Taro T

Good for him. Does this mean Norris is on IR in addition to Zucker being on IR?

Maybe. But, they were going to play Ellis in TO but he had a stiff back so they went with UPL instead. And they gave him 3 consecutive starts and he spit the bit in that 3rd game. Have no idea what they're thinking on the goalie situation. For a short while there, they were in the give a guy the next game if he won the last one. Not sure if they're fully out of that or not, because they don't win often enough to tell. You would think that with all the experience they've had running a 3 headed monster the past few years that Bales would have an idea on how to run a 3 man rotation; but really don't get the impression that there is any plan there. Yeah, they're running with "the guy that gives them the best chance to win on any given night" but there really doesn't seem to be any obvious rationale as to how they're making that determination. And it also doesn't seem that they give any consideration to the possibility that letting a guy not play for 3 or so weeks will get him out of any rhythm he might've had and now he WON'T give them the best chance to win on the particular night that he MIGHT actually have been the one to give them the best chance to win that night.

Hope so. Diggs hasn't been particulary anything to write home about the last 4-5 games; but he'll have his A game on Sunday.

Tough question to answer because IMHO UPL is adequate, even kinda good, at home but isn't close to good enough on the road. At home, especially if the team can be limiiting chances early like they often do, would go off the board and say it's UPL. On the road, one of the other 2. Expect most will say Ellis, but personally expect it's likely Lyon. They're different, but the results there are fairly similar. Just believe that Ellis playing a more controlled game gives him an edge; though can see wanting Ellis' reflexes to try to steal you a save. And, should he continue to get regular action, expect he could pass Lyon (if he hasn't already) with more experience at the NHL level.

Yes, and the stick was still well on the Eulers side of the line when it stopped making contact with the puck. It was in fact a blown call. Not the 1st that game; not the last. And, personally, believe that IF they are going to review a significant subset of plays that should've resulted in a whistle to end the play after a goal has been scored then they should review ALL non-judgement calls as to whether play should have been stopped when they lead directly to the goal being scored. They can have somebody watching the game determining whether something is questionable and MIGHT require additional review in real time just like they claim they do with all plays that result in the puck traversing near the net. So, on that 1st goal, have somebody upstairs or in TO beep down and say, uh guys, that puck wasn't close to being over the red line when it was shot into the zone. It was an egreious error and it had a significant effect on how the game played out past that point. It literally led directly to the Eulers' 1st goal. Had the guy who shot it down the ice played it with a high stick that didn't get called, they would've been able to call the goal back. What's the material difference in how the puck was transferred to the goalie from one case to the other. Review them both or review neither of them, but just be consistent. And would be ok with going back to none of that being reviewable, if that's the way they want it to go; though personally would prefer to see them fix the replay system (as it CAN be a useful tool) rather than get rid of it (and they aren't getting rid of it, no matter how much you want them to). But it is dumb to have stuff like a potential hand pass or the puck hitting the net above the glass being reviewable and not other major potential misses that can result in a team letting up ever so slightly because their players KNOW the play is about to be whistled dead. Not overly germane to this discussion, but a blown icing call in OT very possibly cost the Sabres a chance to get thumped by the Red Wings back in '98. They changed the video review rules because of other events of that game, but didn't alter that aspect of the review.

Let them BOTH be reviewable; but the review has a limit of 30 seconds (maybe a minute) of observation and if you can't determine conclusively that the call was wrong then the call stands as originally called. What's really dumb is a coach can challenge a "missed play stoppage" such as the puck hitting the netting above the glass or a missed hand pass but a blown icing call ISN'T a "missed play stoppage." This league, quite often, stinks.

Yes, Byram "drove" Draisatl into Lyon's leg. Sure. Byram nudged him towards Lyon and then Draisatl chose to use that as an excuse to move Lyon's leg about 2'. Funny how guys that are pretty good skaters lose all control when it's convenient. Yes, skaters on all 32 teams do that. It is what it is. And the Sabres shouldn't have put themselves in the position where Draisatl could do that. But 100% that exact play is a judgement call that doesn't always go as it ended up getting called. Krebs shouldn't have iced it; whomever was supposed to be paying attention to McDavid shouldn't have lost him. They'd had chances to seal the victory with an extra goal on the 5v3; they didn't get that done. But 100%, that goal might've gotten called back had the reviewers in TO been in a different mood.

McLeod gave the guy a cross check while he was still lying on the ice. Soooo, no, not really.

Yes, Lyon did leave the crease on his own (at least his 1 leg was out of the crease, though the rest of him was in the crease). BUT players are NOT allowed to initiate contact with goalies regardless of where they are are the ice. Soooooo ... that one pretty much stays a "judgement" call for the league and they judged the Eulers losing in regulation was less desireable than a bottom feeder like the Sabres finally winning one in regulation.

The icing was on the 1st Euler's goal.

Tweaked something in warmups. What's that, out for a month?

Hope not. Means he suffered a pretty bad concussion if he is.

Nice win. Really wanted to see them win it in regulation. Would've been something they could look back on - remember that time we managed to keep our end clean even though the WC defending Eulers were throwing everything they could at us for the last 18 or so minutes. Well, we actually can do it. We did it then, let's do it tonight. It wouldn't have been truly season altering, but you need something like that to start getting the ship turned around on the road. Winning in OT isn't the same.

FTFY. ;)

No, he's actually scoring. 😉

Yeah, pretty much, if the hand stays on the stick it should be immaterial if it glances off the guy's glove or his stick. At times it really does seem that the powers that be in the league have no idea as to how the game is actually played. And in that game earlier on the road trip agreed 100% that the puck wasn't directed into the net with the guy's glove, BUT if THAT was a hand pass, that other goal absolutely was gloved in.

