There was one moment in particular in the first period when the Sabres countered successfully and Boyes broke free down the wing. He had another forward with him which caused the lone defender to drift away to prevent the pass across. It wasn’t a typical two-on-one break because it happened sort of quickly but Boyes had a great look at the net. He shot high and wide. In a period in which the Sabres managed just two long distance shots on goal, one from Gerbe and the other from Griere, Boyes cannot miss the net there. He needed to test Boucher and make him stop the puck.

When I saw Boyes miss the net I lost it. I’ve been saying all series that the margin for error is very small. When the chances are there, the Sabres must make the most of them. Brad Boyes didn’t just fail to convert on an opportunity, he threw it away. For him to no-show in this series like he did is extremely disappointing. Just a little production from him would have been a huge help.

After that period ended I found myself thinking wait a minute, am I actually depending on Brad Boyes to win a Game 7 for the Sabres. Somewhere along the line my read on this team jumped the tracks. Boyes is a veteran so the Sabres should get something out of him but that something should not be the difference between winning and losing this series.

So I backtracked. If it’s not Brad Boyes then who was supposed to score the goals in this deciding Game 7? Cody McCormick, Paul Gaustad, Mike Grier, and Rob Niedermayer combined for 2 goals in the 24 total games played in this series heading into Game 7. Mark Mancari and Jochen Hecht have solid reputations as untalented scorers. If any of those six forwards had scored I would have been shocked and I doubt I would have been alone. So excluding the “checking forwards” and Brad Boyes, the remaining forwards include two rookies, a player who hasn’t participated in an NHL game in the 2011 calendar year, Thomas Vanek and Drew Stafford. Vanek and Stafford, that’s basically who the Sabres were going to war with in the deciding game. It wasn’t enough.

I’m probably most disappointed with Drew Stafford. He looked pretty good but he was consistently denied on his scoring chances. The opportunity at the end of the second period when the puck was lying on the side of the net perfectly crystallized his series. If you remember, Stafford was crashing the net with a lot of speed. As he approached the puck he stretched in attempt to pull it back out in front. It was a pretty athletic play but Boucher got a pad on it. Stafford was trying to beat Boucher to post but failed and after the save was made Stafford had drifted too far out of position to get a stick on the rebound.

Stafford needed to dig in there. He’s got to slam on the breaks, get control of the puck, and pound it to the back of the net. He missed on his first try. So what? Keep at it. Don’t be denied. If a defensemen had tried to run him over, which surely would have happened had Stafford stuck with the play, Stafford’s got to take that punishment. He just has to have the perseverance to stay with the puck. Dig in. Commit. A goal there would have made the score 2-1 and suddenly the Sabres are back in it.

Stafford had 7 shots on goal in Game 7. It looked like it. He was all over the ice. But here’s my question: do you think after watching Stafford in this series and Game 7 in particular that Stafford is gritty enough to produce regularly in the playoffs? I’m not sure. He didn’t do anything in this series to makes me think he’s someone I want to depend on too much.

I think Stafford was a better player than Vanek in Game 7 and by a pretty wide margin too. But Vanek’s finger prints are all over this series. He produced and his goals were not accidental. Stafford did very little to help the Sabres win. That troubles me. Vanek’s lack of impact in Game 7 troubles me too but he’s proven a lot over these past few months. Stafford’s production in the playoffs has left me wanting.

There are plenty of convincing stats and numbers that tell a story about this series but I’ve found there are always two sides to those arguments. Ultimately, the Flyers were able to take advantage of the weak spots on the Sabres and expose their lack of depth. The Sabres didn’t respond on the scoreboard until it was far too late in the deciding game. Execute or go home. That’s how it goes in the 7th game of a playoff series in the NHL. The Sabres didn’t execute and were eliminated by a team that did.

The Sabres were able to qualify for the playoffs largely by riding the scoring production of their key forwards. Vanek has been great in this series. Ennis and Gerbe have both been timely. The rest need to step up and help this team.

