeLuca and all other Peters-bashers should step up and admit that the big fella added major value tonight. How is that again? 3 shifts for 2:13? 1 hit? And a staged fight against the Red Wings version of Andjuice Peters? A predetermined goonfest does nothing for the team. The Sabres won because Miller shut the door and gave his team time to win the game. To imply that Peters did anything to help this team win it's fourth game is an insult to those players that actualy did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 How is that again? 3 shifts for 2:13? 1 hit? And a staged fight against the Red Wings version of Andjuice Peters? A predetermined goonfest does nothing for the team. The Sabres won because Miller shut the door and gave his team time to win the game. To imply that Peters did anything to help this team win it's fourth game is an insult to those players that actualy did. I can't really disagree. (someone call a therapist) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 14, 2006 Report Share Posted October 14, 2006 How is that again? 3 shifts for 2:13? 1 hit? And a staged fight against the Red Wings version of Andjuice Peters? A predetermined goonfest does nothing for the team. The Sabres won because Miller shut the door and gave his team time to win the game. To imply that Peters did anything to help this team win it's fourth game is an insult to those players that actualy did. You really don't think his fight was a major momentum-changer in the game? Did you watch the game? Do you think Lindy thinks it was a big moment in the game? To me, the before/after in terms of the Sabres' passion and determination was huge. Certainly, Miller was more valuable than Peters last night. But I just don't see how anyone could say that Peters didn't add major value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.