Or for whatever reason he trusts his buddy Forton to not be an imbecile and Forton's still telling him how great it is to work for Adams and any day now they just know they'll turn the corner. Seth Appert's watched other PP's in action and has been working with the analytics department to improve it. Shoot, maybe that's Appert's problem. He thinks a long PP is what they want totally neglecting that the motion and getting results is what's really important.

Bills Texasses. Texass KR catches ball in the end zone and then drops it without 1st having taken a knee. Bills recover in the end zone. Refs called it a TD. After conferring (at the backup refs request) they decide improperly to overrule the call; but they didn't even change it to a safety deciding the ball was dead in the endzone (same as if it had rolled out fo the endzone after he'd've controlled it and then lost it) they called it a fair catch, Texass ball on the 20. And the rationale was, well he meant to declare himself down/ take a knee. Problem is, they don't adjudicate plays on what a guy meant to do, they adjudicate plays on what a guy ACTUALLY did. And that guy fumbled the ball and the Bills should've added either 6 or 2 points to their score then.

The reasonable position to take would be that the Iggles keep the ball and continue that 2nd possession of the OT. However, technically, it is the 4th possession of OT and because the Bolts had the lead, the game should be over. Would be quite surprised if the league thought that far through their new OT rules, and considering they've already ignored a clear rule in a playoff game and allowed the backup refs to overturn the actual refs in said playoff game; expect that the league would ask itself "what would Taylor Swift want done here" and then act accordingly.

He still (or back to being) on McDavid's line?

Sadly, at that point, the Sabres can bring up some of Ra-cha-cha's ECHL callups because it just won't matter in Buffalo at that point. But it might matter in Ra-cha-cha. Also, don't know if a player on an emergency callup isn't considered to still be on the AHL roster for purposes of the AHL playoff roster deadline. It's possible (unlikely, but possible) that they'd still be included on the AHL roster because though they'd be in the NHL they aren't quite fully in the NHL (even if they're playing).

Considering how horrible this team is at entries with an outmanned situation, it couldn't be any worse than what they've been doing. Personally, would still pull the goalie, but not until they have control of the puck in the other team's zone. And would have to figure out just what the logistics of it would be, but might get the goalie back in the net when the other team dumps the puck down the ice and repull him after they have control in the other end again. Would work it a bit like a lax line change, obviously you don't want the goalie being the one trying to retrieve the puck from coming off the bench, but have the 2nd or 3rd guy back into the zone go to the bench instead up near the F's door and as soon as he's off the ice have the goalie race out from the other door. Let him come up ice towards the bench as the puck goes back up ice, but he doesn't actually go to the bench until they have control. So, it'd be a hybrid goalie pull. They'd still give up a fair # of ENGs, but not as many; and maybe the extra mechanics would add to the sense of urgency of the guys on the ice. At this point am willing to watch them try almost anything provided Appert isn't drawing it up.

They are. But there is no reason for a full teardown before beginning this one. Turn the reins over to Kekaleinen prior to making any major moves. Trade Tuch, UPL, and Byram - 3 guys that you can get value for (or at least you could've this past off-season). Dump Quinn for what you can. Let Jarmo decide whether to keep Greenway or not. If you aren't going completely off the board putting him on the 1st line rather than the 4th line where he belongs, you might keep him as the team needs to be getting older, not younger and there'll be a case for having Rosen, Östlund, Helenius on occassion, and at least one of Novikov or Johnson and Levi on the roster. Dahlin is the one untouchable on this roster. Get a legit coach and some non-Apperts under him and see what the rest of the team can do the rest of this year realizing that if you wait until the Olympic break to make that move that the team is going to be playing free and loose as they'll have no realistic shot at the playoffs by then, so you'll be effectively viewing what their absolute ceiling together is. What a waste it's all been.

What do you mean they generated NO offense? They scored a goal. Wait, goes back, checks notes, Greenway was offside and the goal was negated. Eh, nevermind.

They are SOOOOOOO horrible at entries with an extra man, WHY do they insist on pulling the goalie as they're moving the puck up the ice? Lyon made a huge save on the 2 on 1; get the friggin' puck into the zone BEFORE pulling the goalie. So truly dislike Seth Appert. And @PromoTheRobot, you are right, in that UPL didn't get much help from his teammates. But the 2nd and 5th goals at minimum need to be stopped. The 2nd one getoneg tipped by Timmins had no effect on whether that one was going to go in or not. UPL was sooooooo far over to his left trying to see through the screen that he left 1/2 of the net open and never reacted. The puck was going to go just inside the post, it moved a bit closer to the goalie but still not close enough. Lyon didn't face much, but he faced 2 high danger chances and stopped both. Wolf didn't play particularly well, but he stopped Zucker (?) alone in front. And UPL on the road is now 0-4-1 and hasn't given up fewer than 3 in any of those games. For the love of all that is Holy, if the 3 headed goalie monster must continue, PLEASE only play UPL at home. He actually has been effective there. Ruff can control the matchups and keep from having his team give up too many high quality chances against, especially early as UPL is getting his head into the game. But the team isn't good enough / deep enough to keep from having horrible matchups on the road and UPL is NOT going to steal you a save or 2 (or however many you need) to pull a game off on the road. In a vacuum, he probably is the best of the 3, but they don't play in a vacuum. And he gives them 0 chance to win on the road. Personally would give Lyon most of the road starts with Ellis getting about 1/3 of them and give UPL most of the home starts with Ellis getting a 1/3 of those. And once Ellis starts to consistently outplay one of the other 2, well then you know which one is on his way out the door. And @PASabreFan, still say they SHOULD'VE won this one. But they also should've started Lyon. 😉