I’m not going to criticize Stafford just yet. He’s carried the puck well all series and he has put a lot of shots on net. He has one goal (a powerplay goal in the first period of Game 3) and one assist (on the second Vanek goal of Game 2). Boyes is the only player on the team who has played in all six games and been held without a point. They both still have time to redeem themselves but Game 7 is the last one against the Flyers and if they don’t produce, it could be the last game of the hockey year for the Buffalo Sabres.

To win Game 7, the Sabres will need their best forwards to all be a positive force. They have to score. They have to help this team. I think as a unit, they’ve been okay in this series. In Game 7 they need to be more than just okay. The Sabres might need four or five goals to win.

All series long the Sabres have asked for, depended on, and for the most part received a tremendous effort from their young defensemen. MAG’s offensive production has been stunning. It certainly was not part of what carried the Sabres into the playoffs. Neither was Chris Butler’s ability to play the role of lock-down defender. I expect those players to be modestly dependable. When they exceed my expectations, I’m very happy. When they fall below them, I usually just think too bad.

They, along with Miller, are asked to elevate their game to limit the effectiveness of the Flyers talented offense. There’s a solid chance that in Game 7, the forwards on the Flyers will get the better of them. If this happens, it’s not appropriate to blame the defense for allowing the Flyers to score. The Flyers have a ton of talent up front. To counter that, what the Sabres need more than anything else is for their own offense to finish any and all high percentage scoring opportunities whether they’re up by 3 goals, down by 3 goals or somewhere in between.

In Game 6, I give the Flyers credit for limiting the Sabres chances but Drew Stafford still got loose alone in the slot and the Sabres still had an extended 5-3 powerplay opportunity. Score on one of those chances and the Flyers are shaving and cleaning out their lockers instead of preparing for one last push against Ryan Miller and the Sabres.

The scoring chances might not be copious but they will certainly be there for the Sabres in Game 7. The room for error will be small. For about 90% of these players it’s the biggest game they’ve ever played in. It’s important that the scorers the team relies upon most execute on this particularly high pressure stage. This is when reputations are made.

Game 7 will be thrilling to watch. Save the cynicism for the weather, honkeys. Nothing positive vibes for this hockey team today.

The closest the Flyers have been to clutch has been Dan Briere’s goal in the third period of Game 5 or Brain Boucher’s save on Tyler Ennis’ breakaway try in the closing minutes of Game 4. Both of those moments kept the Flyers in the game. They were plays that gave them a chance to win. They were not plays that won them games.

What the Flyers have been this series, more than the Sabres, is opportunistic. They finally broke through in a tied game to score twice in the second period of Game 2, a period in which they dominated. They converted on a Chris Butler turnover to take the lead in Game 3 and then added to that lead later when Jordan Leopold was caught out of position.

I’ve been concerned almost all series long with the Sabres ability to finish their scoring chances. I recognize that they come somewhat infrequently against a good defensive team like the Flyers so when the Sabres come upon one and miss, it’s a big deal to me. The Sabres have had stretches in this series where they had all the momentum and the Flyers were running around in their own zone. The first period in Game 3 is an example of this. To only walk away from that period tied is a concern of mine.

This is why I was ecstatic when Marc-Andre Gragnani scored in the first period of Game 5. It was a goal that the Sabres didn’t need based on urgency but they were able to capitalize anyway because they were organized and patient. That goal is a great sign moving forward for the Sabres.

I have to say though, as long as they’re able to continue being clutch down the stretch in close games, the Sabres should be okay. Miller is a big part of this. He has done very well. I’m starting to believe more and more in them for two reasons: (1) Miller appears to be totally locked in and (2) I know that as the Sabres pile up close, dramatic wins, their confidence will continue to grow.

This series has already secured a safe spot in our long term memory bank. It has been an incredible ride so far. I have total confidence in this group to make it a happy ending.

