dudacek
-
Posts
29,156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dudacek
-
-
18 minutes ago, Weave said:
The hate is really minimal. Folks can’t criticize without being labeled a hater. SMH
My only complaint is that he really works to avoid contact. Before anyone responds with something, something, Pronger, something. The vast majority of us mentioning his avoidance of contact are not expecting a banger. It’s simply that, were he to use his physical frame to wedge and trap guys along the boards or box out forwards in the front of the net, his play would improve even more. It’s such an obvious gap in his game.
Absolutely this. Power still plays the game too often like he's a full-grown man playing against a pack of 12-year-olds and he doesn't want to hurt or embarrass anybody.
What I need to see from him is less about punishing people and more about defensive assertiveness.
His is a game is built on patience, finesse and thinking one step ahead, but there are so many instances where what's needed is just the simple elimination of "your" man. You don't need to hurt him, you don't need to worry about your next play, you just need to step up with authority to prevent him from making his.
-
2
-
-
I thought this was interesting:
ES points
- Adam Fox 37
- Owen Power 26
Hits
- Adam Fox 43
- Owen Power 43
Blocked shots
- Adam Fox 116
- Owen Power 109
giveaways/60
- Adam Fox 1.18
- Owen Power 1.29
penalties taken/60
- Adam Fox 0.67
- Owen Power. 0.36
ES ice time
- Adam Fox 18:26
- Owen Power 19.:29
Possession
- Adam Fox 53.7
- Owen Power 51.8
Goals for %
- Adam Fox 54.4
- Owen Power 54.2
-
3
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Here are some things people should know about contracts before they dig in about Owen Power:
- This year he had the salary cap hit of a 7th defenceman ($916K)
- This year, the median 1st-pairing defenceman cap hit was about $6.5M
- Next year he will be paid like an above-average 1st-pairing defenceman ($8.35M)
- Next year, the median 1st-pairing defenceman cap hit will be between $7-7.5M (depending on free agent signings)
- Every year for the next 7, Power's contract will likely be passed by a handful of players until at the end of his contract he will be getting paid like a good 2nd-pairing defenceman
Here are some things people should know about performance before they dig in about Owen Power:
- he produced total points like a 1st-pairing defenceman
- he produced ES points like a 1st-pairing defenceman
- he ate ice time like a 1st-pairing defenceman
- he threw hits like a borderline 2nd/3rd pairing defenceman
- he blocked shots like a 2nd-pairing defenceman
- he avoided giveaways like a 2nd-pairing defenceman
- he forced takeaways like a 2nd-pairing defenceman
- he avoided taking penalties like a 1st-pairing defenceman
- he had the shot attempt possession numbers of a 1st-pairing defenceman
- he had the goals-for-% numbers of a 1st-pairing defenceman
- he had the expected-goals-for numbers of a 1st-pairing defenceman
- he had the expected-goals-against numbers of a 2nd-pairing defenceman
And by 1st, 2nd and 3rd, I mean he ranked in the top, middle or bottom 3rd of the league's defencemen who played at least 60 games.
He's also apparently the NHL's best stretch passer but I could not find any stats on zone exits created or prevented.
He was one of just 6 U22 defencemen to play 70 NHL games this year.
-
5
-
1
-
3
-
6
-
Haven't really watched Novikov this year so it's hard for me to compare.
But Samuelsson was a noticeable stud at the AHL level: offensively fine and defensively dominant.
If Novikov is near that level as a rookie, I'd be pleasantly surprised and pretty excited.
-
14 hours ago, French Collection said:
I see Novikov got a goal and 2 assists tonight for the Amerks. Mule had better watch out.
4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:Novikov is going to be better than Samuelsson long before samuelsson's contract ends.
1 hour ago, tom webster said:I know LGRM doesn’t think much of Murl but there is an article today on the Athletic that has him ranked very high on list of shut down defenseman.
While you can debate the merits of both opinions and credentials of both people, what is indisputable is that with all the wisdom analytics has added to the conversation, there is still no absolute statistical program that is one hundred percent accurate in projecting future success or even quantify current performance except for one, wins and losses.
