48 replies to this topic

[weave]

First fight poll up for the season. I'm not sure how many of these I am going to be able to do this year. My new job has me working nights so I'm not going to see many Sabres games this year. Hopefully someone here can step up and post these on weeknight games when I can't?

Anywho..... without further ado, I bring you Scott Hartnell vs. Drew Stafford.




Hartnell drills Ennis from behind. Stafford doesn't like it and challenges Hartnell. Hartnell glladly obliges and the lids and gloves come off. They grab on and Drew goes on the defensive. Hartnell lands a beauty of a right hook. Staff covers up and Hartnell lands a couple more shots. Drew settles down a bit and throws a doozy that either grazed or just missed. Hartnell gets off balance and they crash to the ice.

I score this one a solid win for Scott Hartnell. Drew was definitely stepping up in class here. Props to Drew for 1. challenging a much tougher opponent and 2. taking that big shot early and staying in the fight and trying to give a big shot back.

BTW- I know Foligno challenged Schenn early on but Markus threw a weak check and skated right by Hartnell immediately after the hit from behind. Markus is a pretty established fighter from juniors. IMO he should have been the one to challenge a guy like Hartnell. Hopefully he saw that when Staff got beat pretty good. Regardless, good sign seeing Staff stand up.

[IKnowPhysics]

Hartnell drops the bombs but goes down first and takes a decent shot right before he does.  Tie game.

[wyldnwoody44]

Staff hangs on, gets a softie in to knock hartnell down, but hartnell def wins this

[Kelly the Dog]

1] I only saw it once and could be wrong, but it appeared to me that right before the fight. Hartnell cross-checked Stafford from behind; behind the play. That is what caused the fight, not the Ennis incident. I told a guy I watching the game with, that I assumed Staff was jawing with Hartnell about the Ennis hit, and that is what caused Hartnell to cross-check him. Again, they really didn't show much of a replay but I think that is what happened.

2] As far as the fight goes, to me it was one of those rare occurences where Stafford may have lost the battle but won the war. I think that Hartnell clearly got the better of him, despite the end. But the fact that Stafford was willing to drop and go may have helped his team more than Hartnell winning the fight helped his team. And why else would you fight if not to help your team for the rest of the game and season.

[Robviously]

Kelly the Dog, on 20 January 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

1] I only saw it once and could be wrong, but it appeared to me that right before the fight. Hartnell cross-checked Stafford from behind; behind the play. That is what caused the fight, not the Ennis incident. I told a guy I watching the game with, that I assumed Staff was jawing with Hartnell about the Ennis hit, and that is what caused Hartnell to cross-check him. Again, they really didn't show much of a replay but I think that is what happened.

2] As far as the fight goes, to me it was one of those rare occurences where Stafford may have lost the battle but won the war. I think that Hartnell clearly got the better of him, despite the end. But the fact that Stafford was willing to drop and go may have helped his team more than Hartnell winning the fight helped his team. And why else would you fight if not to help your team for the rest of the game and season.

Bingo.  Just dropping the gloves brought the team back to life.

[d4rksabre]

I would like to take this moment to pat myself on the back for predicting a Drew Stafford fight.

 staffordfights.jpg   219.01K   52 downloads

Edited by d4rksabre, 20 January 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[Stormin Norman]

This fight is a BIG WIN for the SABRES.  Stafford made a statement by defending a teammate and taking on a bigger dude. The Sabres bench really responded to it as did I.  I just can't watch another season of Buffalo players turning turtle when the going gets tough, so today was cool!

[deluca67]

Hopefully Stafford learned an important lesson today, a punch to the head only hurts for a little while. The feeling in the locker-room when you protect your teammate lasts much longer.

[Kelly the Dog]

DeLuca67, on 20 January 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Hopefully Stafford learned an important lesson today, a punch to the head only hurts for a little while. The feeling in the locker-room when you protect your teammate lasts much longer.

Well put.

I would argue though, that it is a LOT easier for him to take that stand this year, with Scott, Ott and Foligno on his bench, than that exact same reaction in years past.

Edited by Kelly the Dog, 20 January 2013 - 07:46 PM.

[Punch]

Kelly the Dog, on 20 January 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

2] As far as the fight goes, to me it was one of those rare occurences where Stafford may have lost the battle but won the war. I think that Hartnell clearly got the better of him, despite the end. But the fact that Stafford was willing to drop and go may have helped his team more than Hartnell winning the fight helped his team. And why else would you fight if not to help your team for the rest of the game and season.

