Game Thirty-Eight Open Thread: Sabres at Thrashers

Posted Sunday, January 6th, 2008 09:29 am GMT -4 by BFLOBlog. Talk About It

The state of the Sabres right now has to be one of desperation. In reality it’s still marked by lazy play by some key players whose actions don’t always support their words.

I’m glad Brian Campbell was emotional after the Ottawa loss. But go back and watch Ottawa’s second goal. Andrej Meszaros’ point shot was never seen by Miller, because he was being perfectly screened by Chris Neil and Brian Campbell. As the puck worked around the zone, Neil planted himself right in front of the net. Campbell drifted to the front from the side of the net, and set up right next to Neil. As the puck went back to the point, Campbell looked up at Neil. Instead of trying even the slightest physical effort to move Neil from the screen, he seemed to realize, “Damn, Chris Neil will kick my ass if I even look at him funny. I think I’ll just hang next to him and try to lift his stick if there’s a rebound.” Well, there wasn’t any rebound to speak of as Meszaros drilled it over Miller’s right shoulder, with the screen provided perfectly by Campbell. Brian Campbell simply was not willing to pay the price to make a good hockey play and move Neil a foot to his left.

Thomas Vanek tells us he’s working hard, but I grow tired of watching him come down the wing and try his now patented “glide” move, where he surrenders the puck and tries to glide around the defenseman. Sometimes, you just need to take it to the net. It rarely happens with Vanek, and to me that’s an indication that he’s just not willing to pay the price to make a good play.

That’s by no means a complete list, but it’s just two examples of the “leaders” on this team trying to lead with words that ring hollow when they are on the ice.

All that said, the reality is that the Sabres remain in a cluster of teams battling their way for spots 5-12 in the East. Atlanta is one of those teams as they are tied with 41 points each. We’ve been saying this all year, but if they don’t put a nice run together this month, then they can kiss the playoffs goodbye.

I love the afternoon games, and this one starts at 2:00.

No Comments

  1. Seth wrote:

    I’ll be at this one in the $10 nosebleeds… the Boys are 0-1-1 in the games I have recently attended, so let’s hope that ends today. Enjoy the game all, and I’ll report back if anything remarkable happens.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 10:35 am GMT -4 @ 10:35 am
  2. Keller wrote:

    have fun Seth!

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 10:44 am GMT -4 @ 10:44 am
  3. FT wrote:

    Amen Kevin …. too much talking and not enough playing. Unlike Jerry “the jerk” Sullivan, I am not enamored with Campbell at 3.5 to 4.0 million per year. Lydman needs some time in the press box, as his play has dropped off the charts. Put Pratt in there … how much worse can he be ?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 11:37 am GMT -4 @ 11:37 am
  4. Heather B. wrote:

    “Amen Kevin …. too much talking and not enough playing.”

    Yep. Time to quit talking about playing hard for 60 minutes and time to start actually doing it. It’s tiring hearing them say the right things but play like they don’t really mean any of it.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 12:37 pm GMT -4 @ 12:37 pm
  5. Scoop77 wrote:

    Here’s a second to your emotion. Today’s game shapes up as another flat performance by Team Pancake. I wonder how much this malaise is post-playoff letdown (a la Carolina last year) versus resignation that Quinn/Regier are not committed to winning a Cup.

    On the bright side, the Gaustad-Stafford-Ryan energy line last game was the most spark I’ve seen from this bunch all year. Let’s hope they keep it going and it becomes infectous. Maybe it could be the antidote to the Connolly-Vanik lope-a-dope cancer.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 12:50 pm GMT -4 @ 12:50 pm
  6. Heather B. wrote:

    “…resignation that Quinn/Regier are not committed to winning a Cup.”

    That’s getting to be a major cop-out, in my opinion. There’s plenty of talent on the team to make a lot of noise but they have to work hard. I know management and coaches often get blamed for poor performance, sometimes fairly, but at some point the guys who actually play the games have to step up. If they were playing the best hockey they can and losing, maybe I could get into blaming management. But they’re not even coming close to doing that, atleast not right now.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 01:06 pm GMT -4 @ 1:06 pm
  7. vtTom wrote:

    “There’s plenty of talent on the team to make a lot of noise but they have to work hard.”

