You still haven't named any teams that don't "struggle against the better teams".
You still haven't named any teams that don't "struggle against the better teams".
"'Clean up your room.', 'Stand up straight.', 'Pick up your feet.', 'Take it like a man.', 'Be nice to your sister.', 'Don't mix beer and wine, ever.'. Oh yeah, 'Don't drive on the railroad track.'"
"Eh, Phil. That's one I happen to agree with."
Let me ask this - how many teams in the league, if you told them they would beat the number 4 team in the entire league, but it would take a shootout to do it, would be disappointed in that result?
Someone is trying too hard in this thread. And I believe it is the thread starter...
Last edited by hydro; 01-28-2010 at 09:27 PM.
BERNIAC!
I don't have time to go look up teams' records against each other.Originally Posted by MikeInRoch
how many other teams' fans would ask what the consequences in the standings would be?
We gave away a point. You can downplay it all you want, but this is the kind of thing that can hurt, particularly after that piss poor road trip.
I completely disagree. This team had a chance to be tied for 2nd in points in the conference and they let it slip through their fingers with a horrid PP and a lackluster third period. The NHL has a ****ty system that gives points for losses, but unfortunately the Sabres have to play within that system. And that means winning in regulation to avoid giving free points to teams fighting with them for playoff positioning. They couldn't get it done.
Is it better than a loss? Yes. Is it good enough? No.
So if they win game 7 of the SC finals in OT it is not good enough?
BTW, how did they let it slip through their fingers in the 3rd period? The game was tied going into the 3rd.
Fact is, even as horrendous as the Sabres are, they are still 3rd in the East. 1st in the NE by 7 points with games in hand. 1 point out of 2nd in the East.
Instead of saying anything positive (except for about Miller) you focus on some bull**** criteria that only regulation wins are acceptable in the NHL. You are acting as if this team is pure ****.
And it is damn good enough. They got two points. New Jersey got one point. Two > one (last I checked).
Fact is, and you refuse to acknowledge this, is that New Jersey is pretty damn good too. Being able to get more points in a game than New Jersey is acceptable.
Right now there are two teams in the East better than the Sabres. And who knows, maybe this **** team will pass the Devils tomorrow night.
You keep talking about the 3rd period, which you admit you did not see all of. You act like it was some horrendous season ending 20 minutes of hockey because the Sabres did not score. Of New Jersey didn't either, but you will not mention that. You refuse to even consider the fact both teams were exhausted in the 3rd. You will not even read the opinion of people who were at the game and saw what both teams were doing. You will not listen to Ruff's comments about two tired teams in the third. Or Gleason saying they did well, as it is often the first game back from a road trip, especially with only one day off, that is the hardest as the team as to adjust to a time zone change and finally getting home after 11 days on the road.
Instead you start off with an opinion, based on facts that have been discredited, and don't change.
Are you sure you don't fit in Washington perfectly?
Sometimes I think you try to live up to your pessimist reputation by making **** up as you go.
SC Finals? That's a bull**** scenario because we're not talking about the SC finals. We're talking about regular season rules and standings, and the Sabres screwed themselves last night in that regard.
Yes. 2>1 but 69+1>67+2, and 69+0=67+2. That is a fact that will not change.
Tired in the 3rd period? They're professional hockey players- they're supposed to be able to play a full 60 minutes. And if NJ was tired in the 3rd as well, that's time to take ADVANTAGE of them, not play down to their level.
You keep coming back to "NJ wasn't any better," but that's a completely irrelevant point. An opponent being mediocre does NOT give the Sabres an excuse to play down to their level.
And I most certainly am not making **** up as I go. I've been complaining about giving points to EC teams by not winning in regulation for at least the last two years, particularly late in the season when the Sabres were a bubble team and gave free points to other bubble teams. I was furious last night by the performance in the 3rd period and the fact that we gave NJ a free point.
I hate it how the NHL system allows points to materialize out of thin air. "A game is worth 2 points unless it takes longer than 60 minutes to settle then it's worth three." It's BS but that's the system the Sabres are forced to play in. They failed to take advantage of it yesterday. In fact, that 3rd period looked like they were just hoping to get to OT without losing, and I find that lack of effort infuriating.
Don't you pick the Sabres to lose in almost EVERY single game in the prediction threads? It would seem to me that this team exceeds your expectations
How did they give New Jersey a point in the third when the game was tied going into the 3rd?
