All Activity

I think if you feed Benson the minutes Peterka got, he'll reproduce that playmaking. I think Buffalo doesn't need to replace the rush offense. They to have another style to play.

Which new player that we added at F is as good of a rush creator, and which F that we added is as good as he is at playmaking, whatever level you’ve determined that to be? Is Peterka’s playmaking regimen replacement level? Is his playmaking “not as good as the numbers might suggest”, or is it “replacement level and thus negligible to the success of the team”. this is the discrepancy I see

Peterka wasn't a good playmaker, he was a good rush creator. I think that's different. You also don't account for any regression in Peterka. His 2nd assist rate matters.

I think it's broader than that. They've added Norris, Doan and Kesselring and they expect growth from Quinn, Benson and Kulich. They also want to score more on the power play. Combined, they think those factors should at least mitigate things. But I think that's an afterthought in terms of off-season strategy. I think they are almost entirely focused on cutting their goals against significantly and transforming from a -20 team goal-differential team to a +20 team, which almost certainly will earn them a playoff spot.

Unless they make another move I see them scoring 240-245 goals.... giving up 265-270. How many goals do you think JJP scores this season? Next season? The season after that? He's 23, he has a few more years before he hits his prime. Nearly 30 goals in back-to-back seasons as a 22 and 23 year old. The types of goals he's scores I don't see there being any regression... just 100% progression.

@Hank eye roll away, doesn't change the fact DOGE is and was a scam.

No I am saying it outright - I don’t think anyone in line to replace him will be as good of a playmaker. Certainly the forward additions we made won’t be I’m not interested in delving into our “we can expect improvement” stock when considering the loss of Peterka. When we are a 79 point team - we need all of that we can get allotted to simply the improvement we *already needed* That’s *had we kept* Peterka It’s not only frivolous because it’s counting on a maybe, it’s frivolous because we are assigning “internal improvement” to so many places we’ve forgotten we are only about to win fraud bingo

These are great numbers But I was referring to front runners though in the sense that we tended to win by a lot, and lose by less. Ie a lot of the goals came in games we didn’t technically need them whether struggling in tighter games is a negative stat has always been an interesting point of discussion. The way we’ve seen the offense move around year over year combined with the overall result lands my bias firmly at “area of concern”.

We're also giving all that Peterka playing time to others. You're saying none of them are as good of a playmaker. If you're not saying that outright, you're heavily implying it.

How is leading the NHL in 1st period goals garbage time? Front running is valid, but garbage time would be leading the league in 3rd period scoring and still have a losing record. The Sabres scored 92, 84 & 86 by period. Those are fairly consistent numbers. They dominated the 1st with a differential of +24 (68 goals allowed). Where they failed is when the game's intensity picked up in the 2nd period, the defense and goaltending collapsed. They allowed an NHL worst 214 goals in the 2nd and 3rd period (107 each period).

Yes, Tage will still score some. But I would wager my house that Peterka’s assists being completely removed knocks down at least a few of the goal columns of other players It is only Peterka’s goals being removed in our calculations. None of his teammates are having his goals taken away. You don’t need to remove one for every assist, but we are removing zero Equally erroneous It goes both ways - Peterka’s goals were indeed aided by the assists he was the benefactor of, too: but I don’t see a reason to suspect Peterka’s offence was any more empty-calorie than than the majority of our forwards

I’ll always leave the nitty gritty to the smarter folk like you all I am presenting to the board is the idea that I believe what JJ contributed on the playmaking front deserves some consideration rather than nothing at all: and I do not see it being considered when it’s routinely oversimplified to “goals.” There is certainly also a playmaking and offence facilitating production gap between Peterka and Doan that also needs to be accounted for i do not believe the apt consideration would be “replacement level” re: JJ’s playmaking.

The problem isn't the youth in the top 6 forwards. Zucker, McLeod, both might end up with Top 6 minutes. Benson might be the only one under 200 games. It's the inexperience in the top 6 defenders. They by their very construction will have only 1 guy with 300+ games played.

You are using 30 as average (based on games played and most likely a two man rotation at the position * teams) and I would consider 15-20 to be average. My definition is his rank amongst other “starting players”. I guess some teams have embarrassments of riches in the position (2 inside top 30) and others teams have better defensive structure that can place two goalies inside the top 30-35. But if your starting goalie is ranked below others second string net-minders, I consider that player below average.