    There’s way too much fluff…
    Something has gotta give – someone needs to run out of town (for $100 cash compensation, ala Ric Seiling)

    Regier’s ass puckers every time he forgets his “awards card” at Wegmans – his balls are made of fluff – I expect no moves in the future, not til Lindy beats the shit out of Darcy

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 01:24 pm GMT -4 @ 1:24 pm
  8. trevor wrote:

    Hmm..I seem to remember watching a Sunday afternoon game in Atlanta about this time last year, which we lost of course. I believe Mike Ryan scored his first NHL goal that game – against Ryan Miller.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 01:27 pm GMT -4 @ 1:27 pm
  9. Heather B. wrote:

    vtTom, I’d agree that there are some missing pieces and maybe some pieces that don’t fit but some of the responsibility still has to fall on the players who aren’t playing the way they can. That’s all I’m saying. Darcy and Lindy can’t make Vanek shoot the puck, Campbell clear the crease, Roy hold onto the puck etc.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 01:30 pm GMT -4 @ 1:30 pm
  10. Scoop77 wrote:

    They aren’t playing hard, or their best, perhaps because they don’t have the same desire they had last year, because they sense management doesn’t have it either. It isn’t a cop out, it’s human nature, and it makes a lot of sense. I would hope they have more professionalism than that. I believe it is more related to getting used to playing in second gear and now they equate it to 4th gear.

    In other words, most people think they work at 90-100% effort when actually they are doing 70-80% because it’s impossible to go at 100% all the time. This team is playing at 50-60% most of the time and occasionally it plays at 80%, but all the while they’ve convinced themselves they’re playing at 90-100%. The reason for it is anybody’s guess, but it’s clear they don’t have a sense of urgency or are unable/unwilling to act on it. It has nothing to do with talent level, and everything to do with desire.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 01:38 pm GMT -4 @ 1:38 pm
  11. Kevin wrote:

    Nice to see MacArthur back up. I missed the scratches…is Peters finally in the press box?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:02 pm GMT -4 @ 2:02 pm
  12. Kevin wrote:

    Nope. nevermind, I see Petey getting his 30 seconds in.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:04 pm GMT -4 @ 2:04 pm
  13. Kevin wrote:

    One thing I will give Vanek is that he does go to the net. If it’s a Campbell/Vanek combo goal for goal no. one then that me looks like Bucky today.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:11 pm GMT -4 @ 2:11 pm
  14. Kevin J. wrote:

    OK, decent start. Let’s see the Sabres put together a full period, then two, etc.

    1-0, hon (Val is at work); Vanek on a deflection.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:11 pm GMT -4 @ 2:11 pm
  15. Heather B. wrote:

    “It has nothing to do with talent level, and everything to do with desire.”

    You’re right. And again, that’s on the players. They’re professional athletes, they should be giving their best effort regardless of circumstances. That’s their job. I don’t think anyone confused this year’s Bills with a Super Bowl team but that didn’t stop them from busting their asses more weeks than not. I’m not saying management has no blame in the current season, I’m just saying it’s not fair to act like the players have nothing to do with the lackluster season which is the way some people (not you specifically) are acting.

    But anyway… Yay, a goal!

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:12 pm GMT -4 @ 2:12 pm
  16. Kevin wrote:

    Stupid effing Kalinin.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:16 pm GMT -4 @ 2:16 pm
  17. Kevin J. wrote:

    Good Lord, what a bad turnover by Kalinin.

    1-1, dear; Hossa on a steal and shot.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:16 pm GMT -4 @ 2:16 pm
  18. RJ wrote:

    Kalinin with some good hockey there. I want my D going 1 on 3, then giving a puck away in his own zone.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:16 pm GMT -4 @ 2:16 pm
  19. Scoop77 wrote:

    I’m not saying the players aren’t the reason for their lackluster play, I’m just speculating on a reason why they’re playing this way.

    That goal was a rally-killer. And I can’t believe Lindy took Ryan off the Gaustad line. I guess it was making the other 3 lines look bad.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:20 pm GMT -4 @ 2:20 pm
  20. RJ wrote:

    Forecheck looks much better (even Vanek getting in on the act), but the turnovers are killer. Paetsch is playing his way into a suit in the press box.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:23 pm GMT -4 @ 2:23 pm
  21. Heather B. wrote:

    Geez, even Pommers is turning it over. Don’t do that, Pommers!

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:28 pm GMT -4 @ 2:28 pm
  22. Gator wrote:

    For those not in the Buf or ATL area, yahoo.com is showing the game ….

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:28 pm GMT -4 @ 2:28 pm
  23. Kevin J. wrote:

    Geez; Tampa Bay just fumbled away the kickoff to open the second half.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:28 pm GMT -4 @ 2:28 pm
  24. Gator wrote:

    nice PP.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:29 pm GMT -4 @ 2:29 pm
  25. Kevin J. wrote:

    1-1 end of the first period, dear.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:34 pm GMT -4 @ 2:34 pm
  26. Heather B. wrote:

    Wow, quick first period. Some pretty good chances. Let’s see if we can get some of them in the net now.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:34 pm GMT -4 @ 2:34 pm
  27. Kevin wrote:

    Time for me to go visit Mom.

    Hope she’s in the mood for hockey!