I guess the question is, how are fights to be judged? On the merits of the fisticuffs alone, clearly Hartnell is the winner. On the other hand, Stafford gets credit for: challenging Hartnell in the first place, holding his own, getting a good shot in, the takedown and ultimately the momentum shift. Arguably, Hartnell loses points for playing loose and a bit dirty which provoked the ire of a Sabres' lineup clearly looking to prove it's grit in a potentially season tone setting home opener.

Seeing that, IMHO, no hockey fight is defined solely by the punches thrown but is instead tighly knitted into the fabric of the game, I'm calling it a DRAW.

[Kelly the Dog]

Punch, on 20 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

I guess the question is, how are fights to be judged? On the merits of the fisticuffs alone, clearly Hartnell is the winner. On the other hand, Stafford gets credit for: challenging Hartnell in the first place, holding his own, getting a good shot in, the takedown and ultimately the momentum shift. Arguably, Hartnell loses points for playing loose and a bit dirty which provoked the ire of a Sabres' lineup clearly looking to prove it's grit in a potentially season tone setting home opener.

Seeing that, IMHO, no hockey fight is defined solely by the punches thrown but is instead tighly knitted into the fabric of the game, I'm calling it a DRAW.

You bring up good points, but I think as evidenced by the tenor of the game, Stafford helped his team significantly by getting into that fight, and Hartnell didn't help his team at all in it, and in fact, may have hurt his team, by igniting the Sabres. So instead of a draw, I would say it was a win for Stafford. Especially if you consider that a fight is engaged to help your team much more than improve your individual win/loss record in fights.

[Punch]

Kelly the Dog, on 20 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

You bring up good points, but I think as evidenced by the tenor of the game, Stafford helped his team significantly by getting into that fight, and Hartnell didn't help his team at all in it, and in fact, may have hurt his team, by igniting the Sabres. So instead of a draw, I would say it was a win for Stafford. Especially if you consider that a fight is engaged to help your team much more than improve your individual win/loss record in fights.

Like you said, Stafford may have lost the battle but not the war. The individual fight is still weighted partially by the punches themselves, and because it was largely in Hartnell's favor, I'd have a hard time actually calling Stafford the winner. I think all of the elements taken together are enough to bring it into balance.

Again, IMHO.

[Kelly the Dog]

Punch, on 20 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

Like you said, Stafford may have lost the battle but not the war. The individual fight is still weighted partially by the punches themselves, and because it was largely in Hartnell's favor, I'd have a hard time actually calling Stafford the winner. I think all of the elements taken together are enough to bring it into balance.

Again, IMHO.

Agreed. It's actually an interesting argument all around. FWIW, Hartnell pretty much abused Stafford in the fight, as you would expect I suppose.

The significance of the fight, however, perhaps can be measured by the fact that a lot of people where I watched the game (with, say, 30 fans at a bar in Los Angeles at 9:30 am when the game was on national TV) were talking about Ott and Stafford's fight and its affect, more than the fact Vanek had 5 points, which is quite a game.

[SwampD]

I'll be honest, I didn't see a single punch landed by either guy.  Props to Drew for dancing, though.

[Spndnchz]

Hartnell hits Pommers from behind early on. He was yapping all game (Something you don't see on TV). Then he hit Ennis from behind. Lindy was trying to get Scott out there most of the night but Hartnell went running for the bench.

Stafford took a good right to his head but held on. A win for Stafford in that regard.

Even the Ranger announcers saying Buffalo played with grit today. Drop the buckets. Never a poor choice.

[Kelly the Dog]

Spndnchz, on 20 January 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

Hartnell hits Pommers from behind early on. He was yapping all game (Something you don't see on TV). Then be hit Ennis from behind. Lindy was trying to get Scott out there most of the night but Hartnell went running for the bench.

Love that!

[Punch]

Spndnchz, on 20 January 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

Hartnell hits Pommers from behind early on. He was yapping all game (Something you don't see on TV). Then he hit Ennis from behind. Lindy was trying to get Scott out there most of the night but Hartnell went running for the bench.

Stafford took a good right to his head but held on. A win for Stafford in that regard.

Even the Ranger announcers saying Buffalo played with grit today. Drop the buckets. Never a poor choice.

Damn, that's good stuff. Hartnell ran away from the bigger fish. Stafford didn't. The first isn't surprising, but the 2nd is.

