This stuff is just ridiculous. SO many members here, and most of the commenters in the Buffalo News are so ready to burn the house down. Buffalo lost a hard fought series to a team that is playing very well. They lost to a team that is playing very well after losing one important player right before the series started, their best skater after 70 minutes, their "best" center coming off three weeks without skating, and another player forced into action early after a concussion. Throw in a couple extremely significant game changing calls.

Six games, all four losses were one-goal games (one empty-netter). If they had made it through nobody would be lining up at the ledge with hate mail clutched in their hands. They were thatclose to facing a team (Mtl) that they OWNED all season and looking at the conference finals. Geeeeez people, the difference between winning and losing is minimal, and it doesn't necessarily mean the better team won. Buffalo is not that far away, this summer will be cap friendly for improvement, and gutting the roster is both unnecessary and counter-productive.

A RW, two d-men, and a back-up...that's it...very attainable. Even if Buffalo somehow landed a bona-fide marquee name brand NHL star, they could end up like NJ with Kovalchuk, or Wash with Ovechkin, or San Jose before this playoff.

Forgetting once again that Boston, during that series, didn't have arguably THEIR best guy AT ALL. He returned for round 2 game 1 and got the winning goal.

Weren't you one of the ones saying "Boston doesn't worry me?" and "Rask won't hold up"? Just wondering.

The Sabres didn't lose because Vanek went down. Some are having a tough time wrapping their brain around that. The problem is a lot bigger than that and management finally, I think, is starting to realize it.

The Sabres didn't lose because Vanek went down. [\quote]
Hmm, well I think the series would have been different if he didn't go down.

_________________
I am, you know I am. I am Canadian.
#1 Hockey Nation.

Powerplayer, again, I don't care about Savard. We all knew for months that he wasn't going to be playing in the 1st round. I don't discard that he is an impact player, but going in Buffalo was in apparently good shape and all our expectations were based on how both teams were in the days prior to the series. Buffalo ended up in worse shape within days and that makes a difference, no matter how much some people want to ignore it. You keep bringing up Savard, so why doesn't missing Hecht, mostly Vanek, Connolly and Stafford being slowed down make a difference to you? Besides, if Buffalo managed to win the series, nobody would come back and say, "it was only because Savard was out".

And no, I wasn't one of the people discounting Boston. I was one of the few, along with you, that said it would be a very tough series, and that Rask was going to be hard to beat. I still thought Boston was inept enough offensively for Buffalo to win in six. I was sort of right, except for Buffalo's poor penalty kill (in part due to Hecht out and Connolly slowed down). If Savard had been playing already and Boston had it's offense going for a week or so ahead of time, I would've called it a complete toss up. At this piont it's obvious enough to me that Boston is not a slouch, and are in fact playing their best hockey of the entire season right now. Funny how you bring up Savard, said Boston would be tough, and now completely discount them in a Pittsburgh match-up.

Do you really just think Boston stinks, and that Buffalo is a complete mess?

But remember how Savard had been out for weeks before, they had adjustment time. The Sabres didn't, and Vanek was redhot and was hacked out. Hecht was a huge part of our regular season PK and was out, Connolly wasn't close to 100% in the playoffs.

The series would have been different, Buffalo wins? Who knows? Would our PP have been better? Who knows? Would our PK be better? Who knows? But to say losing Vanek didn't hurt us, you would be the most delusional person in the world to believe it.

Also, how many players who come off of injury in their first game get a goal or point? Probably most of them because they are so eager to play after that.

Also why is Satan playing so energized, he hasn't played like that in 10 years it seems. And if Savard hadn't gone down, Satan would remain unsigned.

_________________

I've heard this before and find it interesting. Savard went down with a 2nd degree concussion in the 2nd week of MARCH, rougly 4 weeks before the playoffs started.

Please stop with this ridiculous "well, they had time to adjust" stuff. All trades were done before Savard went out. Any line changes or minor league subs could be accomplished in very little time. And by the way, if Buffalo had weeks to adjust to Vanek being out, you really think the results would've been different? Honestly? You're a professional hockey team. If you cannot adjust very quickly to the best available lineup within your franchise, then you're not that effective.

