...

Dahlin on D. Goodness.

Wow, Ullmark literally saw through those players.

Mittsy

I like Linus, I'm not crazy about his rebound control or lack thereof. It really sticks out after watching Hutton. I hope he learns better control and also how to manage the puck from Hutton.

This is the team that won those two games at home. At least for the first.

Haha, did you catch Girgensons spraying their goalie? Good stuff.

That was a good glove grab by Linus.

Yeah, if HCPH does anything with that line...he should be fired that instant.

Scandella didn't bet "blown by", he gave up coverage.

Ullmark = rebounds.

I wouldn't mind seeing an experiment with a Skinner, Eichel and Sheary line to see what that does. However, I think it's pretty obvious that first line as it is already has some chemistry. I am in no way disappointed with Sheary being on the top line. I have to say Skinner has left me underwhelmed, but I do have to recognize he's playing with a total noob (but is a good match, I think) and an old guy who really isn't a good match.

Larsson is a vet and needs to played. He'll add to the PK and maybe add some points on the board.

So much for the PK.

You're not understanding. Both ROR and Larsson were here last year. Larsson has had the same amount of "chances" that ROR had per your analogy. As you noted, ROR isn't here. Why is Larsson? Why does he get more "chances" to prove himself valuable than ROR?

The analogy is weak in the face of the other people who are gone. Larsson has had the same amount of time with HCPH's system as ROR did.

That's because we've tasted winning again, and seen the Sabres field a roster that can "compete". We'd like that to keep up and actions to the contrary cause...angst. Or, at least, that's how I see it.

I don't know how coaching shenanigans are acceptable when we're defending a playoff slot. ?

This is what I'm talking about. Someone said on Twitter "Larsson is to Housley what Peterman is to McDermott". I agree and it's stupid.

wooo.

So, playing Larsson and losing is more important to the team than not playing Larsson and winning? ?

None of this matters. Elie was put in and they played better than they have played in years. Is Elie the sole reason for that? Of course not, can we not be slightly more sophisticated than this? If the line-up is winning games, handily, you don't change them. This is the same argument for not starting the backup even though it's his turn on the calendar. Why are there stats that follow when such-and-such a player is on a line or on the ice the team does X? If old school coaching practices matter more, then what's the use of stats like that? I'd like to see a good reason for starting Larsson other than he's been around and can win half of his faceoffs. Seems to me they did better without him (and with Elie in the lineup) and faceoffs weren't a particular issue in the last two wins.

I've heard that from my wife.

I generally agree with the tenor of your post, except for this. It doesn't matter how a player is acquired, what matters is how they play and what they bring. Elie was doing very well, I thought, and the only thing Larsson brings is face-offs. This move really does shine a light on HCPH, again, which, it looked like we were happy to accept the past two games. Put simply, if it's working, don't mess with it, yet, here we are pulling line changes a la Disco Dan.

What's the typical ratio of games for starter/backup?

I guess we don't know the lines, yet, but we do know Bogo won't be playing. Curious to know if Larsson is playing and who might sit if he is. I also wonder if Ullmark will get to start at home before their trip.