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 02:56 pm GMT -4 @ 2:56 pm
  28. RJ wrote:

    Okay, I’ll say it for everyone:

    wtf?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:02 pm GMT -4 @ 3:02 pm
  29. Gator wrote:

    RJ – you beat me to it. I’m speechless.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:03 pm GMT -4 @ 3:03 pm
  30. Scoop77 wrote:

    How’s putting the Somenex in the Gatorade. Wouldn’t you know they couldn’t put 2 good periods together. The cancer is even infecting Miller now.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:05 pm GMT -4 @ 3:05 pm
  31. Kevin J. wrote:

    Great; a short laundry stop turns into my missing about half a period and a goal, WTF happened?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:09 pm GMT -4 @ 3:09 pm
  32. RJ wrote:

    Nothing, Kevin J. Literally nothing happened. Puck was at the side of the net, and somehow it’s in. Off Miller’s stick maybe?

    One of the slowest, most inexplicable goals I can remember.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:11 pm GMT -4 @ 3:11 pm
  33. Have they looked this meh all afternoon?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:13 pm GMT -4 @ 3:13 pm
  34. RJ wrote:

    Pretty much. Goose/Mair/Ryan have drawn two penalties, Timmy and Vanek have looked good at times. Other then that It’s been this way all game.

    Thrashers haven’t done anything to shock me. First goal was off a Kalinin brain fart.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:14 pm GMT -4 @ 3:14 pm
  35. Kevin J. wrote:

    Damn; it sounds like a general malaise is taking over the entire team, even Miller at last. Was it a 5-on-5 situation, RJ?

    BTW, the Giants just went up 24-7 with about 8 minutes left in the fourth quarter, if anyone cares.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:15 pm GMT -4 @ 3:15 pm
  36. RJ wrote:

    Yeah, 5 on 5. Ilya drew a Hank penalty early, but they didn’t do anything on it.

    Miller had the same “WTF” look the rest of us had on it. He didn’t pull away from the post, it was just one of “those” bounces…

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:19 pm GMT -4 @ 3:19 pm
  37. RJ wrote:

    Why is their glass so wide at the sideboards?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:20 pm GMT -4 @ 3:20 pm
  38. Kevin J. wrote:

    And all it did was put the Sabres behind Atlanta.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:20 pm GMT -4 @ 3:20 pm
  39. Shane wrote:

    i’ve had to switch to the giants game, this has been just too boring. whoever said “general malaise” said it best…

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:22 pm GMT -4 @ 3:22 pm
  40. RJ wrote:

    But Shane, you have to go see the Sabres/Atl game on the 16th! Tickets.com says!

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:23 pm GMT -4 @ 3:23 pm
  41. Our power play blllloooooooooows.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:24 pm GMT -4 @ 3:24 pm
  42. Kevin J. wrote:

    I think I borrowed the “general malaise” expression from the mid-late 1970s political lexicon, Shane.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:36 pm GMT -4 @ 3:36 pm
  43. RJ wrote:

    Is it 80s dance night in Atlanta? And no, I’m not going to leave my friends behind. Jerk.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:46 pm GMT -4 @ 3:46 pm
  44. fucking a.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:46 pm GMT -4 @ 3:46 pm
  45. RJ wrote:

    When do you know you are mediocre?

    When Colin Stuart goes coast to coast on your asses.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:47 pm GMT -4 @ 3:47 pm
  46. Kevin J. wrote:

    Good Lord; was the second goal as bad as that one?

    3-1 Atlanta, dear.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:48 pm GMT -4 @ 3:48 pm
  47. Gator wrote:

    wow….not a good start in 2008 for the Sabres.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:48 pm GMT -4 @ 3:48 pm
  48. Kevin J. wrote:

    Cripe.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:49 pm GMT -4 @ 3:49 pm
  49. RJ wrote:

    Queens of the Stone Age > A-Ha.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:50 pm GMT -4 @ 3:50 pm
  50. Gator wrote:

    seems to me there should be a players-only closed door meeting and players need to man up.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:50 pm GMT -4 @ 3:50 pm
  51. Adam wrote:

    I’m starting to dislike this team. They’re just going through the motions out there. Looks like Soupy will have to do a lot more crying for these guys to show up.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:51 pm GMT -4 @ 3:51 pm
  52. Kevin J. wrote:

    Ah, some quality ice time for Peters.

    Boy, this is starting to suck in a major fashion.