I'm not gonna even get into all the other knit-picking of this post, but suffice it to say, and I know it will really bother you, but the better team won that series. Vanek or not.

Geeez, man. 4-2 reg season & 4-2 post season. No matter how you twist it, Boston is better. But some people just decided Bston isn't as good as the Sabres and that's the end of that. It's quite comical the way fans disqualify other teams wins with every excuse under the sun, it makes you wonder why anybody bothers to record W/L stats.

Guess what? EVERY team has a million excuses why they weren't as good as they should've been. In the end, the spin doesn't matter. Just results matter.

I didn't talk about the time to adjust, Sky did.

I'm not going to argue that Boston was the better team either. Losing Vanek certainly hurt, and ANY OTHER TEAM would have a hard time. If it's not supposed to be a big deal, then coaches and GMs would never care about bringing up scrub "X" from the AHL during the most important part of the season.

My point, that I've made over and over, is simply this and only this - Buffalo was short on healthy players and had some very bad calls and they still lost to a team playing very well right now in a VERY close series. There is no reason to take the "blow up the team" approach. They need a few upgrades to be a better team, that's it.

I agree with SFS1980.

There is a big difference between these situations. The bruins had all kinds of time to adapt to their new roles due to savards absence. The sabres did not.

I don't think we're as bad as some people think we are. I think the bruins were a lot better than anyone expected. Look at how bad they're beating down Philly. We saw first hand how suffocating they can be.

Were the Bruins still a better team? Maybe, maybe not. This series was so close, it could be won and lost in a lot of areas.

In my opinion, you're underestimating the Sabres due to your frustration with the playoffs.

I could be wrong, but you make it sound like these adjustments are easy. They're not. These organizations are made of professionals, but even professionals are only human.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Oh and if "just results matter", and Montreal loses to Pittsburgh while Boston advances, what the hell does that say about Washington? That would mean Washington is in as bad or worse shape than Buffalo.

Blow up Detroit, Colorado, and Phoenix too.

All series have issues like this, but you accept the results and move on. All fans of every team come up with this excuse or that to make themselves feel better. I know.

To your point: I cannot just blow off Boston's loss of Savard, whether it was 4 weeks before the playoffs started or 10 minutes before. He's one of THE top playmakers in the league. Boston could NOT have compensated for that if they had 3 months notice. A loss like that really hurts. Vanek, on the other hand, was VERY streaky this year. He also played in 2 of the 6 playoff games against Boston.

In short:
Sabres were missing Hecht and some Vanek. Bruins were missing their top playmaker Savard and their #2 & #4 defensmen(!), Seidenberg & Stuart.
As I said in a different thread, I suspect that if Boston and the Sabres were totally healthy the results, at the very least, would have probably been the same.

So how would Pittsburgh be if Crosby just went down then? Do you think they would instantly be able to beat a team they are playing?

Quit your trying, because you don't just lose a player as important as Vanek and play just as well as you did the previous game.

Buffalo isn't Washington where they can easily win without their star player, he is very important and without him the Sabres aren't nearly as good. You just want to rehash the same bullshit everytime. No one cares about Savard playing, Boston was not that good of a team this year even with him in the regular season, they were honestly lucky to make the playoffs because they had a good run to end the season. everyone in the East is a pathetic excuse of a team remaining compared to the West this year anyways.

If the West doesn't win the cup this year, then Pittsburgh won it once again, but even they are pathetic against the West.

_________________

Vanek had 53 points this season. 53!! If you guys are saying we lost because he wasn't in the lineup we're in even worse shape than I can imagine.

Quit making excuses, we lost because boston was the better team, not because we were missing Vanek. Powerplayer has a good point; Boston was missing their best (who's much better than our best, btw) forward as well.

_________________
When I was a boy I spoke as a boy, I understood as a boy, and I thought as a boy; when I became a man I took that boy outside and shot him.

Crosby?

Huh?

"A player as important as Vanek"?

Double huh?

