...

We're going to have to be happy not seeing eye-to-eye on this matter. You seem to be suggesting that Phil ought to be putting Dahlin on the left because the stats say he is weak on the right. I am suggesting that Phil and crew know this and that they are playing him on the right for...reasons. I have tried to convey what those reasons could be, but since I am not a coach or teacher of high-level athletes, I can only surmise. I asked whether you might have such experience and if so, to shed light on what is right or wrong with their approach. The response was: "The statistics illustrate that Dahlin has been noticeably worse on the right side. Why would it be a good thing to play him on the right side? I'm basing my take on statistical evidence, you are theorizing that Housley must have some special reason we just aren't privy to. If not, that it's important for Dahlin to be put in a positional situation he's not as good at. Why? Should we put Sam back at centre? I don't care if Dahlin likes the right side. I care what side he plays better on." And you reposted the post about the stats. I fully understand your point having been exposed to it three times. So, I have batted the ball back to you again, trying to break down my point to its essence. Which is: "If they only allow Dahlin to develop on the side he statistically is better at over the past whatever amount of games, then he'll never develop the weak side. What if he and/or his coaches want to develop the side he has statistically been weaker at (over the past whatever amount of games)? What if they see a value for Dahlin and the organization in doing so? I don't know what else to say, other than, again, we may very well have to be happy not being able to communicate our points effectively. Of course, I may have the set up of this interchange wrong, and I am totally open to being corrected on that.

Following your logic to its absurd conclusion, the only thing human infants are good at are crapping and crying. Why, then, teach them language when, clearly, at the beginning they're awful at it and it causes confusion and anxiety? Or, if that doesn't make sense, if we follow your logic, if they only allow Dahlin to develop on the side he statistically is better at over the past whatever amount of games, then he'll never develop the weak side. What if, crazy thought here, he and/or his coaches want to develop the side he has statistically been weaker at (over the past whatever amount of games)? What if, even crazier thought, they see a value for Dahlin and the organization in doing so?

"Of course I read the whole post. The statistics illustrate that Dahlin has been noticeably worse on the right side. Why would it be a good thing to play him on the right side? I'm basing my take on statistical evidence, you are theorizing that Housley must have some special reason we just aren't privy to. If not, that it's important for Dahlin to be put in a positional situation he's not as good at. Why? Should we put Sam back at centre? I don't care if Dahlin likes the right side. I care what side he plays better on. "

OMG! SOMEONE BETTER FORWARD THIS TO HOUSLEY! I bet he has no idea!

Coincidentally, there's a News article out on Dahlin today: https://buffalonews.com/2019/01/04/buffalo-sabres-nhl-rasmus-dahlin-2/ Here, @MakeSabresGrr8Again, I found your quote: Some might suggest the absence of a consistent partner reflects poorly on Dahlin, perhaps hinting he's difficult to play with. Housley and Smith would disagree. Dahlin’s seven-game stint with McCabe, for instance, illustrated the youngster’s adaptability. “Quite frankly, we asked Jake to go to the right side and Dahlin to go on the left,” Smith said of the now-injured McCabe, who, like Dahlin, shoots left. “We found Jake was struggling a little bit on the right side, so we put him back on the left side and his game took off. It didn’t matter where Dahlin was; he was playing just as well on both sides of the ice.” “I actually like the right side a lot,” Dahlin said, eliciting images of Red Wings great Nicklas Lidstrom. “I can play both, so it doesn’t matter.” That's from https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1641832

That wasn't really the intent, which I thought you might get if you read on. I get not liking the way something looks on the surface, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have further insight to share which may support your criticism of Phil's usage of Dahlin.

Do you teach or coach hockey at a high level? I don't. There is nothing outside of what Phil is doing on this particular matter that makes me question his ability to develop or coach a team. There is clearly a reason for it, hence the question of whether you coach or teach, because maybe someone who does might understand this particular nuance and can explain it. I am personally not bothered by it. A young kid like Dahlin needs to be put in scenarios that draw out his strengths and sometimes it's not pretty to outsiders. That's how I see it as an outsider. The PP can get set up - that's the coaches contribution. Phil can't go out there and score after they get set up. If the team had finishers, perhaps not only would the PP have better stats, but so would the 5x5 and the standings for that matter.

I hate to keep coming off here as an apologist, but I'm only picking the narratives I disagree with. I really don't think Phil is doing his job poorly, indeed, I actually think he's a better coach than Lindy was/is. Phil is in a tough spot - he has a roster that he can try and take in one direction and get as many wins as possible at the expense of teaching and preparing them how to be good long-term. On the other side of that, he has a core group that could be really good for a long time so long as they're developed properly, which would be at the expense of more wins. So far, I think he has managed to balance all of that appropriately. We have seen some very exciting games - which is what we all were after going into this season. What I really like is his system. It just works great when the team is playing it correctly. There should be no doubt of that by anyone who has watched the Sabres this year. When was the last time this team was able to cycle long in the offensive zone, pinning the other team in front of the net? Their breakouts are efficient and clearly work. The defensive game has been cleaned up substantially. The PP is working okay and PK is great. They have gotten into the habit of a 5 man offense. The only thing lacking is their o-zone entries which is clearly due, mainly, to a lack of the offense being able to maintain possession crossing the blue line. A player like KO hasn't had the habit of dumping the puck in exercised from his being. Within all of this, Phil is developing these kids. Tage and Dahlin are excellent examples. I think Pilut is another. Mitts is the only outlier who isn't catching on. Eichel and Samson have clearly benefited, same with McCabe, and I think even Risto's game has improved, although he still needs to better understand possession.

"I love Dahlin, but his pillowy soft side is starting to grate on me." "Not soft as in lacking toughness, soft as in lacking urgency, or authority." Well, what is it, really, that is the issue with Dahlin - are we looking for a rookie 18-year-old to step up and be as effective as a now veteran 22-year-old Eichel because the team needs it to be so today? Because that's pretty unfair if that's the case. Are we angry at circumstances? He's an awesome 18-year-old rookie, but if the world were perfect he's be an 18-year-old playing a 22-year-old's game? I really don't understand why it's worth noting Dahlin's errors and softer plays after a win, and when he is absolutely not the problem this team has when it loses. For all of the improvement Eichel has made this year, we can still point out soft plays from him during games. I see one or two each game. I think taking Dahlin to task over his lack of experience and his age is ridiculous. Really? Can you direct me to the posts over the past several pages of this thread where someone said something like "Why are you talking about Dahlin and soft plays when you should be really looking at Samson and his laziness?" I missed those posts. It'd be great if you can help me out there.

How has this gone from Dahlin to Samson?

Are you kidding? You can lay this accusation at about half the team or more every night. Frankly, I don't think you're appreciating the difference between a lazy player and a good player here.

I'm pretty much on board the consensus analysis of the game except the "Dahlin was/is soft" narrative. For the body he has, he's playing a good game. He's no Bogo, McCabe or Risto, but he hits. The dude is a year older than my oldest kid - there is no way a boy that young is going to play a game like a man. All of that considered, his game isn't soft, so I don't know what y'all are watching.

I'm telling you, Pilut looks like Mick Jagger.

Start it now. In other news, that's what we need to see from Skinner if we're going to pay him the big bucks.

Skinner picking up the slack!

ERod, pick a corner, buddy, and shoot it THERE. Not the boards behind. KThxBye.

WTF, obvious slash behind the Sabres' net.

Ullmark looks sharp. I think he tracks the puck better than Hutton when it's up in the air.

TT has come along so well after a shaky start.