DISCUSSION: Do the Sabres Play Better Without Key Players?

This is an interesting discussion, because lately it seems the Sabres HAVE played better without key players. While I think the Vanek example is too small of a sample size and too much of a coincidence to be drawn upon, there is merit to this argument with Roy and Miller’s injuries last season. However, a few years back, an injured Miller grenaded our season as the team was unable to rally around Patrick Lalime. While Enroth’s stretch last year certainly was a better run of goaltending than Lalime put up after the Gomez incident, it is fair to say the team didn’t respond very well in 2009. So there is evidence of key injuries to important players having opposite effects.
In my opinion, there are two reasons a team may play better without a certain player. One of course is the obvious that even though the particular player in question is very talented, he does not particularly fit in with the team, chemistry-wise, on or off the ice, or both. This is clearly the “Roy Theory” that most people seem to feel has merit: that is to say, Player A is a bad egg, and removing him makes the team better by default because even though he is talented, his style of play, or attitude off the ice outweighs his talent.
The other theory is that when the team loses an important and talented player, they rally around this player, and step up their game knowing there is a void. Of course, in order to “play better” without a certain player, it is likely the team itself is underachieving at the time. No one was talking about the Pens playing better without Crosby last year, because they were playing well with him, and just continued playing well without him. The Sabres on the other hand, both this year and last, were playing extremely poor for a period of time, and then lost a key player to injury (I’m just talking about the Vanek injury of late, not the 35 injuries before this point in the season). So the fact is, the entire team was really underachieving to that point, and then simply started playing up to expectations. More likely the case is that the key injury was a catalyst for the rest of the team to step up their collective games.
What is the truth? Who knows at this point what the reason is for last year’s rise through the ranks. This year can be written off at this point as it has only been a couple games without Vanek. But the real question was DO the Sabres play better without key players? Well they certainly did last year, and they certainly have NOT this year, up until a week ago. They didn’t in 2009 without Miller, and the injuries in the playoff series last year definitely seemed to have an adverse effect on our chances in game 7….so I guess what I’m saying is I don’t know, but I really wish we could go through a season without any “significant” injuries and find out if this team can just play together.