How his teammates can respect him, I don't know. 30+ goals doesn't make up for running to the bench rather than clean up your mess.

[Peppy22]

If you just look at the fight, Hartsmell wins. But what it did for the game? Stafford wins.

[PASabreFan]

Man alive, can we at least get the facts right in these things? The DVR is your friend. Hartnell "landed" one blow, and that was about it for both guys. Hartnell swung more but fell down first. Guess that's a tie in the NHL "fight" game. Don't worry. Professional observers like Mike Harrington had Stafford "taking" four or five rights from Hartnell.

[Doohickie]

weave, on 20 January 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

I score this one a solid win for Scott Hartnell. Drew was definitely stepping up in class here. Props to Drew for 1. challenging a much tougher opponent and 2. taking that big shot early and staying in the fight and trying to give a big shot back.

Staff dropped the first bomb.... look at Hartnell skating out of the corner at 11 seconds.  I call it a draw.

(And before Staff got there, Foligno and Leo gave Hartnell some pretty good shots too   )

Kelly the Dog, on 20 January 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

1] I only saw it once and could be wrong, but it appeared to me that right before the fight. Hartnell cross-checked Stafford from behind; behind the play. That is what caused the fight, not the Ennis incident. I told a guy I watching the game with, that I assumed Staff was jawing with Hartnell about the Ennis hit, and that is what caused Hartnell to cross-check him. Again, they really didn't show much of a replay but I think that is what happened.

I see the cross check from Hartnell, but it sure looks to me that even if Hartnell started that contact, Stafford finished it with a pretty solid elbow to Hartnell's head.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

Turning point in a 2 - 2 game that ended in a 5 -2 victory.

Who cares how many punches landed and by whom.  To me it doesn't matter.  Drew freakin' Stafford stood up for a teammate.  It has happened one other time that I can recall.

To me this is Steve Ott's influence on this team.  His intensity is wearing off.  To me Stafford earned that *A* on his jersey the second he challenged Hartnell.

[Spndnchz]

PASabreFan, on 21 January 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Man alive, can we at least get the facts right in these things? The DVR is your friend. Hartnell "landed" one blow, and that was about it for both guys. Hartnell swung more but fell down first. Guess that's a tie in the NHL "fight" game. Don't worry. Professional observers like Mike Harrington had Stafford "taking" four or five rights from Hartnell.

You have GOT to pause at the :37 part of the youtube vid.  Where's Hartnell's head?

[SDS]

ain't no way Hartnell has 2-3" on Drew.

 Screen shot 2013-01-21 at 12.13.20 PM.png   199.42K   21 downloads

[weave]

SDS, on 21 January 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

ain't no way Hartnell has 2-3" on Drew.

Screen shot 2013-01-21 at 12.13.20 PM.png

And there we have it.

I was going to stay out of this part of it, but what the hell.  Stafford HAS all of the physical tools Hartnell has to play a tough, take-no-prisoners game.  He's big enough, strong enough.  What he lacks is mental/personality.  It is definitely going outside of his comfort zone to play with that kind of aggression.

It was good to see him step outisde of his comfort zone last night.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

Neither combatant won this fight. Drew Stafford definitely scored with me simply by dropping the gloves. IMO, this was the most important moment of the game, not it terms of how the game went, but it terms of how the season will go.

“He makes everybody in this room bigger.”

Edited by LastPommerFan, 21 January 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[PASabreFan]

LastPommerFan, on 21 January 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Neither combatant won this fight. Drew Stafford definitely scored with me simply by dropping the gloves. IMO, this was the most important moment of the game, not it terms of how the game went, but it terms of how the season will go.

“He makes everybody in this room bigger.”

No one ever doubted that.

[Robviously]

I was about to post something about how it'd be awesome if Drew Stafford decided to go bananas and drop the gloves again tonight but then I saw this in the News:

Quote

“Obviously I’m not an every-day fighter kind of player,” said Stafford, who had not dropped the gloves since taking on Columbus’ R.J. Umberger on Feb. 6, 2010. “But when the time comes, I feel as though I can handle myself. It’s not something you’re going to see out of me too often. It carries over from last year. Everyone in this lineup is going to hold each other accountable to be harder to play against and that falls into that category.”

http://buffalonews.c.../130129875/1004

Really, Drew?  You have your best moment as a Sabre in years and you immediately want to remind everyone that you're not willing to do it "too often"?  WTF?  Good Lord.  All he has to say is "I'm not the best fighter in the league, but I'll always be ready to defend my teammates."  Instead, he's trying to make it sound like he's got his 1 fight per year out of the way or something.

