All Activity

You’re right, defense is a mindset of hard work and second effort to do the right things and to be in the proper locations. The creativity of offense is exciting and more fun to practice but the discipline required to defend is not as appealing and doesn’t pay as well.

A wonderful tribute to our GM for sure

With his speed, Peterka should be able to develop a good two-way game but defense, regardless of the sport being played, starts with burning desire and effort, so JJ needs to grow up a bit in that regard imo.

Ima give him this year he seems like he is trying to get Ruff like players he doesn't improve the team this year I am in your corner and ready to pull the trigger

I know it probably goes without saying but the new coach also brings in a whole new staff. This alone, imo, could make the difference of playoffs or no playoffs with the current 80-90 point roster. Injuries could sink this team in the fall, because it is built for everyone to play near their ceilings to get ahead. A competent NHL coaching staff could add some points in the standings by having better structure, more accountability and great mentoring.

To me, Jack Quinn brought down those numbers (high danger ones) dramatically all by himself last year: Last year with Quinn on the ice, the Sabres were a catostrophic -73 in high danger chances for vs allowed, and -13 in high danger goals for vs allowed in about 890 minutes even strength. The rest of the team combined without Quinn (including Cozens bad numbers) was a -22 in high danger chances and only a -2 in high danger goals even strength over almost 3000 minutes. Break that down on a 'per 60' minute basis: (taking into account both offense getting those chances and defense preventing them) Quinn: -4.92 high danger chances per 60, (one of the worst in the league for a regular player) -0.88 high danger goals per 60 (one of worst for regular player) Rest of team: -0.44 high danger chances/60. (close to league average) -0.04 high danger goals per 60 (close to league average) Just on the Defensive side of things, the team with Quinn on the ice allowed 12.7 high danger chances per 60. The rest of the team when he wasn't on the ice allowed 11.2 high danger chances per 60. The going to the net part is an issue. High danger shots (shots taken form in front of the net, basically less than 6 feet out): Thompson: 15.7% (number would probably be higher but is brought down by his one timers out of that zone on the PP) Tuch: 33.3% high danger Peterka: 21.4% Zucker: 39.2% McCleod: 37.1% Kulich: 29.1% And....Quinn? 8.1%. 10 total shots. Basically he went to the front of the net and got a shot off once every 2 weeks or so. The rest of the team got the puck to the high danger areas, got shots off, and did a decent job of keeping the puck away from that area on defense. Jack Quinn Single handedly brought all those numbers down from middle of the pack and dropped the averages close to league bottom. As per my above post..I wouldn't be surprised if Jack Quinn alone brought down those numbers for the rest of the team in some of those categories. Remove Jack Quinn, or "fix" his game, and alot of this looks 'better' by doing nothing else other than that.

Well, if we are gonna read the editorial opinion of John Hinderaker’s The Center of the American Experiment, then in an effort to provide a balanced editorial response, I submit this article from The Center for American Progress (much like our long-repealed Fairness Doctrine demanded): https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-trumps-rescission-request-would-slash-spending-on-foreign-assistance-programs-that-benefit-american-interests/

So he didn't like the losing culture to which he contributed to.

Peterka Quotes: He wants to be part of a young core, apparently just not in Buffalo. “When you look at the roster, how many young players are there who are already so good. I think, just like timeline-wise for me, it’s going to be a perfect fit. Growing together with those guys and hopefully winning a lot of games,” Peterka said. “I think the team has a lot of skill. The speed they play with got me most excited. How quick they move the puck, and that they have some serious players that can make a lot of good plays. That was pretty cool to watch.” He is training hard in the off season, not sure if he was in Buffalo. “I think there’s still a lot left. That’s why I have to work hard every day,” Peterka said. “I told them I’m going to work my ass off in the offseason.” He is excited to play for a coach that demands a two way game, apparently just not Lindy Ruff who also demanded a two-way game. “I talked to Quinn, actually, a lot about [Tourigny],” Peterka said. “He really liked him as a coach and as a person. He said he’s a hard coach but a really good coach. That got me really excited.” What went wrong in Buffalo (the losing aside)? He probably does not see a commitment to win from management. “I think that just shows how committed I am to Utah, how excited I am. And how much I believe in that group, what they’ve got going and what they’re building there,” Peterka said. “That’s why I decided to do that. Super excited now to meet all the guys and get things going.”

Diving deeper into other Sabre high danger rankings: Rebound shots for 27th Expected rebound shots for 19th Rebound shots against 28th Expected rebound shots against 21st Rebound goals for 22nd Rebound goals against 32nd High danger shots for 27th High danger shots against 21st I mean, we knew it, but it’s worth seeing it spelled out: the Sabres biggest problem 5 on 5 is they don’t get to the net, and they don’t stop people from getting to the net.

I was curious to see what the fancystats said about the team as a whole last year, since those are supposed to paint a better picture of how “true” a team’s record is: GF%: 50.14 16th xG%: 47.41 27th SA% 49.77 17th The Sabres were pretty much dead average in terms of territorial play, and at putting more pucks in the net than the other team. They were absolutely terrible at getting the puck into high danger areas while stopping the opponent from doing the same.