The first is to appreciate the win but acknowledge what the Sabres failed to do, the minor penalties called against, the important players who were difficult to notice, and attribute these marks of imperfection as troublesome signs for the future. This is not me.

The second is to use some perspective while focusing on the statistic that matters most: the goals each team managed to score. Allow me to recognize this game for what it will be remembered as: an improbable and thrilling win for the Sabres. The significance of which is unknown but its value is not.

The Flyers are in a really tough spot after losing game 1. The pressure they’re facing has grown even greater. They have very little room for error moving forward in this series. Look at it from their perspective. They probably need to win the next game and two out of the next three to really get back into this series. They’ll definitely need to win at least one game in Buffalo in order to advance into the next round. This, against a team with a ton of confidence that by now is sensing they’re capable of winning any game in any environment.

I look at yesterday’s game as a very positive sign for the Sabres moving forward. They were able to pull out a win in a tight game that was totally up for grabs heading into the third period. It wasn’t a great shock. They’ve been winning these close games on a consistent basis for quite some time. But to do so in the playoffs is another thing.

The Sabres have an incredible amount of momentum right now. They just have it. There is something to them. Pat freaking Kaleta scored the winning goal in the first game of the playoffs. That only happens if things are running smooth for the Sabres. The Flyers played about as well as a team can play while being shutout. They stood the Sabres forwards up at the blue line and back-checked hard all game. They gave the Sabres very little and they still lost. Now the Sabres get to regroup and make adjustments for game 2 with a road win already in their pocket.

I don’t want to get too heavy noting the importance of that win because it is just one game but the first step is complete for the Sabres. Splitting the two away games is what most hockey fans would consider a success in the playoffs. Win game 2 and the Sabres will return to Buffalo with a firm hold on the series. Lose game 2 and the Sabres still leave Philadelphia in a position of control.

Onward.

It doesn’t have to be a player of prominence like Drury, but it could be and that’s all that matters. If it’s clean, if it’s dirty, it doesn’t make a difference because injuries happen on both. Granted, their more likely to happen and are generally more severe on dirty hits. A broken bone is one thing but some hits, especially those to he head, are threatening the life and well-being of the player that is being hit. After it happens, the circumstances are irrelevant; the hit was delivered, and the injury sustained.

The idea is to avoid all that nonsense altogether, right? I mean, Kaleta is a great player, but I’d rather see him lay someone out who has the puck, as a means of separating him from the puck. Instead, because of the way the league is enforced, his role is primarily that of a statement player – a threat that reminds opponents what goes around, comes around. If you hit one of the Sabres best players at any time, for any reason, Kaleta will return the favor.

You know what the Florida Panthers do not have? They don’t have a Pat Kaleta type player. So when Mike Richards was on the ice last Friday, he was willing to take a chance for a big play and lined David Booth up in the middle of the ice for a ferocious hit . Bad things always happen when players skating across the ice make contact with players skating up the ice because the head is always vulnerable in that position.

There are a couple things I want to say about this hit. First of all, the hit itself looks technically fair and legal. Richards made contact with his shoulder, not his elbow. He didn’t jump into Booth. Even though Richards’ feet left the ground after contact, it was clearly the collision that caused his skates to leave the ice. That’s about all I liked about the hit though. The timing was awful. Booth had passed the puck (and was on his linemates stick) long before Richards even initiated contact. Clearly, Richards didn’t anticipate that Booth would slide the puck over to his winger. The game speed is very fast in hockey and it would be impossible to expect Richards to recognize the pass and change his course. Had Booth held onto the puck he probably would have seen Richards approaching. Everything could have been different.

But things didn’t work out the way Richards planned or expected. The hit was late and struck a vulnerable, unsuspecting Booth in the head. I’m not suggesting that contact needs to be down-scaled. There are plenty of opportunities to deliver hard, fair hits in this game. I think we all can agree though that the type of hit that Richards delivered does not belong in the NHL. Hits like that should never happen. The NHL is sending the wrong message to players and fans by continuing to allow it.