For context, the article ranks Samuelsson 15th in the entire league.
His peers include Hampus Lindholm, Brandon Carlo, Brady Skjei and Brayden McNabb
Mattias Samuelsson’s promising defensive profile explains why the Sabres signed him to a seven-year, $4.285 million AAV extension at the start of last season. The problem? He can’t seem to stay healthy. The hulking 24-year-old defenseman was limited to 41 games this season and 55 the year before. Durability, not talent, is the concern with Samuelsson and his contract right now.
The model weighs heavily for tough matchups and top 4 ice time and is only about shot suppression during ES play.
The author (Harman Dayal) says:
This is, of course, only an analytical perspective. The numbers obviously can’t capture everything, especially for defense. That means this exercise isn’t so much a definitive ranking, but rather a conversation starter. You can look at the initial list and then apply your own eye test, context and knowledge — it’s all about how you interpret the data. There will be plenty of quality shutdown defenders who don’t land on this list.
-
2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
I agree. Dahlin is a top 5 defender in the league that we don't appreciate enough. He can do things that only 2-3 other guys in the league can do. He also has greatly increased his defensive skill over the years and if you watch him live in particular, he does a ton of little things to shut plays down before anything exciting happens. Rasmus Dahlin deserves a better team. His teammates owe him more than they gave this season. For all the talk around here of Tuch being captain, Dahlin is the leader IMO. Guy has 20 less assists than last year because his team can't score for *****. Still leads the team in points and is 5th in goals, as a defender. Rasmus Dahlin is probably the best defender to ever wear blue and gold.
Thank you, particularly for the bold.
From reading this place I sometimes think people judge defence on
- Is he mugging a guy when the puck goes to our netfront?
- How many bad passes did he make (only the bad ones matter)?
- Is he on the screen when a goal gets scored?
I wish people would also pay attention to the amount of rushes or defensive zone attacks broken up or deflected into corners, the amount of pucks routinely knocked off, or prevented from getting to, sticks, the number of contested pucks won, and how often a player executes safe exits.
Routinely good defence rarely makes highlight packages because it usually means nothing exciting happened.
-
1
-
1
-
22 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
You can argue the details but there has been a drop off and sometimes dramatic (Skinner). The point for me really is if we keep rewarding big seasons for individuals on a loser team we will be stuck with a loser team. The make up of this team needs to change and not every goal scorer can have a place in it.
If Peterka is your guy and you want to roll the dice on him as a top liner winger you can do that, but you better be sure he is the guy who can deliver the goods consistently. So really, to me, it depends on his ask. If he wants 20 goal scorer money great, if he wants top line money, that's another story and then I'm not so sure so imo better to place safe and bridge.
The bolded is a far more salient point.
The flip side of “lock ‘em up while you can still afford them”.
Pretty hard to judge Adams 1 year into a half-dozen long-term deals.
But each one he adds makes the next one harder to accommodate and he has to get most of them right.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Thorny said:
I don’t mean to claim it’s not a justifiable risk: merely that’s it’s not such a sure thing, “only real option available, or worth considering” that if it doesn’t work, Adams isn’t amendable to result. It’s justifiable, but it’s also justifiable to want to bring in a more veteran back up so we have 2 kicks at the G2 can in training camp.
Going with UPL/Levi is defensible right now, in the moment, but that doesn’t stop it from being judged purely based on the results it yields.
Exactly. Like I said, “no stone unturned”. Our only difference is what we’d pay to bring in that competition, I guarantee it
Most poor decisions can be justified at the time. Most good decisions can be justifiably criticized at the time.
I thought Victor Olofsson could serve as adequate insurance for Jack Quinn because he scored 28 last year. I was wrong.
I thought the goalie situation was extraordinarily risky to start this year. Turns out Adams was right that his goalies were good enough, it just took him too long to figure out how to deploy them.
