:: View topic - Two things . . .

1. If the Sabres' 4-goal outburst happened in the first instead of the second, CAR would've mounted a comeback and probably won.

I only say this because, in the third, the Sabres started exhibiting signs and symptoms of the same thing that's led to trouble in the past this year: the desire to play pretty.

This was manifested by the dumb penalties taken by Goose and Mair, Miller's awful clear that led to Sutter's goal, and by how, in general, the Sabres failed to follow Neale's advice to not worry about scoring again and just tighten down defensively.

PuckSniperPensel wrote:

Poor Toby.

This team is only good because of Miller, if he wasn't on the team we'd be a basement team.

Lindy Ruff doesn't know how to utilize (that's for you, cross) his players correctly.

My co-worker's friend saw a bunch of them at Chippewa once and they were drinking BEER and taking SHOTS. Some of them were even socializing with GIRLS. This team is full of a bunch of prima donnas who are more concerned about partying than playing hockey.

etc. etc. etc.

larry quinn for mayor

Crozier is right about giving up late goals, and we've all stated this, but we offered our counterpoints. Christ. Next time a thread pops up and there might be something we want to contest, we'll just drink the kool-aid and worship the OP.

Author:	1crozier1 [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:05 am ]
Post subject:	Two things . . .
1. If the Sabres' 4-goal outburst happened in the first instead of the second, CAR would've mounted a comeback and probably won. I only say this because, in the third, the Sabres started exhibiting signs and symptoms of the same thing that's led to trouble in the past this year: the desire to play pretty. This was manifested by the dumb penalties taken by Goose and Mair, Miller's awful clear that led to Sutter's goal, and by how, in general, the Sabres failed to follow Neale's advice to not worry about scoring again and just tighten down defensively. After grinding out a win against FLA the nite before, and with the relative ease in which they chased Peters, they probably thought it was "safe" to coast again . . . but again, Miller stood up when he had to. 2. A back-to-back. No Lalime in sight for either. The Sabres win both. Coincidence?

Author:	mechaphil [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
It's no surprise that when Lalime isn't in net, the Sabres have a 99% better chance of winning.

Author:	Dreakon [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
It's hard to completely get on their cases. Carolina was desperate going into the third period and after being up 4 goals in back to back winning games, I think most teams probably would've slowed down a bit. A few really dumb plays and penalties that gave Carolina some unnecessary hope, but they stuck it out and got the win. I'm just glad we have a goalie that can win us games regularly, even when he's probably exhausted. That shit is what wins playoff games, and makes us look really good when the rest of the team actually shows up.

Author:	jvaccaro6 [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
A whole lot of "If" in that post. Honestly, are you the guy who complains about paying the taxes after winning the 250 Million dollar lottery jackpot? FFS man, we just won, putting more distance between us and Ottawa. Also, you try playing 2 games in less than 24 hrs, you'd die in the 3rd as well. They weren't lazy, they were dog tired. They played two back to back very physical games, against two desperate teams. Kudos to the team to get wins in back to back nights. I'm not making excuses at all, although I shouldn't have to, because there are no excuses for winning. Facts are facts, they were beat on, they were tired, and the Canes were in total desperation mode, as a loss today pretty much eliminated them from the playoffs. They knew that, and put everything they had into the end of that game.

Author:	Los9090 [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
1crozier1 wrote: 1. If the Sabres' 4-goal outburst happened in the first instead of the second, CAR would've mounted a comeback and probably won. I only say this because, in the third, the Sabres started exhibiting signs and symptoms of the same thing that's led to trouble in the past this year: the desire to play pretty. This was manifested by the dumb penalties taken by Goose and Mair, Miller's awful clear that led to Sutter's goal, and by how, in general, the Sabres failed to follow Neale's advice to not worry about scoring again and just tighten down defensively.

http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

Two things . . . http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2669	Page 1 of 3

Author:	PuckSniperPensel [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
1crozier1 wrote: 1. If the Sabres' 4-goal outburst happened in the first instead of the second, CAR would've mounted a comeback and probably won. I only say this because, in the third, the Sabres started exhibiting signs and symptoms of the same thing that's led to trouble in the past this year: the desire to play pretty. This was manifested by the dumb penalties taken by Goose and Mair, Miller's awful clear that led to Sutter's goal, and by how, in general, the Sabres failed to follow Neale's advice to not worry about scoring again and just tighten down defensively. After grinding out a win against FLA the nite before, and with the relative ease in which they chased Peters, they probably thought it was "safe" to coast again . . . but again, Miller stood up when he had to.

