Who was the guy last night that scored our 2 goals ??

[Skooby]

A guy coming off injury scored our 2 goals last night, which was good enough for a win. Who was that guy?

[Captain Obvious]

A guy coming off injury scored our 2 goals last night, which was good enough for a win. Who was that guy?
The guy who you're hoping will answer that question likely wont

[braddavery]

Shhh, Vanek and his 15.28 career shooting percentage, good for 4th in the entire league, stinks.

[Skooby]

Anyone else?? Bueller ??

[OpIv37]

The guy who you're hoping will answer that question likely wont

Up yours, you passive aggressive *******. Try putting yourself out there and actually having an opinion instead of just stalking me and posting when you think you can twist something into making me seem wrong.

First, I am away and didn't get to watch the game. I checked the score, didn't bother to look at who got the goals.

Second, you guys are still letting two months override the last 4 YEARS, and he even had a nice slump in the middle of those two months.

Third, you guys are willing to accept the mistakes and slumps for a couple of hot months. I'm not. Other teams have actual stars who can score without the slumps or mistakes. That's why they win and we don't. I don't know why you guys keep trying to argue this point when the record since this team lost Drury and Briere speaks for itself.

[OpIv37]

Shhh, Vanek and his 15.28 career shooting percentage, good for 4th in the entire league, stinks.

Way to cherry-pick one stat and ignore everything else about the game.......

[braddavery]

Other teams have actual stars who can score without the slumps or mistakes.

Which stars never have slumps? Vanek is fourth in the ENTIRE LEAGUE in career shooting percentage, ahead of Selanne, Crosby, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Jagr, Iginla, the Sedins, Hossa, the Staal brothers, Malkin, Ovechkin and pretty much anyone else you can name not named Stamkos. So, what does that mean? It means he's consistent ENOUGH to be considered our best player and worth keeping around in hopes of us someday soon becoming a better team with him on the roster.

[Skooby]

Up yours, you passive aggressive *******. Try putting yourself out there and actually having an opinion instead of just stalking me and posting when you think you can twist something into making me seem wrong.

First, I am away and didn't get to watch the game. I checked the score, didn't bother to look at who got the goals.

Second, you guys are still letting two months override the last 4 YEARS, and he even had a nice slump in the middle of those two months.

Third, you guys are willing to accept the mistakes and slumps for a couple of hot months. I'm not. Other teams have actual stars who can score without the slumps or mistakes. That's why they win and we don't. I don't know why you guys keep trying to argue this point when the record since this team lost Drury and Briere speaks for itself.

It's hard to argue with the recent past, it's nearly unforgivable. That being said, dwelling on previous players efforts to help their team succeed in any situation is douchy. You can't say that one specific players performance (regardless of injuries) that creates success is detrimental to their current team's performance.

The Sabres play 2 weaker teams in a row now, one with a brand new coach & one below average. I'd like to see the Sabres win outright in regulation, twice in regulation without debate. Then we can re-focus on how the individual players have put us in a spot to perform. Taking an average over the past few years, we've overspent & under-delivered.

Punching a guy that has lead us to some level of success after a train-wreck season is just wrong. Call all shots after it's all laid on the table, that's what I'm looking for now.

[OpIv37]

Which stars never have slumps? Vanek is fourth in the ENTIRE LEAGUE in career shooting percentage, ahead of Selanne, Crosby, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Jagr, Iginla, the Sedins, Hossa, the Staal brothers, Malkin, Ovechkin and pretty much anyone else you can name not named Stamkos. So, what does that mean? It means he's consistent ENOUGH to be considered our best player and worth keeping around in hopes of us someday soon becoming a better team with him on the roster.
No "star" slumps or makes as many mistakes as Vanek.

And again, the shooting percentage is cherry picking.

Maybe he's worth keeping but you can't build a team around him. The last 4 years prove it. He's a number 2 at best.

[OpIv37]

It's hard to argue with the recent past, it's nearly unforgivable. That being said, dwelling on previous players efforts to help their team succeed in any situation is douchy. You can't say that one specific players performance (regardless of injuries) that creates success is detrimental to their current team's performance.

The Sabres play 2 weaker teams in a row now, one with a brand new coach & one below average. I'd like to see the Sabres win outright in regulation, twice in regulation without debate. Then we can re-focus on how the individual players have put us in a spot to perform. Taking an average over the past few years, we've overspent & under-delivered.

Punching a guy that has lead us to some level of success after a train-wreck season is just wrong. Call all shots after it's all laid on the table, that's what I'm looking for now.

What the hell are you talking about? You can't ignore consistent mediocrity because of recent success. That's the kind of crap that led to Fitz's disastrous contract, to take one recent example. Anyone can be good for a short period. Vanek has not proven to be consistent over the long haul.

But, hey, **** results, right? Lets defend the guy you like cuz he was good last night.

You can't see the forest from the trees.

[Skooby]

What the hell are you talking about? You can't ignore consistent mediocrity because of recent success. That's the kind of crap that led to Fitz's disastrous contract, to take one recent example. Anyone can be good for a short period. Vanek has not proven to be consistent over the long haul.

But, hey, **** results, right? Lets defend the guy you like cuz he was good last night.

You can't see the forest from the trees.

Not every tree lands the same way, knowing that you shouldn't cherry pick complete failures from positives that befall the team based on previous play.

Knowing the past, we'll probably mess up a close situation & just get a worse draft pick. Keeping our rookie guy up might of been a terrible call, knowing what we know now.

[SkateZilla]

Up yours, you passive aggressive *******. Try putting yourself out there and actually having an opinion instead of just stalking me and posting when you think you can twist something into making me seem wrong.

First, I am away and didn't get to watch the game. I checked the score, didn't bother to look at who got the goals.

Second, you guys are still letting two months override the last 4 YEARS, and he even had a nice slump in the middle of those two months.

Third, you guys are willing to accept the mistakes and slumps for a couple of hot months. I'm not. Other teams have actual stars who can score without the slumps or mistakes. That's why they win and we don't. I don't know why you guys keep trying to argue this point when the record since this team lost Drury and Briere speaks for itself.


Fans do that..

Bandwagoners jump ship at the first sign of a Flat tire.

[Skooby]

Fans do that..

Bandwagoners jump ship at the first sign of a Flat tire.

I've witnessed hope & pain like anyone in the past several decades. All things being equal, I'd rather have a coach willing to change things based on not having favorites & utilizing talent. The Sabres have talent now which if utilized the right way will equal much more than what we have seen. I can name several players that need to be sat & put on another ice surface well away from the Sabres, all the while calling them important over the past few years.

[SkateZilla]

as long as stafford and his -12 stay in the press box...

[OpIv37]

Fans do that..

Bandwagoners jump ship at the first sign of a Flat tire.

Um no. Bandwagoners convince themselves that players are better than they are because they wouldn't be able to keep rooting for the team if they accepted the reality of how bad they are.

Fans root for the team even though they can see that the"best player" is flawed and they can see the reality that the team will never win as long as they continue to use him as the "best player."

And please explain to me how I "jumped ship." I've seen all but 2 1/2 games all year.

[SkateZilla]

ne'er said you jumped ship.