Honestly, when was the last time the Sabres were truly "Great"?

[BuffaloRanger]

Looking back over the last 15 years, how many truly great teams have the sabres had?

Th 99 Cup team only took the 7th playoff spot. They played very well in the playoffs, exploited other teams weaknesses, and had probably the best player in Sabres history in net. Does that qualify as a great team, or a team that got hot in the playoffs?

Were those teams of the late 90s great? Or were they only good teams that played well in front of an all world goalie.

To me a great team is one that is way up there in the standings, that knows in February that it will make the playoffs. When was the last time that happened?

I think the Lafontaine/Mogilny Sabres of the the early 90s were great, if not, at least very good. The year Lafontaine got hurt would have been the sabres year.

My point is that for years the Sabres were only an above average team, that could make noise in the playoffs while playing in front of Hasek. When Hasek was "traded" for a bag of pucks, the Sabres became an average team that couldn't make the playoffs. I don't want to see the Sabres have an average team full of guys with potential that can't make the playoffs anymore. Bring in some stars.

I am shocked that there are fans that are content with building a team that can only compete for that last playoff spot.

This new CBA is supposed to level the playing field. Why can't the Sabres build the best team in the Eastern Conference? Why are some fans afraid to want that?

This offseason can change the Sabres destiny for years to come.

[The REAL Sabres]

2001. 5th place, 99 points and 1 weak OT goal from an unlikely source away from the Eastern Conference Finals. That team was even better than the '99 team.

[Jeanneret's LaLaLa]

Ya i gotta agree with you sabrejeff. Our 2001 team was really good, we went out before the trade deadline and made deals to make a run at the cup, and lost it on a weak goal. Hows that, better typing??

[The REAL Sabres]

78 seconds... :(

[BuffaloRanger]

But was that a great team or a good team in front of Hasek? (although that Kaspiritus goal was weak.) Lemieux knocking that puck down was weak too.

We aren't going to get another Hasek. The players in front of the goalie will have to be better than they have in years. That's what I want.

[bduff54]

i don't get this guys. how come when the leafs get 103 points they are a bad team but when the sabres get 99 they are a great team?

[The REAL Sabres]

Because the Leafs are always a bad team. Anyways, that season for us was the most Leaf-like. A lot of promise and a very early exit.

[BuffaloRanger]

Well I think it's a combination of 100 + regular season points and a great playoff run = a great team..

Leafs teams that finished with 103 points cannot under any criteria be called bad. Without a long playoff run though I don't think they can be considered great.

The opposite is true for the Sabres. Average regular seasons + great playoff runs does not equal a great team in my opinion. Just a good team that got hot at the right time.

[bduff54]

exactly, neither the leafs or sabres have had a "great team" in the past 10 years.

[LALAFONTAINE]

But was that a great team or a good team in front of Hasek? (although that Kaspiritus goal was weak.) Lemieux knocking that puck down was weak too.

We aren't going to get another Hasek. The players in front of the goalie will have to be better than they have in years. That's what I want.

That was not a weak goal. Ask Thumper, who once held that belief.

The tying goal was weak, and that was Warrener's fault.

[Papaduke]

I still have a dark place in my soul for Rhett Warrener deciding to turn spectator in the last minute of the 3rd period.

[г]

i don't get this guys. how come when the leafs get 103 points they are a bad team but when the sabres get 99 they are a great team?

The exchange rate on the US dollar was lower back then

[BuffaloRanger]

That was not a weak goal. Ask Thumper, who once held that belief.

The tying goal was weak, and that was Warrener's fault.


I'll ask you since thumper is probably not monitoring this thread. Enlighten me. Wasn't it a floating wrist shot from 40 feet out that totally fooled Hasek? I didn't see a tip or a screen.

[bduff54]

come on lala, Hasek was probably the best goalie of all time but he could have had that one.

[matthew94]

I don't buy the average team with a great goalie argument.