I keep refreshing each day to see if there is a new thread or something breaking, alas, nada. I don't follow the off-season as closely but I think most of the impact players are now gone no? Aside from a trade at this point, this is what we're coming into the season with... Not sure this gets us where we need to be.

Indeed goaltending is a big factor and a key reason to be skeptical. Lyon and UPL, maybe Levi, that is what we have. Last season we counted on UPL to emerge and he did not. New year, seems hard to predict what they will do.

So what. He kept Armstrong, right? Armstong's record of failure for making the playoffs is second only to Adams. If Pegula sold the Sabres and the new owner kept Kevyn Adams as GM, would you think the new owner is good?

I just said the same thing in another thread so we’re thinking alike.‘I said I think this team is slightly better overall and ends up in the mid to high 80s in points. Jaro takes over as GM and chooses his own coach

I’m not saying anything that hasn’t often been stated that regardless what has been done unless we get consistent level of solid goaltending the Sabres will again be a floundering team. Is our GT unit capable of rising to the occasion? I’m not sure. Can UPL become a solid #1 goalie? Not sure. Looking back, the departure of Ullmark has never adequately been accounted for. That is an gross failure by the GM.

I think the goaltending situation is slightly better as is the defense (if they keep Byram). I think Forwards are the same (for different analytical reasons) to slightly worse. I do not think this is a playoff team - remember they’d have to be 16 points or so better than last year and, for the most part, the teams immediately on front of them in the standings got betters. so, I would imagine the team ends up in the mid to high 80s, doesn’t make the playoffs, Adams and Ruff aren’t retained, Jaro Becomes GM and choices his own coach

Maybe but idc much about his dad, I care about his maturity and the fact his underlying metrics suggest there's more there. While Peterka was out here shooting at a % that's all but guaranteed to be unsustainable, Doan was quite unlucky in the same regard. That's not saying Doan will match Peterka but if jjp is actually a 25g scorer and Doan is actually a 15g scorer, we might be okay. All that said, Adams hope strategy is terrible and this is an 85pt team.

Fair assessment. I hope you are wrong on Ruff. The center spline is still a concern to me, mostly given Norris’ past history of missing games. The top 6 with Peterka was lacking a bit and its worse now without him. Move Byram to help top 6 and the defense takes a hit. It’s like squeezing a water balloon. The way to jump ahead is made difficult by this teams inability to sign quality UFAs and by NTCs. I’m looking forward to watching this group but my expectations are tempered.

Doans Dad was good? If he had a different last name, he might be discussed differently

Yeah, but he walks around wearing Bills gear so it's all good.......

If Anderson is better than Bryan (your opinion), then why would the trading team include an additional asset in the deal? Acting out of frustration when there is no need to at the present time is not a smart strategy.

1) No one is really expecting the Cup. Failure is missing the playoffs for 15 years in a row. 2) Folks want this to be an entertaining part of the year. When your regular season is habitually disappointing, it is common for the off-season to be a time of hope. Problem is when the off-season moves are predictably underwhelming, and the accountability for those making decisions appears close to non-existent. I'd say the general consensus is the team on balance may be slightly better or the same as last year, barring further changes, which would mostly be provided by trade. Everyone is hoping, but the majority has lost patience. I am with the majority here. I'd feel better about things if the goalie situation was stronger. If someone steps up, that would palpably increase the chances of breaking the historic record of playoff absence.

I'm pretty negative on where the Sabres are at. Here is my attempt at some optimism, with a side of serious negativity, topped with a healthy serving of "I've been wrong before". NHL teams spending $5-$8 million below the cap, might not be a sign of mailing-it-in, like it has been in past years. This is a year where the increase in the cap has left some teams without enough good players to sign. There may be multiple good teams - expected playoff teams - that will spend $89-$91 million this year and will carry a lot of space for trade deadline additions. So, the Sabres coming in at $90 million, or thereabouts, shouldn't in itself be viewed as meaning they aren't icing a wild-card level team. The Sabres have 3 players who, if they stay healthy over most of the season, should keep them from being among the league's very worst teams. Dahlin is a legit top 10 (top 5, I think) NHL defenseman. Thompson and Tuch are legit 1st line NHL wingers. Thompson is among the best goal-scorers in hockey. Tuch is among the league's best two-way wingers. They both can drive their own lines, making our lack of having clear top-6 centres a little less of an issue (still an issue though, to be certain). The Sabres have many young players who might be poised to take a step forward in Benson, Quinn, Kulich, Doan, Power, and Byram (for now). While they have some good veterans (Zucker, Greenway, McLeod, Danforth, a healthy Norris), this is an area where I think they could still use 2-3 additions. Swap in Fowler and Rust for Byram and Quinn (not straight up), and I think the Sabres could be a better team if not more talented. UPL is a year removed from playing like a legit NHL starter. I think this team could make a WC position, provided I am very wrong on one very important person: Lindy Ruff. This is how down I am on Lindy Ruff: If I could, right now, replace Adams or Ruff, I would choose Ruff. And it isn't close. I think that when you change a head coach you look to bring in a person who creates a positive culture change and breathes new life into a dressing room. I think Ruff did the opposite of that. I think, at this stage of his career, he is neither a system coach nor is he a culture/vibes coach. I think his time has past. I think that as bad as things were a year ago with the roster, the issues were magnified by having a below average tactician as an NHL head coach, who also lacks the ability to relate to today's players. I think Ruff's hiring set the team back. That said, I have been very wrong before. If I'm very wrong on Ruff, then I think there could be reason for some optimism.