Sorry, but Vanek hasn't shown up plenty of times this season. Glad you got excited about those 4 goals in game #81 against Ottawa in a truly menaingless outing for the Sens (didn't even start their Sabre-killer goalie), but this idea that Vanek is as important to his team as Crosby is to his, is downright laughable. If it wasn't for that flurry of goals in Ottawa, Vanek's goal numbers are BEHIND Pominville and Roy. His overall season numbers ARE behind star forwards Roy, Connolly and Pominville! And in case you haven't noticed, many fans wanna see TWO of those last three names shipped out of town!

Vanek is talented, but he's not the driving powerhouse you seem to think he is, he's just another Sabre paid above his talent level. He makes more than Miller for cryin' out loud!

Boston is not the better team. Boston matches up better with Buffalo, and was able to control the play in the series better.

They're not better, but they did deserve to win.

I'd again like to state that comparing Savard to Vanek is kind of a silly exercise. They're different players that do different things for their teams. It can be argued that Savard was a bigger overall loss for the Bruins than Vanek was for the Sabres, and I'd have to agree with that. I wouldn't however say that either one is 'better' than the other.

And what's with the Vanek trashing? He had a down year, no question. Yet he STILL potted 28 goals. He's an important piece of this team , no question, overpaid or not.

First off, my opinion on Ennis is that he was excellent. I think Darcy is trying to say that Ennis should keep doing what he did at the end of the season and in the playoffs. I personally do not think he would stop either way. His game revolves around speed, quickness, and all out effort. If he's smart, he would never stop playing his game.
Secondly, I don't understand why there is all the Vanek bashing. He had a down year and decided to play through a lot of naging injuries, which I feel is why he had a down year. He showed his ability to score when he was healthy in the last games of the season. He also clearly improved his defensive game, he had a lot of takeaways and plenty of great back checking plays. Next year I think is when he comes out with a complete game and will be able to play very well in both ends of the ice.

_________________
Rest in Peace Nani. 10/3/10

Gerbacity



"Grier coming in over the line. He leaves it to Gaustad. The shot. THEY SCOOOREE!! RING UP ANOTHER ONE FOR THE GOOSE!!! HONK IF YA HEAR THE GOOSE!! 3-0 BUFFALO!"

So you're saying that the Sabres are the better team, but Boston's better than Buffalo?

A 100% healthy Bruin team is better than a 100% healthy Sabre team. Bank on it.

Vanek had 2 goals & 3 points in less than 7 periods of play versus Boston.

Given how tight the series was, it isn't hard for me to believe that things might have been different had Vanek not gotten hurt.

_________________
Sabres Hockey: Commitment to Mediocrity

FOUL!

Not allowed to pro-rate goal-scoring for the sake of your argument!

Adrenalin plays a role as well. Maybe Vanek could've had a goal a game if you made sure that each game in the series was his first game back!

Savard came back after a month off from a concussion and scored the game winner in his first game back. Lawdy only knows what he would've done against Buffalo!

Vanek was playing his best during the last week and was clearly a major impact player the first 70 minutes of the series. He was, and his own words have since confirmed it, finally totally healthy at the time, and it showed. I don't care if you want to call it streaky either, because clearly then he was at the high end of it. Losing Vanek while he was healthy and playing great would be a big blow to any team in a playoff. Saying otherwise is ignoring reality, but I guess it sure sounds hard and tough and all.

Like I said before, Boston at 100% and Buffalo at 100% would be a toss up, a great series hopefully unsullied by rotten officiating either way, and not much shame for either team that loses. Yes, Buffalo could get more from some players and pay less to others...like every other team due to guaranteed contracts under the CBA. During the season I took flak for saying this team isn't as good as a typical division winner, and that they'd win one playoff round at best. I was right, and I'm right about another thing too - they only need a few upgrades to be a top contender in the East. There will be cap room for the first time in a few summers for Darcy to work with, so I expect a better team and a better playoff next spring. There's no reason to get in the jumper line or the riot line.

Vanek ended the season with TWO good games and the way you're talking you'd think he single-handedly carried the team on his shoulders into the playoffs!

Gimmie a break.

Miller and Myers were far more important to the team this year than Vanek.