WHO CARES? Hasek was PART of the team

I don't think the Chicago Bulls would have won any championships w/o Michael Jordan

But do we say they were just an average team with a great shooting guard???

It's silly.

The Sabres had a good run when Hasek was at the top of his game. Nobody wanted to play them. Everyone has a different definition of great, so that's not worth arguing about.

BuffaloRanger, clearly (based on this post and others) thinks high scoring = great by default. The defense first sabres won a ton more playoff games than Lafontaine and Mogilny, but he called the latter 'great' (even though later he said great equals over 100 points AND going deep in the playoffs. Oh well.

[bduff54]

that sabres team was pretty good but i could never say they were a great team. the patriots are a "great" team. The sabres were an ok team with a "great" goalie.

[matthew94]

You take the best player off any 'Great' team and they probably don't win championships.

Take Jordan away from Chicago
Take Montana away from the 49ers
Take Roy away from the Avs

Very doubtful those teams would have won

But Jordan, Montana & Roy were part of a team. It's meaningless to say Chicago was an OK team with a great shooting guard. It's meaningless to say the niners were a pretty good team with a great qb. The fact of the matter is those teams had those players.

Buffalo never won, so I wouldn't call them great....but that has nothing to do with the fact that their best player was their goalie....it has to do with my definition of great

[HURLS]

Buffalo never won, so I wouldn't call them great....but that has nothing to do with the fact that their best player was their goalie....it has to do with my definition of great

I don't understand this post at all. So you're saying Buffalo was never "great" right? The reason you think they were never great has nothing to do with their best player being a goalie. Very confusing, but I think I may now get it.

[24Impala]

i still kinda say "what if" about that 92-93 team with all the scoring power we had..

[LALAFONTAINE]

come on lala, Hasek was probably the best goalie of all time but he could have had that one.

You have no excuse, since I posted that goal here.

Then again, Thumper has a brain.

[LALAFONTAINE]

I'll ask you since thumper is probably not monitoring this thread. Enlighten me. Wasn't it a floating wrist shot from 40 feet out that totally fooled Hasek? I didn't see a tip or a screen.

Nope.

It was a partial screen, a hard shot that was low in the corner. It would have been a difficult save.

Thumper will be around here. He had the same opinion, and then I found the MPG of the goal, and he changed his mind.

There is one person whose fault that goal was: Gilmour, who gave up on the play.

[matthew94]

I don't understand this post at all. So you're saying Buffalo was never "great" right? The reason you think they were never great has nothing to do with their best player being a goalie. Very confusing, but I think I may now get it.

Yeah, I was pretty tired when i typed that :)

By my definition, a team is great when they win a championship or more and were dominant in doing so. Buffalo has never been great then. But if they had won 2 championships with Hasek, I would have no problem calling the whole team great. They weren't just an 'OK' team with a great goalie. The goalie was part of the team. So they were a very good team.

I was mostly making the point that every team that we call 'great' probably woudn't have won w/o this player or that player. The Sabres wouldn't have made the cup w/o Hasek, but they probably wouldn't have without Peca or Zhitnik either.

You might as well say the Bulls were a HORRIBLE team that just happened to have 2 future hall of famers. It's meaningless.

[BuffaloRanger]

Actually the knock on the Bulls for years was that it was Jordan and him alone. The Chicago Jordans. They weren't horrible, they were good, but not championship caliber without MJ. Jordan made the Bulls. He made Pippen look better.

How about a great hockey team as in great offense, great defense, and a great goalie?

[BuffaloRanger]

i still kinda say "what if" about that 92-93 team with all the scoring power we had..


Exactly!

[LALAFONTAINE]

Actually the knock on the Bulls for years was that it was Jordan and him alone. The Chicago Jordans. They weren't horrible, they were good, but not championship caliber without MJ. Jordan made the Bulls. He made Pippen look better.

How about a great hockey team as in great offense, great defense, and a great goalie?

Yeah, MJ did amazing without Pippen.