-
Just now, Thorny said:
No, you are talking strategy. It’s not the same strategy, I get it. I said principle: the idea a victor will emerge from competition.
I’m not saying adding competition is bad. On the contrary, I’d like it.
I am saying it’s necessity at this position in my mind has greatly diminished.
-
2 hours ago, Thorny said:
Adams employed this exact principle (to the detriment of the team, but eventual emergence of a candidate) this very season. 3 long shots led to one emergence. I’d give Levi some healthy competition for G2. I just wouldn’t enter into the season with 3 on active roster
But if they actually use training camp to get this team off and running as if their fans’ fandom depends on it (and it does), a nice healthy camp battle between Levi and a backup candidate better than, checks notes…Comrie is something I’d like to see
Yes, it’s not going to happen. I understand we have anointed him a spot. Adams is the “don’t block” guy not the “healthy competition” guy, in general. I get the idea he only defaulted to the “let these 3 duke it out” situation in net last year because Levi didn’t seize the role to the extent he thought he would
I also appreciate the fact I have to argue strenuously to support the idea that counting on a *20 year old* with all of 20 starts in his career, in year we HAVE to make the playoffs, to provide 30-35 quality starts MIGHT provide a bit of reason for pause…but such is the nature of the Adams’ era
If the best we can do in year 5 of a GM’s tenure is, “well, it might work out, we might make the playoffs, I don’t really see any less risky bets” then I suppose that’s the bed he’s made that he needs to lie in
But just because other options were also risky doesn’t mean he’s not amendable to the results of his equally risky bet. His job is to choose the course of action that yields the desired results, not merely make defensible decisions by prism of moment. It’s not a “what could even have been done?” situation if it doesn’t work out.
It’s not at all the same principle.
This year, three unproven goalies, toss them in a blender, and hope 2 emerge in some shape or form as a competent duo.
Next year, clear-cut #1 coming off a strong year, promising #2 who has looked fine in limited rookie sample size.
Devon Levi is 22, not 20, and he’ll turn 23 by Christmas. He’s 15-10-2 as an NHL goalie.
He’s also 11-5-3 with a .927 save percentage in the AHL after a few seasons of being one of the best goalies in NCAA.
Looking at the numbers, pencilling him in as 1 of 2 goalies this October is very much in line with doing the same for Jake Oettinger with Holtby in 20/21, or Jeremy Swayman with Ullmark in 21/22.
It’s a risk, but a justifiable one.
In fact, looking around the league, I’d wager the odds of having 2 good goalies at the same time is far more likely rolling the dice in this fashion than signing or trading for the “best goalie available.”
-
Just so everybody is clear on the facts.
Dylan Cozens signed his extension in the middle of his career year.
Tage Thompson signed his big contract before his career year.
Mattias Samuelsson signed his deal the year before his “career” year too (if you can call it that.)
Rasmus Dahlin had a year left on his contract when he signed his extension. It was after his best year, but the year after signing has been his 2nd best. He has yet to collect a penny from his big deal.
Owen Power signed his after just 87 NHL games and also had a year left on his deal. He has yet to collect a penny of his big deal either. He’s going to finish with roughly the same numbers as in his only other full season.
I don’t think the bolded is as obvious as you say.
2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:His asking price is what interests me. We have this obvious situation where contract year players here seem to have their best years and then drop off after. Peterka and UPL are interesting problems for Adams as Mitts would have been. He isn't likely to trade them all is he.
I personally think it has to be bridge, but then I wouldn't have opened the vault for Power yet either.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Thorny said:
I’m not convinced we have a single problem on the roster by the prism of this logic lol
What do you want to do, zoom out as far as Jupiter so we can divide goalies into “Hellebuyck (who no one wanted, anyways haha) or question mark” when in reality perfect need not be the enemy of good.
If you don’t think we can find a net minder who at least provides a reasonable amount of competition in camp to a guy with 20 nhl starts of mediocre play, we’ll just have to disagree. If you don’t think it’s worth paying for Levi to have to beat that player out, we just don’t have the same priorities.