I'm never going to be able to like this guy, am I?  He's definitely aware of what a really awesome player should do (and literally says so), but really likes to hedge his bets about how often he's going to do it.  This is way too close to what he said after his last fight (three years ago against RJ Umberger).  Ugh.

[Doohickie]

Whether or not he intends to fight (or will fight if the situation arises), it's better to undersell it.  Talk softly and beat the livin' crap of 'em.

[Robviously]

Doohickie, on 21 January 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Whether or not he intends to fight (or will fight if the situation arises), it's better to undersell it.  Talk softly and beat the livin' crap of 'em.

I see zero benefit in underselling it.  Let people think you ARE willing to drop the gloves every night, or multiple times per night.  It doesn't mean you have to; the threat of doing it is enough.  Opposing players will think twice about cheap shots if they know there is no shortage of Sabres players ready to punch them in the head afterwards.

The other problem with underselling it is that he undersold it the last time he dropped the gloves as a Sabre and then took a three year break from fighting.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

LaLaLaFontaine, on 21 January 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Happy Birthday,

and if the Sabres butcher the Leafs tonight, they will sweeten my birthday too.

Well, birthdays abound.  Looks like many of our members parents were busy making little Sabre fans all at the same time of year.

Hope it's a good one for you too.

Robviously, on 21 January 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I was about to post something about how it'd be awesome if Drew Stafford decided to go bananas and drop the gloves again tonight but then I saw this in the News:

http://buffalonews.c.../130129875/1004

Really, Drew?  You have your best moment as a Sabre in years and you immediately want to remind everyone that you're not willing to do it "too often"?  WTF?  Good Lord.  All he has to say is "I'm not the best fighter in the league, but I'll always be ready to defend my teammates."  Instead, he's trying to make it sound like he's got his 1 fight per year out of the way or something.

I'm never going to be able to like this guy, am I?  He's definitely aware of what a really awesome player should do (and literally says so), but really likes to hedge his bets about how often he's going to do it.  This is way too close to what he said after his last fight (three years ago against RJ Umberger).  Ugh.

Thanks for posting.  That BN article and quote has restored my feelings about Drew and that last afternoon was not a turning point for him.

Oh, well.  It was nice while it lasted, but now I am back to wanting him the most off the Sabres' roster.

Edited by Sabres Fan In NS, 21 January 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[Doohickie]

Robviously, on 21 January 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

I see zero benefit in underselling it.  Let people think you ARE willing to drop the gloves every night, or multiple times per night.  It doesn't mean you have to; the threat of doing it is enough.  Opposing players will think twice about cheap shots if they know there is no shortage of Sabres players ready to punch them in the head afterwards.

The other problem with underselling it is that he undersold it the last time he dropped the gloves as a Sabre and then took a three year break from fighting.

Don't get me wrong, I think the team should follow up on any shenanigans with a good shellackin' of the offender.  I hope to see another fight tonight, but maybe this time it will be Regehr.  Next game, it's Foligno.  Rather than having a bunch of trash talking, just walk the walk.  Prove to themselves and to the rest of the league that they are a team that sticks up for each other.  You don't need your goon out on the ice to put a beatdown on the other team.  Whoever's out there will come to the aid of anyone who's on the wrong end of a cheap shot.  Vigilante justice is more convincing if it's a whole posse and not just a lone assassin.

I think it's more effective if the other team doesn't know which Sabre is coming after them next.

Edited by Doohickie, 21 January 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[Robviously]

Doohickie, on 21 January 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I think the team should follow up on any shenanigans with a good shellackin' of the offender.  I hope to see another fight tonight, but maybe this time it will be Regehr.  Next game, it's Foligno.  Rather than having a bunch of trash talking, just walk the walk.  Prove to themselves and to the rest of the league that they are a team that sticks up for each other.  You don't need your goon out on the ice to put a beatdown on the other team.  Whoever's out there will come to the aid of anyone who's on the wrong end of a cheap shot.  Vigilante justice is more convincing if it's a whole posse and not just a lone assassin.

I think it's more effective if the other team doesn't know which Sabre is coming after them next.