Not only are they allowing it, but they’re enabling it. Richards was not suspended for the hit which I find to be ridiculous. The evidence of the hit being late is irrefutable. Whether or not Richards meant for the hit to be late is not important. I haven’t seen anything about his game that suggests he’s a dirty player but again the fact of the matter is the hit was late. What does intent have to do with what happened? He took a chance in hopes of making a big play. Richards made a choice and the league should stand up and say, okay, you took a chance and while your intent was tolerable, the result is not and for that reason you’re suspended.

The league maintains that Richards’ hit did not reflect an intent to injure. If that’s the only standard the league uses when considering suspensions as it appears to be, then I don’t agree with it. If Richards’ hit falls into what is considered acceptable by league standards, then they need to be changed. Two things: (1)The league needs to set higher infractions for hits to the head and for (2) hits to unsuspecting players who don’t have control of the puck. This seems obvious to me but apparently not the NHL. These are just the issues brought about by the Richards hit on Booth.

It sucks that this is such a large enough issue that I felt I had to write about it. These incidents (usually involving the boards) happen every year and the media does a good enough job addressing it. Eventually the sentiment of hockey being a contact sport overrules the plea for head safety. No one wants to see contact leave the sport but where do we draw the line? An unsuspecting hit to the head seems like a good place to me. I’m willing to sacrifice some clean body shots if it meant we wouldn’t see any more of these devastating collisions to the head.

Why wouldn’t the league want to protect their players? I don’t have an answer. The NHL is controlled by too many purists and not enough sensible innovators. Their leadership has held the progress of this league back for years. I find myself feeling frustrated by it. Just as much to blame though is the players union. This is their issue more than the leagues. Too bad they seem completely inept and totally dysfunctional.

What is it going to take? Does someone have to die? It’s not unreasonable to say it could happen. It might happen in fact if these dangerous hits are allowed to continue.

All that being said, Tom Renney, head coach of the New York Rangers since the start of the 2003-2004 season, was fired Monday. I don’t have much sympathy for the Rangers. They’ve struggled lately and it has everything to do with the irresponsible free agent signings they’ve made. The Rangers, are like the Dallas Cowboys of the NHL. They throw money at under achieving, veteran players, with no regard for team chemistry. It’s almost an impossible situation to coach in.

Perhaps it was the fact that Sean Avery made his bones as a New York Ranger. Or maybe it was the comments Tom Renney made during the ’07 playoff series between the Sabres and Rangers. But somewhere along the line I started to hate Tom Renney – just as I did for Ken Hitchcock when he was with the Dallas Stars and then later with the Philadelphia Flyers – just as I did for Bryan Murray with the Ottawa Senators. I loved hating those teams and more specifically those coaches. More than that though, I was always tickled pink to see them fail especially at the hands of the Sabres. But I never wanted to see any of them get canned.

I hate how there doesn’t seem to be any loyalties between organizations and coaches anymore. Why is it that when a team is successful, the players and the management that brought in the players are praised. But when players under perform or when the talent level is low, the coaches are always blamed for the teams lack of success. The NHL is a league where rosters change dramatically from year to year. It seems that one bad year is enough to get just about any coach in the league fired.

You can’t tell me that the Penguins are better off without Michel Therrien, who led them to the Stanley Cup finals last year. Or that the Canadians and Devils don’t regret firing Claude Julien who has won with every team he’s coached and currently is the bench-boss for one of the leagues most prolific teams, the Boston Bruins.

All the coaching changes going on around the league only benefit the Sabres in the long term. It’s tough to say what will happen with teams immediately after a coaching change, but when it comes to player development, there will be a significant adjustment period when new coaches implement their new system. That’s just a fact.

As for Renney, I’m sad to see him go. Likewise the Sens and Flyer’s just aren’t the same after Hitch and Murray vacated their former positions. If nothing else, the personalities those guys brought to their teams was unique and worth the price of admission.