This franchise has bent over backwards to anoint Levi a spot: this doesn’t need to be argued - they granted him a spot this year when objectively he proved not yet ready. I do agree with you it’s very unlikely they bring in a player who provides an obstacle to him seizing G2. But your overall stance has moved much more in line with KA’s than apart over the course of this year’s likely playoff miss
I think the fundamental disagreement here is in our rating of Levi.
Simply put, I think he’s a better bet to give us 3.06, .901 goaltending or better for 30 games next season than most of the goalies you’d consider to be in the 25-50 range of NHL goalies.
And that tempers how much I’m willing to invest in another goalie like the 20 or so I listed upthread.
Or you’re saying that every team needs 3 NHL goalies when likely playoff teams we’re chasing like Washington, Detroit, Tampa and Toronto clearly don’t. Wants 3? Of course we do.
As to the bold, absolutely my stance has moved on our goalie situation, because this year has given me reason to believe we have 2 good ones when last summer it was only blind faith in Levi that led me to believe we had any.
Like I said, the frame of reference has changed.
-
1
-
-
Basically you started last season with 3 unproven goalies, none of them with a defined role, one of them with negligible pro experience, and a loose, unearned pecking order
Next season you’d be starting with a clear number one, who played very well in his single year in that role, and an unproven number 2 who was dominant in the AHL and put up a winning record along with a respectable .901 and 3.06 over 27 NHL starts.
Would I like to add a 200-game vet on a 1-year deal and similar numbers to Levi? Absolutely because I too want to cover my bases. UPL could go all Tage Thompson on us. But I don’t think it’s the same situation at all as it was last summer in terms of risk management.
The context has significantly changed.
-
2
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Weave said:
Running the goalie situation back is inherently risky. Given the state of this franchise, I think it is resources well spent to de-risk it.
Not many NHL goalie situations that aren’t inherently risky.
23 minutes ago, Thorny said:20 nhl starts doesn’t make a solution. It represents only a potential one. The problem exists until it’s solved, not until it hypothetically could be
See, the latter sentence gets to the nut of it.
And it gets back to my initial question: what exactly is the “problem” you’re trying to solve? It sounds like something that can only be addressed with a Hellebuyck or a Shesterkin. Because to me, the rest of them all look like hypothetical or potential solutions.
-
Boy is finally on a bender.
9 goals, 8 assists, 17 points, +12 in his last 12 games.
Team is 7-5 over that stretch.
-
53 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:
We're seeing the GM ShEEEvyn run-it-back youth train lineup the remainder of the season. If the FO loves Zemgus, then he's back, and it looks like this:
Peterka - Thompson - Tuch
Benson - Cozens - Quinn
Skinner - UFA 3C (Savoie) - Greenway
Girgensons - Krebs - UFA 4W (Kulich)
(Rousek)Power - Dahlin
Byram - Jokiharju
Samuelsson - Clifton
(Johnson)Luukkonen
LeviI was thinking this while watching last night and running the tape back to Adams trade deadline presser.
Plug Greenway into Rousek’s slot with Krebs and Skinner, add 3 fast, tenacious forecheckers, one of which is a defensively strong 3/4C and we’re looking at next year’s roster.
Its going to make the place really hard to read this summer but it’s going to happen.
Come November, most of Sabrespace will either be eating crow, or praying it’s not too late for our new coach to get us back in the race.
-
4 minutes ago, Weave said:
This part wasnt tactically played well.
“How many proven NHL backups will be interested in coming here knowing what the Sabres feel about Levi?”
We had an unproven guy that was publicly given the keys to the team, and one of the challenges became, noone will sign on with him here.
The GM flat out played the goalie situation poorly.
Maybe, but the conversation I’m trying to have is about this summer, not last summer.
Is starting the season with Luukkonen (by this season’s numbers a good starter) and Levi (by this season’s numbers an average backup) a problem in need of an active solution?
-
21 minutes ago, Weave said:
It’s a problem of Buffalo’s creation. I think getting goalie depth right is a basic GM responsibility. He’s on his third swing at it now. VSTOL performance is required now. The long runway is long gone.