    4-1 Atlanta, dear.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:52 pm GMT -4 @ 3:52 pm
  53. RJ wrote:

    So if Campbell cries again during postgame, does Bucky raise his UFA contract another quarter mill?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:53 pm GMT -4 @ 3:53 pm
  54. Gator wrote:

    why is peters on the same line as Goose and Mair?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:53 pm GMT -4 @ 3:53 pm
  55. Ouch. This game is getting painful to watch.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:53 pm GMT -4 @ 3:53 pm
  56. Why is Peters even playing?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:53 pm GMT -4 @ 3:53 pm
  57. RJ wrote:

    Because Roy broke a strap on his purse, 289.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:54 pm GMT -4 @ 3:54 pm
  58. Gator wrote:

    289 – I would like to know the answer to that question. Then an answer to my question.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:55 pm GMT -4 @ 3:55 pm
  59. Kevin J. wrote:

    I’ve been sick enough lately; I don’t need the Sabres’ help.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:55 pm GMT -4 @ 3:55 pm
  60. Adam wrote:

    There is no fucking way that management can stand by and not do something major to light these bitches up. Seriously, now we’re a soft team mentally as well as physically.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:56 pm GMT -4 @ 3:56 pm
  61. Gator wrote:

    Adam – I agree. A shake-up is in order. Not sure who should be the scapegoat, though.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:58 pm GMT -4 @ 3:58 pm
  62. I woke up at 3:00, I’ve been sick since Friday, and was pleasantly surprised to find an open game thread. I think I’m going back to bed.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:59 pm GMT -4 @ 3:59 pm
  63. Shane wrote:

    So, do you guys think June Jones will stay in Hawaii? or is he headed to SMU? Right now this conversation is more exciting than this hockey game.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 03:59 pm GMT -4 @ 3:59 pm
  64. Kevin J. wrote:

    I’d be happy to keep Kozlov off the score sheet at this point. Man, I can’t stand him.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:00 pm GMT -4 @ 4:00 pm
  65. June is already gone. He already sent in his letter.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:01 pm GMT -4 @ 4:01 pm
  66. Kevin J. wrote:

    Well, well, well; a Sabres’ goal by MacArthur.

    4-2 Atlanta, dear.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:01 pm GMT -4 @ 4:01 pm
  67. Adam wrote:

    I’m not sure either, Gator. One or two of our “stars” need to be traded for tougher-minded players. The quicker the better.

    Thank you, Clarke MacArthur.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:01 pm GMT -4 @ 4:01 pm
  68. Gator wrote:

    do I dare to get excited?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:02 pm GMT -4 @ 4:02 pm
  69. Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:02 pm GMT -4 @ 4:02 pm
  70. Kevin J. wrote:

    Doe Jones have any previous connections to SMU? I can’t see why he would leave Hawaii for that job.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:03 pm GMT -4 @ 4:03 pm
  71. Kevin J. wrote:

    Especially with SMU having the tradition of being a running team/program.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:04 pm GMT -4 @ 4:04 pm
  72. RJ wrote:

    Adam,

    Not to self-advertise, but:

    http://goosesroost.blogspot.com/2007/12/my-i-was-there-post.html

    Bottom of the page. History says nothing will happen.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:05 pm GMT -4 @ 4:05 pm
  73. Because Hawaii had no budget for recruiting, facilities worse than many high schools, and no one would travel to play them. There was no chance for any additional growth.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:06 pm GMT -4 @ 4:06 pm
  74. Adam wrote:

    I fear you’re right, RJ. Darcy can build a team from scratch, but being an in-season GM he is not. We have too much talent to be in the position we’re in. Just ridiculous.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:08 pm GMT -4 @ 4:08 pm
  75. Kevin J. wrote:

    You’re right, twoeightnine, but SMU has never been the same since its “death sentence” a bunch of years ago.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:08 pm GMT -4 @ 4:08 pm
  76. Yeah but at least they’re on the mainland and were once a power program. Jones’ thing is to rebuild programs. It’s perfect for him. It wasn’t too long ago that Hawaii was 1-10.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:11 pm GMT -4 @ 4:11 pm
  77. Kevin J. wrote:

    Hmm; good point. I will have to keep an eye on SMU. With Texas Tech already hosting an aerial show, SMU could eventually make Texas the site of some real fireworks.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:13 pm GMT -4 @ 4:13 pm
  78. Shane wrote:

    what’s wrong with roy? does he have a sore pussy?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:14 pm GMT -4 @ 4:14 pm
  79. Gator wrote:

    maybe Darcy will change this year and start making some moves.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:14 pm GMT -4 @ 4:14 pm
  80. Kevin J. wrote:

    I think someone mentioned that Roy has a pulled purse arm muscle.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:14 pm GMT -4 @ 4:14 pm
  81. What the fuck is this shit?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:17 pm GMT -4 @ 4:17 pm
  82. Kevin J. wrote:

    Some power play.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:17 pm GMT -4 @ 4:17 pm
  83. Gator wrote:

    maybe Roy hurt himself diving during the game?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:18 pm GMT -4 @ 4:18 pm
  84. Kevin J. wrote:

    He’d be on permanent IR that way, Gator,

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:20 pm GMT -4 @ 4:20 pm
  85. Kevin J. wrote:

    A great ending to a great game,

    5-2 Atlanta, dear.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:20 pm GMT -4 @ 4:20 pm
  86. Gator wrote:

    need to re-group for the next game ….

