thegreat66 19 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 I know the conventional story but didn't get to watch as much hockey as I usually do in 2006, 2007. Seriously, how did both these teams go to being one of the most dominant teams in the league to ordinary at best in such a hurry? Thanks in advance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T-Ruff 47 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) Sabres lost Briere/Drury/Campbell, still have a lot of talent but couldn't find that consistency and had to deal with injuries to Miller and whatnot.... Sens lost Chara, Redden declined considerably... they had their Emery issues as well. They need a solid puck moving defenseman, more depth, and consistent goaltending. Leclaire should help them greatly next season. Both are moving in the right direction, and I'll probably predict them to be playoff teams next season... Edited June 19, 2009 by T-Ruff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Feldmarschall 9 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 Ruff hit it pretty well. The Sabres' big mistake after 2006 was letting Drury AND Briere go, while not managing to get anything at all for either one. Vanek was almost poached as well, and Campbell left. Their back end was already weakened pretty considerably by losing Jay McKee the previous year, who is pretty unheralded but was one of the top shutdown defensemen in the Eastern Conference at the time. Add in that they kept a worthless floater like Max Afinogenov and let go of JP Dumont, and suddenly they're missing their top two centers, a top-six winger, their top offensive defenseman, and their top shot-blocker. So their nosedive was pretty much assured. Add in Ryan Miller coming back down to earth and they looked pretty bad at times. As for the Sens, there are too many places to start. Top-heavy lineup without secondary scoring, lack of puck-moving defensemen, inconsistent coaching, and the drama bomb that was Ray Emery. I'm surprised they did as well as they did for as long as they did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thegreat66 19 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 Thanks guys- appreciate the insight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FedorovMan91 1 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 Two people explained well and let me add one thing: the Sabres is the team that has the worst ability to keep its prospect or star players. Briere, Biron, Campbell, etc.. they are all from the Sabres but during the off-season and the trade dead line, the Sabres gave them away. For the Senators, losing Comrie kind hurt the Sens. Besides, they signed Heately, Spezza, Alfie for such a long time for more than 7.0 million cap number. They did not get a discount like Zetterberg and Datsyuk made. This season, all of three did not produe many points and their second, third liners absolutely went down. Moreover, Murray, the Sens GM, he was the coach of the Sens just few years and moved to the place of GM and set Harsburg as the Sens coach. The reason why Murray wanted Hartsburg for the coach was: 1. Murray had somewhat a relation with Hartsburg 2. As people say the Sens' biggest defect is defense; Hartsburg was the coach of one team in OHL and his reputation was defensive style. However, Hartsburg was not even close to the level of coach the successful Eastern team like the Sens wanted. As a result, because of his defensive style stragedy, all of Spezza, Heately, and Alfie, their abilities went down. If we start to discuss about the falling down of the Sens since the All-star game of 07-08 season, that would be Emery. He was a decent goal-tender in 06-07 season while the team itself supported him very well. But, he went down the surgery with the start of the season. Gerber was taking his spot for like 2 months. When Emery came back, he had a conflict with the team itself because the coach did not guarantee Emery himself as the number one netminder of the Sens. Since that time, TSN and other medias reported how lazy Emery was and he made some conflicts with his team mates. He had a fight against Fisher and Ruutu few times. I don't know this is good description but hopefully you can understand my English and enjoy my reading Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 I know the conventional story but didn't get to watch as much hockey as I usually do in 2006, 2007. Seriously, how did both these teams go to being one of the most dominant teams in the league to ordinary at best in such a hurry? Thanks in advance. Poor management. The Sabres dug their own graves by letting their two best players walk even though both wanted to play for them. The Senators are utterly incapable of maintaining a stable, mentally healthy locker room (something related to coaching and thus, via something like 3 coaching switches, related to management). Plus they seem to fail at putting the right pieces together, even when they have the full puzzle sitting in front of them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 Ruff hit it pretty well. The Sabres' big mistake after 2006 was letting Drury AND Briere go, while not managing to get anything at all for either one. Vanek was almost poached as well, and Campbell left. Their back end was already weakened pretty considerably by losing Jay McKee the previous year, who is pretty unheralded but was one of the top shutdown defensemen in the Eastern Conference at the time. Add in that they kept a worthless floater like Max Afinogenov and let go of JP Dumont, and suddenly they're missing their top two centers, a top-six winger, their top offensive defenseman, and their top shot-blocker. So their nosedive was pretty much assured. Add in Ryan Miller coming back down to earth and they looked pretty bad at times. As for the Sens, there are too many places to start. Top-heavy lineup without secondary scoring, lack of puck-moving defensemen, inconsistent coaching, and the drama bomb that was Ray Emery. I'm surprised they did as well as they did for as long as they did. Yeah. That guy is like the cast of the Hills surgically attached to Mike Tyson. Moody, argumentative, stupid and irrationally violent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Feldmarschall 9 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 Yeah. That guy is like the cast of the Hills surgically attached to Mike Tyson. Moody, argumentative, stupid and irrationally violent. Well said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted June 19, 2009 Buffalo: kept the wrong players Ottawa: The Curse of Bryan Murray. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