I don't see any benefit in trash talking and, you're right, it's all about walking the walk anyway.  But that just makes Stafford's comments even more maddening.  All he has to say is NOTHING.  Or a bunch of words that essentially mean nothing (athlete-speak).  What is the point of him right after the game making sure people know he's not planning on doing that "too often"?  Does every fight traumatize him so much that he immediately needs to tell some reporters that it's really not his thing?  Because this is exactly what he did three years ago after his last fight.

Given his track record, I wouldn't be shocked if yesterday was Stafford's last fight of the year.

Edited by Robviously, 21 January 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[Doohickie]

Meh.  You read too much into it.

I couldn't give a rat's @ss what he says, as long as the team wins.

[apuszczalowski]

Robviously, on 21 January 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I was about to post something about how it'd be awesome if Drew Stafford decided to go bananas and drop the gloves again tonight but then I saw this in the News:

http://buffalonews.c.../130129875/1004

Really, Drew?  You have your best moment as a Sabre in years and you immediately want to remind everyone that you're not willing to do it "too often"?  WTF?  Good Lord.  All he has to say is "I'm not the best fighter in the league, but I'll always be ready to defend my teammates."  Instead, he's trying to make it sound like he's got his 1 fight per year out of the way or something.

I'm never going to be able to like this guy, am I?  He's definitely aware of what a really awesome player should do (and literally says so), but really likes to hedge his bets about how often he's going to do it.  This is way too close to what he said after his last fight (three years ago against RJ Umberger).  Ugh.

Seriously? You must really hate Stafford with a passion if you are going to read into that and get pissed off

Stafford is not a physical fighter and should not be out there fighting every game. Nothing that he said in that quote says that he won't do it again if necessary, just that you shouldn't expect him to be another Ray, Barnaby, Peters, McCormick, Scott, etc whos contributions to the team are with his fists and not his stick. The guys is a hockey player and is here because of his skill (or potential skill) to put the puck in the net, not to fight. I would have a problem if he came out and said that he would not stick up for a teammate ever again, unless of course you assume that every game someone willtake a cheap shot at a teammate that he will be on the ice for

[apuszczalowski]

Robviously, on 21 January 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

I don't see any benefit in trash talking and, you're right, it's all about walking the walk anyway.  But that just makes Stafford's comments even more maddening.  All he has to say is NOTHING.  Or a bunch of words that essentially mean nothing (athlete-speak).  What is the point of him right after the game making sure people know he's not planning on doing that "too often"?  Does every fight traumatize him so much that he immediately needs to tell some reporters that it's really not his thing?  Because this is exactly what he did three years ago after his last fight.

Given his track record, I wouldn't be shocked if yesterday was Stafford's last fight of the year.

The problem is, if he said nothing, you would probably jump on him for doing that too because you would expect him to be trying to pick a fight every game. I don't want players like Stafford fighting every time, thats what McCormick, Scott, even Kaleta and Ott or even Foligno are here for. But it is nice to know that Stafford has and will stick up for a teammate if necessary

[Robviously]

apuszczalowski, on 21 January 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Seriously? You must really hate Stafford with a passion if you are going to read into that and get pissed off

Stafford is not a physical fighter and should not be out there fighting every game. Nothing that he said in that quote says that he won't do it again if necessary, just that you shouldn't expect him to be another Ray, Barnaby, Peters, McCormick, Scott, etc whos contributions to the team are with his fists and not his stick. The guys is a hockey player and is here because of his skill (or potential skill) to put the puck in the net, not to fight. I would have a problem if he came out and said that he would not stick up for a teammate ever again, unless of course you assume that every game someone willtake a cheap shot at a teammate that he will be on the ice for

1. The last time he said something like that after a fight, he took a three year break from fighting.

2. Why say that at all?  What is the value in saying you're not going to do that "too often"?  So if the same thing happens tonight, is it not his responsibility anymore?  Based on everything we know about Drew Stafford, what he said after the game was pretty alarming.  The whole reason everyone freaked out yesterday about that fight was that it was Drew Stafford standing up for his teammates.  He normally seems barely interested in anything like that.  And after the game, he rushed to remind us that he really, really doesn't want to do it all that much.

apuszczalowski, on 21 January 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

The problem is, if he said nothing, you would probably jump on him for doing that too because you would expect him to be trying to pick a fight every game. I don't want players like Stafford fighting every time, thats what McCormick, Scott, even Kaleta and Ott or even Foligno are here for. But it is nice to know that Stafford has and will stick up for a teammate if necessary

Yes, I would totally jump on him for saying nothing.     That's exactly what I was doing by praising him effusively for the fight since it happened, and only stopped when he decided to tell everyone that he really isn't into doing what he did.  