Why should it be considered a problem?
-
18 hours ago, Thorny said:
Judging from this Granato quote they have already decided Levi is good to go next season after not being so, this
Cross our fingers second time’s the charm!
18 hours ago, Weave said:Frustratingly high risk for a fanbase that has sat on the sidlines in April-May for 13 seasons.
Regarding the goalie situation AND the implied coaching situation.
There needs to be some acknowledgement that the context to this debate has shifted since last summer.
I loosely defined "backup" as goalies who have played 15-35 games this year
- Devon Levi ranks 18th in SV%, and 20th in GAA
I defined "starter" as goalies who have played more than 35 games.
- UPL ranks 12th and 8th
Overall, Luukkonen is 21st and 13th and Levi 47th and 49th out of 68 goalies.
Of course the question remains 'Yeah, but they're so young. Where's the track record?"
One response might be "Tell me who has a dependable track record?
Merzlikins, Korpisalo, Raanta, Vanecek, Husso, Allen, Gibson, Kahkonen, Vejmalka, Kuemper, Forsberg, Blackwood, Gustafsson, Mrazek, Jarry, Lankinen, Grubauer, Samsonov, Fleury...did any of these guys significantly outplay Levi this year?
Or this:
- .899 3.10
- .900 2.86
One is Devon Levi, the other Andrei Vasilevskiy
Ideally, I want a proven NHL backup who Levi will clearly have to beat out to be in the NHL.
How much would we have to give up to acquire a goalie we "know" is going to be better than Levi?
How much are we willing to spend on a "just in case"?
How many proven NHL backups will be interested in coming here knowing what the Sabres feel about Levi?
-
1
-
While my previous post is my direct answer to @tom webster's thread-starting question, I think I also need to answer his subtext: and that is not whether this season is a failure, but whether this rebuild and its architects are a failure.
And my answer to that is: not yet, but crunch time is arriving.
Adams made no secret of the fact that his plan was to collect a critical mass of young talent, then have it learn and grow together into a team that could contend for a decade. Our cynics rolled their eyes at that as just a way of making his leash as long as possible. But I believe it is a legitimate path to success and one I think works if you are right on your talent evaluations.
Because Jeff Skinner is an outlier.
Skinner made the NHL at 18, scored 30 goals and 65 points, played crappy defence and got under a lot of people’s skins. He’s been that player for most of his 14 seasons and he remains that player today.
But — like Webster’s opening post implies — most NHL players and youthful rebuilds don’t work that way. Players arrive unfinished and spend a few years learning how they can best succeed at NHL hockey. They don’t establish a level and an identity until sometime into their 3rd or 4th season, after they have 200 or 300 games under their belts.
Consider these Sabres:
- Tuch broke out in season 6, after 305 games
- Dahlin broke out in season 5 after 277 games
- Thompson broke out in season 5 (he missed all of season 3 due to injury) after 145 games
- Mittelstadt broke out in season 5 after 195 games
The first 3 are now young veterans and key members of Adams handpicked core. And as much as many of you hate this, the rest of his “blinding light brigade” is still cooking:
- Cozens 270 games, about to enter season 5 (and probably broke out in season 3 after 120 games)
- Krebs 205, about to enter season 3
- Byram 155, about to enter season 4
- Power 153, about to enter season 3
- Peterka 151, about to enter season 3
- Samuelsson 150, about to enter season 3
- Quinn 94, about to enter season 3
- Luukkonen 92, about to enter season 3
- Benson 61, about to enter season 2
- Levi 28, about to enter season 2
This season failed because that group was not good enough yet and because Adams and Granato didn’t give them the support they needed. And they need to make sure they don’t repeat the latter mistake this summer. But - like it or not - their big picture plan succeeds or fails on how many of those young players take a step and their windows are just starting to open.