Author:	Squanto [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
Buffalo is undefeated for the SEASON when leading after 2 periods. I think I might be willing to cut them some slack for taking their foot off the gas when leading by 4. Looking at the two goals Carolina scored in the 3rd, the first was Miller's mistake. The second was a 6 on 4 powerplay stemming from what sounds like a pretty homer call. A 4 min penalty and misconduct FOR A CROSS CHECK? Unless he cross checked LaRose twice in the face, I don't buy it. I don't want to be dismissive of your opinions crozier, but they pulled 7 of 10 points on this roadie, throttling the Lightning and Hurricanes in the process. That's a darn good trip IMO, and I think it's safe to say that the overall play was better than what a late goal (on a GREAT shot) would indicate.

Author:	BS1970 [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
Yeah, what everyone else is saying. They've played 3 games in 4 nights, all of which they played pretty hard in. By the 3rd they were bound to be tired, plus they already had a 4 point lead. On top of that Carolina was desperate and thought they had a chance after Miller's blunder. I'll let it slide this time just because of how they've played these past few games.

Author:	mechaphil [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
When Jochen Hecht is dominating games night in and night out, you know this team is on a roll.

Author:	fly as hale [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
PuckSniperPensel wrote: Poor Toby.

Author:	CriminallyVu1gar [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
The Hurricanes had a lot of shots on goal. If the sabres had let in more of them (as we know, shots on goal are bad), then they could have lost 11-5. We got lucky.

Author:	fly as hale [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
This team is only good because of Miller, if he wasn't on the team we'd be a basement team. Lindy Ruff doesn't know how to utilize (that's for you, cross) his players correctly. My co-worker's friend saw a bunch of them at Chippewa once and they were drinking BEER and taking SHOTS. Some of them were even socializing with GIRLS. This team is full of a bunch of prima donnas who are more concerned about partying than playing hockey. etc. etc. etc. larry quinn for mayor

Author:	ScottP [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
fly as hale wrote: This team is only good because of Miller, if he wasn't on the team we'd be a basement team. Lindy Ruff doesn't know how to utilize (that's for you, cross) his players correctly. My co-worker's friend saw a bunch of them at Chippewa once and they were drinking BEER and taking SHOTS. Some of them were even socializing with GIRLS. This team is full of a bunch of prima donnas who are more concerned about partying than playing hockey. etc. etc. etc. larry quinn for mayor Like

Author:	YankeeInRaleigh [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
Christ, and we wonder why people are leaving this place? That should teach you not to start THREADS, with your OPINION all over the place Crozier!

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	mechaphil [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
Crozier is right about giving up late goals, and we've all stated this, but we offered our counterpoints. Christ. Next time a thread pops up and there might be something we want to contest, we'll just drink the kool-aid and worship the OP.

Author:	Nuthatch [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
I hate Koolaid.

Author:	acrossthelines [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
Considering what their record had been in recent games if you go back about five or six games, I am not going to complain about another win.

Author:	YankeeInRaleigh [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Two things . . .
mechaphil wrote: Crozier is right about giving up late goals, and we've all stated this, but we offered our counterpoints. Christ. Next time a thread pops up and there might be something we want to contest, we'll just drink the kool-aid and worship the OP. Dude, i'm not saying shit about drinking cool aid, or kissing someones ass. But the tone has been rather mocking of him. And what a steak and toby from the office have to do with this I havent a clue. Dude has 31 posts here, is he really expected to decipher everyones level of playful sarcasm?