7+6=13
-
Posts
2,558 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 7+6=13
-
-
None of us can know if this team is or isn't 7 wins better. It's not a massive gap to close, although it can feel that way.
We lost a scorer but he didn't do much else. I won't dismiss the importance of scoring. I think we added some decent players and I'm hopeful there's a couple more good things to happen.
I won't say this doesn't feel like a playoff team because toughness and better defense can have an impact.
-
39 minutes ago, PonyBoy2 said:
It's been 5-6? years at the helm now with no playoffs for Adams.
Have you seen some of the coaches & GM's who've won cups, conference championships, divisions in that time frame who were fired?
It's not bashing, it's diehard Sabre fans stating statistics & calling out ineptitude.
Diehard, now that's funny.
-
21 hours ago, Scottysabres said:
Said it before, say it again….
The Sabres brand is damaged so severely that an overwhelming number of the leagues impact players will not consider coming here. It’s not merely a matter of how those players view the 14 years dwelling in the basement, it’s the players that have been here with their escape from Buffalo stories.
Under This Pegulas ownership, no matter his intention, the Sabres name and logo now represent the worst case scenario for players careers, their hopes, dreams, aspirations, their internal fires for compete and glory in the hockey arenas. No player will willingly come here unless is for monetary gain, the retirement run as it were, where they don’t have to worry about working hard and winning.
That encapsulates what Sabres name and logo have become.
The leagues impact players have never considered Buffalo.
-
I'm happy with that contract.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
So he's just going to show up and play for free? Cool. Terry will be happy.
Oh I'm sorry, Ithought you knew he was an RFA. All the players get paid for playing. The team has control of the player.
Did you think we were trying to trade an UFA? That's probably where I lost ya. Teams can't trade UFA's.
-
2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
What is your point? There's trade rumors all over. If we sign him he's still on the team. But we haven't yet.
We don't have to sign him, he's on our team now.
-
6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
Well, since last June we have seen what?
Cozens (who was atrocious) out for Norris and Bernard-Docker (adv Norris)
Peterka (who was not great defensively) out for Kesselring and Doan (adv Peterka)
Clifton out for Timmins
So are we better without Cozens, Peterka, Clifton and bringing in Kesselring, Doan, Norris, Bernard-Docker, and Timmins
Weren't the advanced stats showing certain measurables got better when Cozens left? Not to beat a dead horse here but, if that's true, couldn't the question change slightly to; are we better without Peterka and Clifton vs bringing in Kesselring, Doan, Norris, Bernard-Docker, and Timmins.
I know it's semantics but IMO, Norris is not a lot different than signing a free agent now, because we already felt not having Cozens in the lineup.
-
1 hour ago, DarthEbriate said:
Give it 12 hours... he may not be. (At this point, I hope they keep him, because I think removing him weakens their blue line and brings Bryson that much closer to the daily lineup.)
That's a real possibility. If we trade him, I assume we'll get something back that will fill another need, so the hole would just change. Unless it's for another defenseman.
So for me it's either Bryson is closer or we're closer to a forward being in the top 6 we're not crazy about.
-
7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
I'd never question Dahlin, or even Byram's offensive ability. Power has good offensive ability as well. I, however, want to keep the puck out of our own net.
But we still have Samuelsson.
Seriously? I can't even get you to admit Byram is in the team.
-
4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
Well every team is better after the draft because everybody adds prospects and bad teams add higher rated ones. Mrtka is 3-5 years away from making the Sabres any better on ice. The opening night roster as is, is not good enough to make the playoffs.
The analogy that you missed is we're better with Byram today because he's on our team.
-
4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
Free agency
Jeannot
Boeser or Ehlers
Jake Allen.
Won't happen but if you add those 3 bodies you have a slim chance at playoffs.
Boeser and Allen are the two I'd target too.
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
Because Dahlin Byram wasn't that good.
I'm not sure that proves Byram isn't on the Sabres.
Do you think we were better before the draft and having pick #9 or now with Mrtka?
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:
"For some reason there's a love affair with doom and gloom" is your overall interpretive conclusion as to the motivation behind folks speculating: that's your own bias regarding the nature of the board, which you've expressed quite often.
The question of whether the Sabres are better is in flux, so obviously some figured in what they thought likely (a trade of Byram), and others held off, and based judgment on what is true right now. I don't see that kind of variance as proof of an odd desire to "paint the worst picture," though it is true that a self-destructive madness can overcome a group when conditions turn in a certain direction.
I hardly think that is what is happening on this board. In my judgment, the current roster is not a playoff team, so the offseason is a failure if it remains more-or-less what it is now. You can make an argument that the team is marginally improved overall. I'm not certain that is correct, but it is not ridiculous. What happens in the next week or so will be much more telling, so pausing on making pronouncements until there is greater clarity is actually the most prudent course.