Maybe he'll prove me wrong and make yesterday a regular thing.  I can't change everything I know about the guy based on one game -- especially when he's telling me not to.

Edited by Robviously, 21 January 2013 - 04:41 PM.

[apuszczalowski]

Robviously, on 21 January 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

1. The last time he said something like that after a fight, he took a three year break from fighting.

2. Why say that at all?  What is the value in saying you're not going to do that "too often"?  So if the same thing happens tonight, is it not his responsibility anymore?  Based on everything we know about Drew Stafford, what he said after the game was pretty alarming.  The whole reason everyone freaked out yesterday about that fight was that it was Drew Stafford standing up for his teammates.  He normally seems barely interested in anything like that.  And after the game, he rushed to remind us that he really, really doesn't want to do it all that much.


Yes, I would totally jump on him for saying nothing.     That's exactly what I was doing by praising him effusively for the fight since it happened, and only stopped when he decided to tell everyone that he really isn't into doing what he did.  

Maybe he'll prove me wrong and make yesterday a regular thing.  I can't change everything I know about the guy based on one game -- especially when he's telling me not to.

Seriously, you need to stop trying to make this something its not.
From reading the quote, it sounds more like he said it jokingly because people were asking him if he is going to be a regular fighter/enforcer now. If anything, him comment (like Ruffs comment trying to temper the expectations of the fanbase for Grigs this season) is to try and not have fans expecting him to go out and try to fight every game now. He is not and will never be that kind of player. So what if his last fight was 3 years ago and he said something similar, he is not a player that should be out there fighting, especially not someone like Hartnell. It was great that he did, but now everyone thinks he will do it every night.

[Robviously]

apuszczalowski, on 21 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Seriously, you need to stop trying to make this something its not.
From reading the quote, it sounds more like he said it jokingly because people were asking him if he is going to be a regular fighter/enforcer now. If anything, him comment (like Ruffs comment trying to temper the expectations of the fanbase for Grigs this season) is to try and not have fans expecting him to go out and try to fight every game now. He is not and will never be that kind of player. So what if his last fight was 3 years ago and he said something similar, he is not a player that should be out there fighting, especially not someone like Hartnell. It was great that he did, but now everyone thinks he will do it every night.

1. Yes he is a player who should be out there fighting.  He's not a heavyweight but he can handle himself fine.  He's not nearly good enough to get by as a pure skill player.

2. The last time he got in a fight, he also said it's not his thing and "we have other guys for that."  The "we have other guys for that" thing encapsulates everything wrong with our franchise the past few years.  Nobody wants to step up and take responsibility, or do more than they think they should have to.  And he was open about it.

3. Again, what do we gain from him saying he really, really doesn't like fighting every time he gets in a (rare) fight?  The whole point of fighting is to deter opposing players from taking liberties with your teammates in the future.  Yesterday was his best moment in years, but he still wanted to make sure people knew he didn't want to do it "too often."  Must sound terrifying to teams around the league.

Edited by Robviously, 21 January 2013 - 04:54 PM.

[Robviously]

LTS, on 21 January 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Whatever.  The guy spoke honestly about what happened.  If he said he's going to drop the gloves every night then he'd have every pest trying to get him to take a penalty.  I don't care what people say, I care what people do.  I saw Stafford go after Hartnell.  Regardless of what happens next he's shown that he's willing to do it.  He did follow up his words with the simple statement that we are holding each other accountable.  He felt like he needed to do something, perhaps next time he won't need to feel that way because someone else on the Sabres has dropped the gloves or better yet, people just stop taking runs at guys because they know to a man the Sabres will react.

Then all he had to do was say nothing.  Like I said, I don't need trash talk and I do care more about what he actually does.  His weird need to downplay his ability to fight bugs me because he's done that before -- and pretty much DID stop being the guy who stands up for his teammates.  Despite the fact that we know he's capable of doing that when necessary.

LTS, on 21 January 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

If you hate the guy then just hate him and get it over with. At least he's willing to put a body on people, he showed that last year.  If you want him to be the second incarnation of Keith Tkachuk you've gotten yourself a bit off base.

I'm openly not a Drew Stafford fan, and I base that on his entire career.

[NowDoYouBelieve]

Actions speak louder than words.  I never put much value into post-game interviews...the guys are always tired and just want to get out of there.