yeah, id like to see him more responsible in his own end as well, but i do think he is alot better then alot of his counterparts. i never got the impression, and still dont, that he is a defensive liability.

_________________

2 Short handed goals in about 5 games, He is a beast on the PK.

_________________

I'm trying to give Vanek a clean slate this year in my head but oh boy that preseason game hurt that.

I know it is just preseason, but even Hecht made him look real lazy.

He made some decent plays, even, in the first period. He just doesn't play with that passion and toughness he should be at, at this point in his career.

Again, I think i'll let this one slide, but if he hugs the blue line during the regular season, he won't improve.

Big deal, its preseason. He's on the team regardless, its not Vanek who needs to turn it up a notch at this point anyway.

_________________
"...they came down into the stands and asked if I knew how to do play by play. I said...No. But. I'll take a shot at it if you want".- Rick Jeanneret

I know it is easy to say that, but coming from some one who has played in quite a few scrimmages...Yes they don't count in the standings, but people with heart don't downplay sporting events.

It is that adrenaline that feeds you, and we haven't seen it from Vanek.

Vanek has to earn that contract. It's not the other way around.

He gets paid for the preseason as well.

No free passes this season. Not this soon.

I still think preseason is worthless, look at the Bills Preseason, especially with their first team, and how surprising they were on Monday.

The hockey preseason is more of a way to get your timing back, and the feel for playing the game agian, especially after a long summer, and to let the rookies play for a spot.

If he plays lazy during the regular season then worry, now isn't the time. He has a job and shouldn't play much in the preseason anyway.

_________________

I agree unfortunately. I was excited to see hockey again but I'm still waiting for the real hockey to begin.

i still dont see the detrimental defensive play that is so evident. hockey is a sport with roles. his is to score and contribute on the big board. the sabres have plenty of guys whose isnt on the scoresheet, but rather on the boards or neutral zone. not every player is a datsyuk or zetterberg or federov, two way juggurnauts. thats just the way it is. vanek is never going to play peca like 2-way hockey. and peca never put 40 goals up in a season. different roles, different expectations. vanek is fine in his own zone, totally not detrimental on a consistant basis. he could be more consistant, offensively, and he may take a shift off here and there. in reality, were nitpicking about the teams best player outside the crease. sorry, i dont think he has to win a selke to be a major asset on the team.

_________________

What happens if Vanek drives on the wrong side of the road to success? Get it? Shut up. I thought it was clever. Ok I didn't find it remotely clever but it had to be said.

_________________
All the things we wanted each other to be we'll never be.

That is a phrase which has become commonplace, which I most emphatically disagree with.

Unfortunately, I rank it right up there with "the offensive defenseman" who carries the puck, but can't play a lick of defense.

This concept of having separate "Enforcers" and "Shootout Specialists" and "Rushing Defensemen" and "Scorers" and "Agitators" and "Shot-Blockers" is just so much BS.

Not getting on your case - Just saying that it's a flawed philosophy that threatens to fill the league with incomplete players, and rationalize their inadequacies away by saying they're "specialists".

If you're a bad skater, then you're a bad skater - If you're too timid to go into the corners, then you're too timid. If you're too lazy to backcheck, then you're too lazy.

Once we stop expecting players to be able to play a complete (skill-set) game...then we make excuses for them. And cheapen the sport, and those who can play a complete game.

To be a powerplay or penalty-kill specialist should mean you can play the game better than everyone else, and excel in those specific roles - Not, that you can only play those roles and stink otherwise.

but vanek is a goalscorer. he was when he was drafted, and he fits that bill. it would be nice if he won a selke, but it wont happen. vanek is a competent player in his own end, but people still want more. doesnt work that way. people make it sound like vanek is as useless as peters without the puck, when in reality, hes pretty decent in his own end compared to players with the same skillset.

_________________

Andreychuk had his haters to. Couldn't skate, not great defensively. Typical crap player who only scored 640 career goals.......

_________________
"I'll rap you with my cane; you pencil necked geek!!"

-Bowler, imitating Freddy Blassie, at the very first M & G.

Most players who win the Selke are not huge point getters, not everyone can score like Datsuyk and still win it.

Bobby Clarke
Doug Gilmour
Sergei Fedorov
Ron Francis
Steve Yzerman

Out of the 20 different winners Only those five are a Point per game player or very few points away from it in their careers. Rod the Bod could be included but he is about 300 points away so not a terrible point getter.

So the Selke Winner hardly ever is a huge scorer. And only until recently did they start to have PPG players win the trophy.

_________________

The necessity to score, score, score has rendered other skills seemingly inconsequential.

It's de-emphasized good defensive play, and good positioning and defensive-zone passing and break-out skills.

Unfortunately it's trivilaized so many fundamentals, because they're not as obvious as a red-lamp and a boat-horn.

lucky luc robitaille was a notoriously bad skater, too, howie.

_________________