How do you figure that out?
And you are missing my point - this "great" NJ team (you know the one that is way ahead of the Sabres in the standings) also had the same problems.
NHL teams do not go 82-0, winning all games by 3 + goal margins.
That is, apparently, the only acceptable outcome for you. Winning is not good enough.
The Sabres beat a good team last night. One that is ahead of them in the standings. But the Sabres still won the ****ing game.
NHL teams are not perfect every game for 60 minutes. To expect that is moronic.
As for them not supposed to be tired?
Come on. You know as well as I do that being a pro athlete does not ready you for long road trips and the change your body undergoes when making a 3 hour time zone change. It is one of the disadvantages of long western road trips. They go through it once a year and are not conditioned for it.
Fact is NJ and all other hockey teams sometimes get tired. To expect the Sabres not to is not reasonable.
We didn't give away a point man.
It wasn't like we were up by 2 or 3 and blew it. We had a hard fought game vs one of the better teams in our conference and WON.
There is no down playing of it. I can't imagine anyone else having the same feelings as you do on this subject. When do you realize you may be wrong?
the devils got a point in the standings because the Sabres were unable to finish the game in regulation. How could I be wrong? The final score reflects it and the standings reflect it. If the game was "hard fought," we would have won it in regulation and been tied for points. But go check the standings. It didn't happen like that.
Pittsburgh beat Buffalo in a SO against Lalime. Pittsburgh also blew a 3 goal lead and lost in regulation to Buffalo. They suck.
Chicago lost to Buffalo. They suck.
Washington got shutout by Buffalo. They suck.
I can't believe how irrational you are with the Sabres when all your other teams suck a big fat ****.
You should be happy you have a team in first place.
I love when you brag about the Sabres on Facebook. Sometimes it almost assures me that this is all an act to rile people up. Either that or you're the biggest flip flopper on the planet.
The team played poorly in the 3rd. "Gave the game away" may have been poor terminology, but there is simply no excuse for that ****ing pathetic effort.
You keep bringing up winning by 3+ goals every game and going 82-0. I NEVER said anything about that. I'm talking about simply WINNING IN REGULATION TO AVOID GIVING A RIVAL POINTS IN THE STANDINGS. I don't get why you don't see a problem with giving the Devils a free point. In this situation, a win only counts as half a win in the standings because of the NHL's ****ty system.
You keep going back to "Well NJ did it too!" which is ****ing irrelevant because it doesn't give the Sabres an excuse to be bad as well. You keep going back to these ludicrous examples about the SC finals or going 82-0, which is a tactic that shows the weakness of your position.
Did the Sabres give up a chance to be tied in points with the Devils by failing to finish the game in regulation or not?
The Sabres missed the playoffs by TWO POINTS last year. We gave up one point to the team ahead of us in the standings- that's half the margin that kept us out of the playoffs this year. You guys are sitting here arguing that a point here or a point there doesn't matter, but it does.
Whoa, settle down.
Yes, they aren't "tied" with NJ, even though NJ would've still had the tie-breaker. However, we're talking about 2nd and 3rd place in the EC, not 8th and 9th.
There are also 30 games left to make up that one point.
Including the very last game of the season.
I think the game tonight and the games against Ottawa are much more of a big deal than this game against NJ.
Shouldn't the Devils be far more ****ing concerned that they "gave up" 2 points to the team directly below them then???
This thread is a complete and total ****ing joke and the exact reason I haven't posted in this forum in the past 2 months. I considered returning to it when you said you'd stop arguing about this team, but I knew it was far too good to be true.
Sooner or later there has to come a point where you realize that EVERY SINGLE person in here disagrees with you and that maybe, just maybe YOU ARE WRONG.
Now, I'm going to leave again before I tell you what I REALLY think and earn myself a forced vacation.
No- at the end of the day, the Devils are still ahead of us in the standings and it's still on the Sabres to make up the gap. Do they have reasons to be concerned after that game? Probably, but they're still ahead.
Just because everyone disagrees with me doesn't make me wrong. The majority does not determine reality.
Man you are something.
How many 1 - 0 shutouts do you see on a nightly basis?
How can you possibly make this statement in a serious manner?If the game was "hard fought," we would have won it in regulation and been tied for points.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
