Maybe I'm just lucky but I don't run across that many idiots when discussing the Sabres.
You're lucky.
I think even just listening to people around you at games is indicative enough.
Maybe I'm just lucky but I don't run across that many idiots when discussing the Sabres.
You're lucky.
I think even just listening to people around you at games is indicative enough.
Maybe I'm just lucky but I don't run across that many idiots when discussing the Sabres.
I dismiss that too. It wasn't true; Briere was the better hockey player.
How did he come in as a proven winner as a leader? He certainly wasn't a leader in Colorado as a young kid (with Sakic and Blake there), and he was such a great leader in Calgary he was traded after one year of non-playoff hockey (and the Flames made the Cup the year after he left).But Drury came in a proven winner and was a clutch scorer and leader. His not to be discounted. They were both equally as important.
You are, I guess it depends on your social situations or what not, but I used to work for a LARGE company in Buffalo and would hear "WGR" takes all the time.
Now most of my friends are not that way, so I can get the intelligent discussion I want or whatever...but being exposed to large pieces of the population when I lived there...I always found the "WGR" mindset to be the prevailing one in most cases.
I love how all over the place this thread is.
Blue collar vs. skill
Briere vs. Drury
North American vs. Euro
Cake vs. Pie
North Korea vs. South Korea
How did he come in as a proven winner as a leader? He certainly wasn't a leader in Colorado as a young kid (with Sakic and Blake there), and he was such a great leader in Calgary he was traded after one year of non-playoff hockey (and the Flames made the Cup the year after he left).
And Briere scored just as many clutch goals for the Sabres as Drury did. It just wasn't part of his mystique, so people don't seem to remember that as much.
Important? Sure.I watched every game in Colorado's Stanley Cup final series, I wanted him as a Sabre as soon as I saw him. He didn't have to be a leader, but he was critical in that series.
All I'm saying is that he was an important Sabre, as was Briere, the two most important Sabres.
Fans around here too often think that hard work=success. If the team isn't winning they just aren't working or trying hard enough. You always hear "they don't care, or "they're not trying hard enough" and not so much "they're just not talented enough to win".
There's really not. Very few people seriously believe this team would win a Cup if they tried harder, but they have a history of playing down to terrible competition, in situations where even loser points would've changed the course of a season.There is a lot of truth to this imho.
I see that attitude all the time among all team's fanbases, frankly. How many people think that the 06-07 team lost because they coasted through the playoffs? It's a sentiment that has been repeated on here, even, among people who actually follow hockey.There's really not. Very few people seriously believe this team would win a Cup if they tried harder, but they have a history of playing down to terrible competition, in situations where even loser points would've changed the course of a season.
Again, people are mis attributing why people hate this team. It's not "we would be so much better if we had a zillion effort guys" it's "man, if we're going to miss the playoffs, can we at least not be total pushovers," with a sprinkle of "hey, maybe we'd actually be marginally better with a different talent mix instead of bottom six forward Brad Boyes and Assistant Stafford."
So losing their leading shot-blocker (a huge part of the 2006 defense in general) and arguably best defensive forward (certainly top three) did nothing to change the makeup or performance of the team? Cute.I see that attitude all the time among all team's fanbases, frankly. How many people think that the 06-07 team lost because they coasted through the playoffs? It's a sentiment that has been repeated on here, even, among people who actually follow hockey.
The reality is the difference between the 05-06 team and the 06-07 team was that one year the overtimes went in favor of this team (helped largely by Emery not making a single OT save in 05-06), and the OT's went in Ottawa's favor in 06-07.
Oh, Briere "was just snake bitten," after he found out Drury got a payday and Danny was probably leaving town is completely based in fact.EDIT: Ironically, you're the one pushing the fact that Briere turned into a perimeter player in those playoffs, and "checked out halfway through the season"....which is complete and utter ********. He was snake bit in the playoffs and still managed to put up around a ppg.
So losing their leading shot-blocker (a huge part of the 2006 defense in general) and arguably best defensive forward (certainly top three) did nothing to change the makeup or performance of the team? Cute.
You're going to great lengths to make that Senators series sound close. If Ottawa had won every OT game in 2006, they win the series 4-1. If Buffalo wins every extra frame the next season, we're going back to Scotia Bank place up a game. Not to mention, the Senators controlled play throughout the first three games of that series, holding the Sabres to 15 shots in game 3, even though they only scored one with Miller standing on his head.
The Sabres' offense never really clicked those playoffs. They generated chances against mediocre Islander and Ranger defensive units but had issues with DiPietro and Lundqvist, then got rolled by the Pizza line and Ottawa's relentless forecheck. Sure, Buffalo had the talent level to win the Cup with the right bounces either year, but 2006 had a different talent mix. One better suited for playoff hockey.
Oh, Briere "was just snake bitten," after he found out Drury got a payday and Danny was probably leaving town is completely based in fact.
Either way, you completely ignored the context of the discussion, a poster claiming that Briere was "clearly" the better player, even though Drury was coming off leading the team in playoff goals and shutting down Jagr that Summer while Danny was noticeably off. Acting like there aren't valid arguments for one over the other is flat dumb, and I don't even really have a horse in that race.
I disagree.
The same people that never leave Amherst due to irrational fear of their own life are the same people that only like hard-working North Americans on their hockey team.
I don't think it's as pronounced as the OP does, but there's clearly a bias for North American players.
Thomas Vanek's popularity would dwarf Steve Freakin' Ott's if this wasn't the case. I'm of the belief that Vanek is the team's toughest player and would be a folk hero in this town if he was from the mid-west instead of Austria.