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:21 pm GMT -4 @ 4:21 pm
  87. RJ wrote:

    Did you hear the padding? His stats must be nice and comfy…

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:21 pm GMT -4 @ 4:21 pm
  88. Gator wrote:

    good point, Kevin.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:21 pm GMT -4 @ 4:21 pm
  89. Kevin J. wrote:

    That game stunk worse than the guy’s foot in the smoking commercial.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:22 pm GMT -4 @ 4:22 pm
  90. Kevin J. wrote:

    Ha; what are you saying, RJ?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:23 pm GMT -4 @ 4:23 pm
  91. RJ wrote:

    A pass to a guy who was put on waivers the day after his own bobblehead night would have been the right thing to do, I think.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:27 pm GMT -4 @ 4:27 pm
  92. Kevin J. wrote:

    I was shaking my head at Kowalchuk, to be honest.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:32 pm GMT -4 @ 4:32 pm
  93. C. Byrd wrote:

    UGH…

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:34 pm GMT -4 @ 4:34 pm
  94. vtTom wrote:

    fuckin cupcakes; too much sugar in their loafers!

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:38 pm GMT -4 @ 4:38 pm
  95. Scoop77 wrote:

    I’m adding Colin Stuart to my fantasy team and dropping Connolly.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 04:58 pm GMT -4 @ 4:58 pm
  96. trevor wrote:

    Everyone knows I’ve beaten the Penner drum since the end of last season, but honestly, it would be a waste to trade for him when there is absolutely no emphasis put on physical play.

    Leadership works from the top down. If management is soft, the players will be soft. Think this shit would be going down if Brian Burke was our GM? Yeah, didn’t think so.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 05:31 pm GMT -4 @ 5:31 pm
  97. trevor wrote:

    I didn’t have time during the last thread, but here are some stats for Coach (C)indy a la hitting and its correlation to winning:

    Anaheim Ducks (06-07) GP W L OTL GF GA PTS
    82 48 20 14 258 208 110

    Clearly the most physical team in the lead last year. Add a Stanley Cup to this list too.

    Ottawa Senators (07-08) GP W L OTL PTS
    41 27 10 4 58

    If you don’t think Ottawa plays physically you’re not paying attention. But you can also check with TC, Stafford, and Paille if you’re still unsure.

    Yeah, Cin..no need to play physically.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 05:42 pm GMT -4 @ 5:42 pm
  98. Zach wrote:

    Holy crap, this team cannot be any worse. This team definitely needs to be physical. Why doesnt this team just park in front and just wail away.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 07:34 pm GMT -4 @ 7:34 pm
  99. Becky wrote:

    Ottawa, the best physical team of the East, got out muscled by Anaheim big time in the Stanley Cup finals too.

    They need to sit Peters, then put 4 lines together permanently. Then tell them to get their shit in order and learn how to play together in complete unison. Pecking order of lines depends on who can put aside personal egos and work as a unit most successfully. Independent study groups of a sort. Then again, that might take away from special teams practice. They do that, don’t they?

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 07:35 pm GMT -4 @ 7:35 pm
  100. Mark M. wrote:

    Becky,

    We can’t score goals. Why would you want to dilute the talent by leveraging them across 4 lines? Ruff needs to work on creating lines that click.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 08:36 pm GMT -4 @ 8:36 pm
  101. trevor wrote:

    I’ve said it before, but any team that not only has andrew peters on its roster but actually plays him, is not a serious team. And I like mike ryan’s grit, but he’s merely a decent AHLer. We are a three-line team at most, and worse, miller looks like he’s about ready to give up. I cry a little more inside every time clark macarthur is in roch while these other two suit up in buffalo.

    All is not lost, but there needs to be some significant changes made fast, with regard to attitude first and foremost.

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 09:23 pm GMT -4 @ 9:23 pm
  102. tgetman wrote:

    http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/01/06/the-expletive-stupid-ice-bowl/#cont

    an interesting video was just posted over at the fanhouse….

    Comment — Sunday, January 6th, 2008 11:05 pm GMT -4 @ 11:05 pm
  103. [...] Heather B. wrote an interesting post today on Game Thirty-Eight Open Thread: Sabres at ThrashersHere’s a quick excerpt [...]

    Pingback — Monday, January 7th, 2008 02:53 am GMT -4 @ 2:53 am
  104. ipster wrote:

    time to clean house. this “team” is the worst i’ve seen in years and it can’t be blamed on management, it must be pinned on all the passengers that float every night

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 07:10 am GMT -4 @ 7:10 am
  105. trevor wrote:

    ipster, I don’t necessarily agree. It’s normal for most human beings to be ordinary. The sad truth is that this team is very similar to those of recent years, with much of the personnel overlapping.

