Buffalo Rick Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I have always wanted the Blues to win a Cup. And they deserve to as back in the late 60's and early 70's they were the Western rep many times with the likes of the Plaguer bros and Berenson. Great teams but just not good enough to beat the mighty Montreal teams and Orr's Bruins. They have paid their dues if you will. St Louis and Minny are two teams mentioned. I had thought Minny was happy with Backstrom? I know St Louis has Elliot and has gone back and forth. Miller is a step up and could be the difference and get them the Cup. No doubt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 @Hockey Junkie I think Backstrom has proven to be injury prone. They will certainly move on, whether it be the great story of Harding overcoming cancer, or the kid Darcy Kemper, who looks like the real deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 @Hockey Junkie I think Backstrom has proven to be injury prone. They will certainly move on, whether it be the great story of Harding overcoming cancer, or the kid Darcy Kemper, who looks like the real deal.You mean St Louis? Backstrom is with Minny of course. I do not know if St Louis is satisfied with Elliot? If Miller goes, we will be without a world class goalie for the first time in ages. Hasek being before MIller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 @Hockey Junkie Valid point, Hasek leading into Miller, it's been a awful long time since the Sabres have seen a medicore goalie. Did they go immediately to Miller after Hasek, no stop gap inbetween, having trouble remembering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 @Hockey Junkie I think Backstrom has proven to be injury prone. They will certainly move on, whether it be the great story of Harding overcoming cancer, or the kid Darcy Kemper, who looks like the real deal. Harding has MS. Sure looks like he's got it under control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Harding has MS. Sure looks like he's got it under control.A friend of mine who has MS went to Costa Rica to get stem cell injection. Paid twenty Grand out of pocket and he thinks it saved his life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 @flyercanuck Ahhhh, right...my bad, MS not cancer. I have read he's on the IR due to switching over to new medication, I've read this is a very normal thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 @Hockey Junkie Hopefully it works out for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 I am for the US all the way but I do believe their complaint is legitimate. I do not think Quick is the brightest bulb on the tree when I hear him in interviews either. Some of you will automatically jump out and say I have an agenda due to Ryan Miller. So hear me now. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MILLER. It has to do with the game being called fairly. It was a goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I am for the US all the way but I do believe their complaint is legitimate. I do not think Quick is the brightest bulb on the tree when I hear him in interviews either. Some of you will automatically jump out and say I have an agenda due to Ryan Miller. So hear me now. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MILLER. It has to do with the game being called fairly. It was a goal OMG get over it. It was a goal in the NHL, but this wasn't the NHL. This was the Olympics. Both teams know the rules going in that if the net is off its moorings even a little bit that the play is dead and any goals scored during that circumstance are disqualified. It's a simple rule, really. (From where I sit, it's a DUMB rule since that post being off all of 1 1/2 inches in no way impeded the play or gave the shooting nor defending team any particular advantage -- aside from the advantage to the defending team of disqualifying the goal But it IS the rule and it's crystal clear.) And it's funny that on the one hand people want to claim that Quick deliberately knocked the net off several moments before on an entirely different play (requiring some amount of not only intelligence but extra sensory perception) and then on the other hand want to claim he's dumb. How are both statements compatible? (I'll give you a hint: they're not). Seriously, he knocked it off well earlier in the sequence when he slide against the left post to close up that angle. Moments later, the waived off goal came from the opposite side of the ice. Quick is square to that shooter and on the right (vs. left) side of the net going into a butterfly. How does he reach back and take the post off of the opposite side of the net -- a requirement if we're realistically trying to make an argument that this was deliberate. It's a no goal by a very black and white rule. Feel free to argue whether it's a dumb rule or whether the fastening device they're using over there is 21st century. But it's clearly a no-goal by the rules and the equipment they all knew was applicable well in advance. Absolutely FAIR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 OMG get over it. It was a goal in the NHL, but this wasn't the NHL. This was the Olympics. Both teams know the rules going in that if the net is off its moorings even a little bit that the play is dead and any goals