Upl had 1 good year in 5. Bet accordingly.

Tom is right that the fans uphold the true nature of the crest far more substantially than any executive. I always say it: we were here long before them, and we will be here long after they’ve gone on to their next money making opportunity. The frustration with the sabres is that they’re no more striking juxtaposition in sports between how throughly a franchise and its fans need and deserve winning relative to the lack of effort on the part of ownership and management

A real gm could have made the playoffs. Adams is a failure and the Sabres have mediocre to bad stats across the board. Peterkas 2nd assists are a function of him playing with Tage Thompson. If you feel Tage can't score without Peterka carrying pucks in or shooting them in, then say so. Fancy stats tell us how Peterka scores. The question is what does removing that mean for everyone else.

Can’t help but think it looks much better with Tage at C

Absolutely. We are always trying to attach meaning to the moves Adams makes because we are full of more intelligent people who care more about the team and actual success it’s all a contruct. We know for a fact there was no plan to trade JJ until he asked for it and they were happy to oblige. The plan so far as it exists doesn’t prioritize the same aims we do I can’t believe this still needs to be said. The vision of how the deal could work is ours, not the team

Dude it’s August 5th we always have it down to a single variable by now

Not if you were an announcer LOL

We’ve averaged 78 points the duration of Adams tenure those are the points the league uses to measure teams relative to eachother, as opposed to the numbers we select that paint the team in a good light. If advanced stats tantamount to offsetting the good ones, to the tune of a balance sitting around 26th place aren’t being shown to you, rest assured they are still there - - - WARNING *deep snark ahead. Proceed with caution and be quick with a chuckle* you need to be cognizant of framing. For example: remember, we are only replacing Peterka’s goals. His other offensive attributes aren’t something we need to worry about. You can’t forget that if he tabulates a significant amount of secondary assists, we can write off his high assist totals that lead the forward group in *totality* - that’s the key to the framing. you have to work the little tricks - we should be and do shape ourselves by the principles being used to construct the team. You know, that plausibly deniability they institute every year to explain why they just couldn’t find a way to spend. You take a point of logic, a reasonable thing that DOES have basis in fact like “we need to deal with the Byram situation”, but extrapolate that to, “and that’s why we couldn’t make other moves of note or find a way to spend to the cap.” JJ has a high secondary assist total - that’s the good initial fact here, but don’t forget to warp it to “we only need to replace his goals” it’s the little cuts on the margins. The EEE. You need to work the efficiency into your actual arguments if you want to make sense of their vision - once you ignore a whole bunch of seemingly small things like that, but do it ROUTINELY like they always do (hope for best etc) it’s quite easy to see how they all add up together to a missed playoffs - - - TLDR (but still snarky, it’s been at least a week I’m sorry) *plausible deniability* Remember. It’s not about building a playoff team. It’s about crafting a team and arguments to ensure why, and explain why, it wasn’t and isn’t strictly *impossible* to do so. ”prove the team Adams built COULDN’T make the playoffs. Go on, prove to me things can’t all go right.” It doesn’t escape me that this is the mindset more less expected of fans if we are being honest. I think the reason it grinds my gears so thoroughly when I read it is because it’s not supposed to line up in a near complete circle Venn diagram when compared with the logic of the organization!!

There's simply too much youth and inexperience in the top 6. The odds of it working are minimal at best.

I’ve also seen statistics outlining the fact the sabres have been significant front runners. A lot of their goals are garbage time, in essence the 23rd place the Sabre finished in goals 2 years ago is for me as accurate as their placement last year, then add in the fact we lost Peterka

Well, their strategy for making up for Peterka's goals is clearly 3 things. 1) Norris is healthy and contributes more than Cozens did. 2) Quinn regains a scoring touch instead of Peterka goals we get Quinn goals. 3) Benson keeps rising and starts finishing his plays and putting the puck in the net. You go +10 on each of those 3 and there's your 30 goals. That's their plan. Personally, as things stand, I'd throw some money at Roslevic, but maybe he doesn't want to be here either.