    Most of us only work as hard as we need to to get the job done – the entire idea of efficiency is to accomplish the most with the least cost. The trouble is that the Sabres believe they’re doing all they can – ie. doing as much as can be expected with what they’ve got – but we know they’re not doing all they can because we’re lucky if they show up for one period each night.

    This is where leadership comes in. Ruff can talk about losing Briere and Drury all day long, but leadership starts with the coaching staff. Ruff is clearly not doing all he can to get the most out of his players. If he were, there would have been a least a couple benchings by now. These players are kids. They want to be told what to do and how to do it. Those who are unwilling can be sent on their way, but I haven’t seen much to indicate that they’re being asked to more in the first place.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 08:50 am GMT -4 @ 8:50 am
  106. Ben Jurgenoff wrote:

    “Ruff is clearly not doing all he can to get the most out of his players. If he were, there would have been a least a couple benchings by now.”

    I may not be an NHL coach, but, somehow, I don’t think it’s that simple. This sounds like Bucky Gleason.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 10:49 am GMT -4 @ 10:49 am
  107. trevor wrote:

    I guess my last comment wasn’t intended to be an all-inclusive assessment of the sabres, but if Ruff really is getting the most out of everyone, we actually do need a complete overhaul, beginning with the GM and head coach. I hardly believe that’s the case, because lack of effort is all too palpable.

    So here are a couple more questions/observations:

    -How much incentive does Vanek have now that he’s struck it rich?

    -Why do we seem to have the only ‘tough guy’ in the league who is incapable of holding down a regular shift? More importantly, why does our coach believe he fits our system or belongs in the NHL?

    -If there is no clear leader in the dressing room to motivate the troops on a nightly basis, doesn’t this responsibility fall on the coach? And if not, why not?

    -Why did Mike Ryan win a spot prior to training camp? Clarke MacArthur has much more upside and playing consistently in the NHL would have already paid more dividends than Ryan has (case in point: he’s already produced equally in only 13 games).

    -Ruff has admitted he places little emphasis on checking. Am I the only one who saw that interview?

    -There’s an interesting dichotomy at play this year with the Sabres. There have alluded that the loss of Drury and Briere excuses their lack of production, but at the same time they seem to have this attitude that they’re still too good and too talented to have to work for results.

    -As Keller said the other night, there are too many pussies on this team. Nathan Paetsch is the only defenseman willing to cross-check someone for bumping his goalie. And Peters and Ruff should both be fined on principle alone for these meaningless play-fight exhibitions that occur in the first minute of a game. Want to see a real fight? Wait until Goose, Mair, or Paetsch are in one. At least they can win them.

    -For YEARS the Sabres have been soft, and now that they don’t have enough offensive weapons to compensate for all the gliding and nonchalance, they’re right where they should be in the standings. The easiest fix is the most time-honored attribute in the game: hustle.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 11:27 am GMT -4 @ 11:27 am
  108. TheTick wrote:

    I guess they saw enough in Michael Ryan to give him a contract, despite it being a one-way deal. I hate that he’s keeping Clark MacArthur out of a regular roster spot.

    I honestly feel like Peters could take a regular shift if they would stick with him. He didn’t look like a liability in the last game, and at least was using his size in the corners.

    I’m not going to say anything about Vanek. I feel like he’s been trying hard lately which is more than I can say for some others.

    Did anyone else notice Peter King putting down the New Year’s Day bowl games, and praising the ice bowl? Great mention by non-hockey national media.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 12:21 pm GMT -4 @ 12:21 pm
  109. Ben wrote:

    1) Vanek’s Incentive:
    I don’t think professional sports players can or do just “turn it off” like you seem to be indicating. This guy has spent his entire life devoted and dedicating to making it to this level of competition. He’s given up everything that the rest of us enjoy in exchange for early morning workouts, all-day practices, week-long road trips, regimented diets, and more hard work in one day than many of us do in one week. He’s had to fight through all of the obstacles and setbacks during his career to get to this level, earn this chance to play. Somehow, I can’t imagine that someone who is capable to doing all of that is also capable of just shrugging his shoulders and thinking “well, I’ve got a big contract, no need to try anymore. I think I’ll have an extra doughnut”. These guys play for the contract, not because they want the money but rather because they know the contract is a reflection of their skill and talent and work ethic. I think it’s at best a GROSS oversimplification to suggest that he’s turned his game off now that he’s got the money, and at worst completely and utterly untrue.