scored during that circumstance are disqualified. It's a simple rule, really. (From where I sit, it's a DUMB rule since that post being off all of 1 1/2 inches in no way impeded the play or gave the shooting nor defending team any particular advantage -- aside from the advantage to the defending team of disqualifying the goal But it IS the rule and it's crystal clear.) And it's funny that on the one hand people want to claim that Quick deliberately knocked the net off several moments before on an entirely different play (requiring some amount of not only intelligence but extra sensory perception) and then on the other hand want to claim he's dumb. How are both statements compatible? (I'll give you a hint: they're not). Seriously, he knocked it off well earlier in the sequence when he slide against the left post to close up that angle. Moments later, the waived off goal came from the opposite side of the ice. Quick is square to that shooter and on the right (vs. left) side of the net going into a butterfly. How does he reach back and take the post off of the opposite side of the net -- a requirement if we're realistically trying to make an argument that this was deliberate. It's a no goal by a very black and white rule. Feel free to argue whether it's a dumb rule or whether the fastening device they're using over there is 21st century. But it's clearly a no-goal by the rules and the equipment they all knew was applicable well in advance. Absolutely FAIR.Ha, I am not the only one squaking here. The entire country of Russia is. This article came from NBC, not from yours truly. I am pointing out its not just being swept under the table. I saw this coming. Had it gone the other way i wonder what you would be saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Ha, I am not the only one squaking here. The entire country of Russia is. This article came from NBC, not from yours truly. I am pointing out its not just being swept under the table. I saw this coming. Had it gone the other way i wonder what you would be saying? If it had gone the other way, I'd be bitching about the rule, which I still think is stupid. I wouldn't be yammering about how it isn't fair or that the goalie did it on purpose (assuming it happened exactly the same way but uniform colors were reversed). Of course, if it was Pens vs. Flyers and I were on the losing end I'd be saying it was a league conspiracy to allow the whining Penguins to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I have always wanted the Blues to win a Cup. And they deserve to as back in the late 60's and early 70's they were the Western rep many times with the likes of the Plaguer bros and Berenson. Great teams but just not good enough to beat the mighty Montreal teams and Orr's Bruins. They have paid their dues if you will. St Louis and Minny are two teams mentioned. I had thought Minny was happy with Backstrom? I know St Louis has Elliot and has gone back and forth. Miller is a step up and could be the difference and get them the Cup. No doubt Really? You mean St Louis? Backstrom is with Minny of course. I do not know if St Louis is satisfied with Elliot? Source or strawman? If Miller goes, we will be without a world class goalie for the first time in ages. Hasek being before MIller I know you like Miller, I get it, but really? Don't get me wrong, I like Miller too. But why on earth would St. Louis consider Miller an upgrade? Elliot and Halak are 5th and 11th in gaa this season. If I do some spreadsheet magic, in the three years that Elliot has been in St. Louis he has a 1.77 GAA and a .925 SV%. Playoffs he's 2.14 GAA and .910 SV%. You don't think they're satisfied with that? They gave their goaltenders 1.6 goals/game support in their playoff loses while he was there. Goaltending was not their issue. This year, they're 2nd in the west, and their goalie tandum(They do this on purpose by the way to keep them fresh) is one of the best in the league. Why would they screw with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 @nossagog There's logic, and there's Rick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) @nossagog There's logic, and there's Rick. Yeah, I still gotta try. M a y b e i f I t y p e s l o w e r a n d l o u d e r i t w i l l m a k e m o r e s e n s e. Edited February 16, 2014 by nossagog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Sabers had a couple goalies between Hasek and Miller. Biron for one. I am pretty sure there were a few more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 @AJgoal Ahhh, nice call AJ, your memory is better than mine....ha ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Sabers had a couple goalies between Hasek and Miller. Biron for one. I am pretty sure there were a few more.Not starters. Biron got alot of action but he was a backup. Before Hasek Edwards was the best IMO then Sauve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Not starters. Biron got alot of action but he was a backup. Before Hasek Edwards was the best IMO then Sauve. Biron has a 70+ appearance season in Buffalo. On phone so limited to check, but he was definitely a starter at one point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 01-02 72 games and two 50+ appearance seasons in 02-03 & 03-04 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.