You're accurate with most of what you mention here. I've admitted that I'm going to opine if I feel compelled, when IMO, a poster is being overtly and unjustly negative.
I have a lot less venum attached to my posts than probably most would think. It's more of a mantle for me as I've also tried to articulate, probably poorly.
What I disagree with you on is your view of the content itself. Including Byram as not being here and then not including what need his replacement would fill - is the definition of being wrong. It's 100% true he's a Sabres. There's no disputing that.
We of course have our opinions and by nature are rooted in biases. However there are truths that should at least be the foundation of a discussion.
-
34 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:
It's not for "some reason" as if it were unfathomable and irrational. There is a long history of ineptitude, which quite naturally produces skepticism. There is also inconsistency. Don't block the young players. Then when they hit on one who doesn't want to be here, you end up trading the unblocked. Handedness didn't matter on D, and now it does. They were all finesse, and now we have discovered the need for grit.
I like the current shift, but the GM does not inspire confidence. The change is not coming from principle, unless it is someone else behind the altered criteria, which is quite possible.
If Byram is not traded, the D is fine. I think he's probably going to be traded, but it's not as certain as it seemed a few days ago. They should bring in veteran competition for UPL, and let Levi season another year. I rather doubt that is their plan, though. They need to bring in a top 6 winger. There's cap room to do it, but most folks are rightly concerned that we won't spend, because TP has been cheap. You can conjecture various reasons, but the cheap part is undeniable, or should be.
You missed my point. You don't think I know the history?
I'm saying no one can add Byram being gone today to the reason we're not better, unless you're always trying to paint the worst picture, which is what some Buffalo fans have been doing my entire life.
So if you're going to say we need a partner for Dahlin today because of the departure of Byram, then incorrectly say we don't need a top 6 winger or whatever you want to make up.
-
8 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:
Calling Norris a 1C doesn’t make him one.
We still have the twin towers of softness but hopefully Kesselring and Timmons can offset that.
Quinn is 3W material until he’s not.
We are missing a legitimate 1C, 1LW, reliable starting goalie, partner for Dahlin.
Are the Sabres better? No. They are just as bad with an expected uptick in physicality.
If we are hinging our hopes on Norris as 1C, Benson in the top six, Levi in the NHL, and Muel with Dahlin then we shouldn’t be surprised by the late season storm of “this team sucks” threads.
This is why our fans frustrate me sometimes. For some reason there's a love affair with doom and gloom and it's real.
Why do we have to find a partner for Dahlin when we have Byram?
Do you believe it strengthens your gloom?
-
10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
why??
I explained
-
Maybe, but then they don't get Byram or younger on the blue line.
-
I hope TP lifts it finally and I'd love to land Boeser. If not, I'm hoping a Byram trade brings back a very good winger.
-
21 minutes ago, Turbo44 said:
But if we trade Byram our D would be worse unless a D to play with Dahlin was brought in.
if a trade for Byram is made, I believe we’re 2 big pieces and one small piece away from a playoff spot:
top line LW
top line D
veteran goalie to backup UPL
The question is, are we better today. I think the answer is yes.
If we trade Byram, projections are it would be for a scoring winger. Unless we do something crazy, either we keep him or his trade will bring something nice back.
That's why the trade for him and Mitts was so lopsided in our favor.
-
I'm pretty sure I saw some data from analytics that just having Cozens not on the roster, we improved. So to me Norris plus Cozens gone is a plus plus. Meaning, Norris, IMO, isn't about Cozens, it's about him absorbing production and is a better 2 way player than JJ.
We're better on defense today.
Less UPL, even if it's Levi, is slightly better, IMO, than 55 UPL games.
Benson a year older is a good thing.
Doan is a good addition.
We're tougher.
-
I'm in general very impressed with hockey draft picks. It seems they have to make several adult decisions at a very young age and I think they're more mature than other athletes their age in other sports, IMO.
Bedkowski is particularly exceptional with how he conducts himself. This doesn't sound like a young man that thinks it'll be 4-5 years. He's definitely got the right attitude, it appears, to give himself a shot to be an NHL player.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Cccccccccckkk
Were you hoping he was available in the next round or that we'd make a move to get back in the first?
-
7 minutes ago, Thorny said:
Yep. What part doesn’t make sense? That’s what we do - develop them then trade them. You expect me to be excited we are signing up for another round?
My bad, I thought you were crapping on us again and being sarcastic about developing players. Force of habit I suppose.
-
49 minutes ago, Thorny said:
He’s a long way away, very unfinished. The one thing we do best- coach our young players
Play to yer strengths
Then you cry that we develop players and trade them.
What Was the Multiple Day Presentation that Adams Layed Out For Pegula to Save His Job
in The Aud Club
Posted
I think you know what I mean. It's definitely been much longer than the Pegula ownership. You're even admitting we have to be pretty old to remember that.
I'm 50 and it's been a long time.