    2) Why do we have Peters?
    I couldn’t tell ya. It does seem odd that he makes the active roster at all when MacArthur is hanging around in Rochester. On the other hand, he IS a physical player and you’ve pointed out that we need more physical play. He’s energetic when he’s out there, even if not particularly talented. He’s a well-respected guy around the league, which has some value in the locker room and even on the ice. I’m not saying these things mean he absolutely deserves a spot on the roster, but it’s worth pointing out there ARE points in his favor at least.

    3) Regardless of whether or not there is a clear leader it should ALWAYS fall on the coach to motivate his troops on a nightly basis. That being said, how do you know he isn’t? I saw them come from behind to tie up a three goal deficit the other night against the conference’s best team. I’ve seen this bunch of mediocre players play like champions some nights, which Ruff ought to deserve credit for if he’s going to also get credit for nights when they don’t.

    4) Why Michael Ryan? Who knows, we were not on the ice or in the locker room during training camp. We’re not professional hockey coaches or talent scouts for the NHL, so our opinion is suspect at best. I do know one thing: At this point in the season we have the benefit of hindsight, which they did not have at the beginning of the year.

    Also, Ryan has a one-way contract, signed this past off-season which likely means he would have gone elsewhere had we not given it to him.

    5) Okay, so Ruff places little emphasis on checking. Schottenheimer places little emphasis on Passing. Burger King places little emphasis on nutritional value. That’s his style and that’s way he wants to play the game. I realize we haven’t won a Stanley Cup, but every year there are 29 teams that don’t win it. We’ve had considerable success under Ruff’s style and philosophy, so it can’t be all wrong.

    6) Where has this “attitude that they’re still too good and too talented to have to work for results” been evidenced? By their play? I think, on some nights, they’ve worked incredibly hard. I think just recently against the Sens they worked incredibly hard. No team can work hard every night, it’s just not possible. I’ve never heard a sound bite or interview from any of the players indicative of that attitude you describe, do you know something I don’t?

    7) The league is handing out penalties like hotcakes this year for hitting people in front of your goaltender before the puck gets there. The only thing a super-aggressive attitude is going to get you is short-handed. And why should Ruff get fined for Peters doing his thing? This is part of the league, like it or not, most teams have that guy on their roster that does these fights. Brashear, Parros, McGratton, Belak, etc… It’s just part of the game, hardly worth getting excited about.
    8) Not really a question, so I can’t answer anything. I can say I disagree, and argue that their style of play has been incredibly successful the past two years. You can’t say “no cup” because by that standard every year there are 29 losers, but I don’t think you’re suggesting every team should change head coaches every two years. To date we’ve been relatively successful. My opinion is that this is an under-talented team that has, by virtue of good coaching, managed to play at a level that far exceeds their abilities. It’s only now finally catching up with them with the losses of their best offensive talent.

    Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a complicated situation: We lost our two best offensive players and now we can’t score as many goals. End of story.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 12:47 pm GMT -4 @ 12:47 pm
  110. Matt S. wrote:

    “Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a complicated situation: We lost our two best offensive players and now we can’t score as many goals. End of story.”

    I’m not disagreeing with you, but you can also add Tallinder and Lydman (the supposed #1 shutdown pair) playing like absolute dogshit. Tallinder was never the same after that Carolina series injury, much like McKee after the Lemieux incident.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 02:04 pm GMT -4 @ 2:04 pm
  111. Ben wrote:

    Matt,

    Yea, I would have agreed with you after the start of the season but it really seems like, for the most part, our defense has shored itself up. Ok, Tallinder and Lydman aren’t the top guys, but Campbell and Spacho are filling in nicely. You can’t expect to stop the other team all the time and our Goals Against per Game is 2.88, 21st in the league and within reason given our tough defensive start to the season.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 02:14 pm GMT -4 @ 2:14 pm
  112. Ben wrote:

    Also, our Shots Against is among the lowest in the league (8th place) so it’s not like we’re getting shellacked every game.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 02:18 pm GMT -4 @ 2:18 pm
  113. Matt S. wrote:

    Okay Ben, that’s a valid argument…..until you look at Buffalo’s save percentage, which is 22nd in the NHL.

    Low shot totals don’t mean anything if you don’t stop those few shots that do get through. A lot of that is a result of odd-man rushes from turnovers (offensive and defensive) and bad pinching by defensemen.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 04:37 pm GMT -4 @ 4:37 pm
  114. Becky wrote:

    Ben’s post closely resembles in tone a post I read over at Top Shelf. Basically, “If Only, If Only’ and it’s all Quinn’s fault.

    Everyone else seems to merit an excuse. I’m one of the first to give people benefit of doubt for a while, but it gets old. The guys get paid good money to go full bore, whether they feel alienated, feelings hurt, whatever.

    When it comes to money to a player they’ll tell you it’s a business, nothing personal. So I expect them to play like professionals, each & every game.