Written by John Hinderaker: What an America First Foreign Policy Looks Like Marco Rubio is doing a brilliant job as Secretary of State. A prime example of his implementation of an America First foreign policy is the abolition of USAID and relocation of aid programs inside the State Department. On the State Department’s Substack, Rubio lays out the rationale for this change, putting to shame the Democrats’ absurd “millions will die” mantra: Every public servant has an obligation to American citizens to ensure any programs they fund advance our nation’s interests. During the Trump Administration’s thorough review of thousands of programs, and over $715 billion in inflation-adjusted spending over the decades, it became apparent the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) fell well below this standard. USAID had decades and a near-infinite taxpayer budget to advance American influence, promote economic development worldwide, and allow billions to stand on their own two feet. Beyond creating a globe-spanning NGO industrial complex at taxpayer expense, USAID has little to show since the end of the Cold War. Development objectives have rarely been met, instability has often worsened, and anti-American sentiment has only grown. On the global stage, the countries that benefit the most from our generosity usually fail to reciprocate. For example, in 2023, sub-Saharan African nations voted with the United States only 29 percent of the time on essential resolutions at the UN despite receiving $165 billion in outlays since 1991. That’s the lowest rate in the world. Over the same period, more than $89 billion invested in the Middle East and North Africa left the U.S. with lower favorability ratings than China in every nation but Morocco. The agency’s expenditure of $9.3 billion in Gaza and the West Bank since 1991, whose beneficiaries included allies of Hamas, has produced grievances rather than gratitude towards the United States. The only ones living well were the executives of the countless NGOs, who often enjoyed five-star lifestyles funded by American taxpayers, while those they purported to help fell further behind. This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end. Under the Trump Administration, we will finally have a foreign funding mission in America that prioritizes our national interests. As of July 1st, USAID will officially cease to implement foreign assistance. Foreign assistance programs that align with administration policies—and which advance American interests—will be administered by the State Department, where they will be delivered with more accountability, strategy, and efficiency. We will not apologize for recognizing America’s longstanding commitment to life-saving humanitarian aid and promotion of economic development abroad must be in furtherance of an America First foreign policy. USAID viewed its constituency as the United Nations, multinational NGOs, and the broader global community—not the U.S. taxpayers who funded its budget or the President they elected to represent their interests on the world stage. USAID marketed its programs as a charity, rather than instruments of American foreign policy intended to advance our national interests. Too often, these programs promoted anti-American ideals and groups, from global “DEI,” censorship and regime change operations, to NGOs and international organizations in league with Communist China and other geopolitical adversaries. That ends today, and where there was once a rainbow of unidentifiable logos on life-saving aid, there will now be one recognizable symbol: the American flag. Recipients deserve to know the assistance provided to them is not a handout from an unknown NGO, but an investment from the American people. Equally importantly, the charity-based model failed because the leadership of these developing nations developed an addiction. State Department research finds the overwhelming sentiment in countries formerly receiving USAID funding is for trade, not aid. After engaging with nations across Latin America and Africa, we have consistently heard that developing countries want investment that empowers them to sustainably grow—not decades of patronizing UN or USAID managed support. The Department has consistently heard the same from people in these nations: a Zambian man told American diplomats it would be more helpful for his countrymen to learn how to fish than to be supplied with fish by the U.S. Government, an Ethiopian woman said she viewed the mutual benefits of investment as superior to the one-sided nature of aid, and too many other examples to recount. Americans should not pay taxes to fund failed governments in faraway lands. Moving forward, our assistance will be targeted and time limited. We will favor those nations that have demonstrated both the ability and willingness to help themselves and will target our resources to areas where they can have a multiplier effect and catalyze durable private sector, including American companies, and global investment. This work is well underway. We are already seeing tremendous progress in making the UN, other allies, and private funds pay a greater share of projects around the world, a process matched by the President’s success in convincing our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments. We are consolidating fragmented appropriations accounts to build more flexible and dynamic pools of funds, eliminating bureaucratic processes to move faster and respond to crises in real time, and implementing new efficiency criteria to measure impact quantitatively. By empowering diplomats on the ground through regional bureaus, we are creating a fast feedback loop to ensure programs align with American interests and the needs of partner nations. This model will also place us in a stronger position to counter China’s exploitative aid model and further our strategic interests in key regions around the world. We will do so by prioritizing trade over aid, opportunity over dependency, and investment over assistance. For Americans and many around the world, July 1st will mark the beginning of a new era of global partnership, peace, investment, and prosperity. This change is so appropriate, and so long overdue, that we can only wonder why it didn’t happen a long time ago.