    Campbell was quoted as saying they’d be happy with half or so wins on the road? I think maybe they should aim for 100%, no matter how unrealistic. That’s what they get paid for.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 04:52 pm GMT -4 @ 4:52 pm
  115. trevor wrote:

    Ben, I’m not sure how long you’ve been a sabres fan, but they sure seem to have you snowed. Poor vanek – give me 10 mil and i’ll swear off doughnuts too. I don’t think vanek deserves much blame – i was merely asking the question of how hard we can expect him to work now that his incentive to perform isn’t nearly as high as the past two years. ‘Turning it off’ is not the same as not turning it on, however.

    The team the past two years hasn’t come close to showing the grit and determination that, say, the ’99 team did. They had shit talent and tons of heart; this year we have tons of talent and shit heart. Ridiculous to argue that we’re an undertalented team – on paper we’re easily on par with ottawa.

    If you accept the fact that it’s OK that Ruff places little emphasis on checking, why doesn’t he just coach baseball instead?

    Finally, most players don’t come right out and say, ‘you know, i really think i’m too talented to have to work hard tonight.’ Vogl might as well recycle postgame reports from 2002 – how many times can you read ‘well, we just didn’t show up tonight’/'we kind of took them for granted’ before you start to lose your mind? If you know what you’re doing wrong, don’t do it to begin with. The excuses got old way before this year. And unlike you and some other folks, apparently, I’m not happy just settling for third or fourth place when something as basic as a little bit of intensity could make all the difference.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 10:12 pm GMT -4 @ 10:12 pm
  116. trevor wrote:

    Becky, great point about campbell. For years it’s pissed me off that Ruff would head out on the road for a stretch and say publicly that they really need to at least split the games.

    I wonder if Detroit merely hopes to win a certain percentage of their games, or whether they intend to win them all and then settle for less than perfection if they have to.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 10:14 pm GMT -4 @ 10:14 pm
  117. Ben wrote:

    Matt,
    That’s a good point. I don’t have much of a counter-point other than I still think the D is playing fine, and poor fore-checking by the offense is setting up those tough situations for them to defend.

    Becky,
    Not sure if you were agreeing with me or not, but I agree with you 100%. I also expect these guys to go full-bore and play their hardest every game I just know that at the end of the season there will be some days they didn’t, and that’ll be true of every team in the league. As for Campbell I also agree, if you’re not shooting for a win every game you’re setting up for failure. Of course, realistically they should be happy with a 50/50 split on a road trip, but you don’t tell the press that!!

    Trev,
    Snowed how? They’ve fooled me into thinking they’re not a good team? I’d say they’ve snowed you into thinking they ARE a good team. You asked the Vanek question, so I tried answering it. Of course he *may* not play as hard as when he was trying to win that contract, but I’ll wait a season or two to pass judgment on him. He’s got a lot to learn and a new role to play on the team and it could be that in another season or so I’ll agree that he tanked. I guess I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since he seems to be making progress (slowly) this year.

    Lastly, I know players don’t come right out and say things like that, but ask an open-ended question and ya gotta be prepared for ANY answer :) I think you’re mistaking the excuses they give the press for attitude. The excuses are the cliches that you’re expected, as an athlete, to give the press when you’re losing. I’m not sure why you believe this is a talented team, they certainly haven’t exhibited much talent, but the answers they give the press are the only ones they know how to give.

    Comment — Monday, January 7th, 2008 10:52 pm GMT -4 @ 10:52 pm
  118. trevor wrote:

    The Sabres are a good team but any team has to work to be successful. They proved last year that all the talent in the world doesn’t displace the need to play with intensity, especially in the playoffs.

    The truth is, average talent and above average work ethic will usually take you much further than the reverse. I’ve said a dozen times that if we had the work ethic of the ’99 team, we’d be blowing away our competition.

    Ruff just said again today that he thought they played well enough to beat Atlanta on Sunday. I guess he and I were watching different games. Yes, we had our chances, but players who bust balls have their heads in the game, and sloppy turnovers are less likely to happen when you’re paying attention.

    I believe the team thinks it’s talented enough to get by without putting in the effort and playing with the determination needed to succeed regularly. Any team will have an off night every now and then – shit, we even beat Ottawa once this year – but the Sabres are not making adjustments against teams that have figured out their system and realized that taking the play to them is usually enough to knock them off their game.

    But again, this is nothing new. It seems this has been the case for years now. Remember, in ’99 Ruff basically was coaching the team he inherited from Ted Nolan. I can’t stand Nolan today, but it’s undeniable that he convinced a bunch of never-shoulda-beens that they could beat everybody, and they damn near did.

    I welcome anyone to argue that I’m offbase, but I think the addition of Kaleta tonight (if he gets enough minutes) will provide such a contrast to recent “efforts” that it will illustrate exactly what I’ve been frustrated with lately.

    Comment — Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 02:40 pm GMT -4 @ 2:40 pm