Many of you will see it differently, but I see the first 2 seasons of the Adams rebuild as successful in terms of the path he was walking. Season 3 has been a failure, but I have no interest in firing him at this point. Growth is never smooth. He gets a chance to react and adjust to this year.
Granato, I like and want to see succeed, but this is pro sports. I make the call on his future based on player interviews and his plans for revamping his staff and fixing the offence. If I decide to retain him, it’s on a short leash.
But chucking the plan at this juncture seems premature to me.
-
6
-
3
-
Absolutely we should have expected more from this year.
And that’s even if you subscribe to my personal belief that this is more realistically described as year 3 of a ripped-down-to-the-studs rebuild. (People seem to forget that we started ‘Adams 2.0’ with our top 6 forwards coming off seasons of 13, 10, 8, 7, 4 and 2 goals, respectively, and for 3 of those guys, those were career bests).
Last year’s Sabres team missed the playoffs by just 1 point coming off 2 years of steady improvement. It clearly had talent given the offence it had just put up. It was resilient, fast and explosive. Its holes — goaltending, PK, commitment to team defence, stoutness up front, and depth on the blue line were pretty obvious and should have been fixable.
Ironically, the team looks to have fixed, or at least improved, most of those holes. But in the process it got slower and easier to frustrate.
Sabrespace has wrongly excoriated this team as being terrible when really it’s kinda like it was last year — just a different shade of mediocre.
But the pieces and the opportunities were there last summer for Adams and Granato to make this year something more and they were unable to do so. Sure the core is callow, but Adams did not bring in the right pieces, nor Granato push the right buttons to smooth or mask the pitfalls of that reality.
I can’t see any way to describe this year as anything other than a failure. And they have to own that.
-
9
-
-
56 minutes ago, ... said:
Those coaches have proved they get it.
Our coach has proved he does not and, because of his lack of experience, never will at this point.
Or are we happy to have the coach of the Sabres learn how to coach at the NHL level on the fly? How much time should we give Meatballs?
If you're a parent, have you ever had people who have never had kids try and explain to you how to raise kids? People who have never had children will never understand what it's like to have children.
How is basically any other task different?
This is bad folk wisdom; unqualified advice.
Why learn from people who have never achieved any level of success in the task they're trying to teach? After a certain point in the "teaching", the teacher is just making guesses having never achieved beyond a certain level.
So what? He never played at the AHL or NHL level. He has no idea what his players are going through or what it takes as an individual to succeed at those levels.
The Sabres' record under him is PROOF of this. He can only get them so far.
Meatballs doesn't know what it takes to coach players at the NHL level to be successful because he has never done it himself and, unlike some other coaches who weren't players but were successful NHL coaches, isn't smart or creative enough to figure out what it takes.
Mitts' comments, and others like it, are coming from people who HAVE played NHL hockey and are super informative. Why discount the experience of real NHL players and the actual record when it comes to evaluating the ability of Meatballs? It's crazy to dismiss this input.
Doubling down?
4 of the past 6 Stanley Cup winners were coached by men who never played NHL hockey. A 5th played just 36 games.
John Tortorella, Claude Julien, Mike Babcock, Bob Hartley, Pat Burns, Scotty freaking Bowman — half of this century's cup-winners never played NHL hockey. Bowman, Burns, Hartley, Babcock and Cooper never even played pro hockey at all.
Barry Trotz had a worse record than Granato in each of his first 5 NHL seasons — under .500 and missed the playoffs in every single one. Cup.
Granato may or may not be a good coach, but the fact he didn't play in the NHL has nothing to do with it.
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
I agree that the "never played in the NHL" factor isn't particularly probative, but the more important point here is that Mitts' comment again illustrates that the Sabres are not well coached.
And/or that they don't have Nathan MacKinnon setting the pace or the tone?
Do people actually find it particularly revelatory the Avalanche practice and play faster than the Sabres?
Don't the Avalanche play faster than pretty much everybody?
Hasn't Granato been urging the team to play faster all season long?
This is not an endorsement of Granato, it's my attempt to point out that there is an equally plausible argument that Mitts' comment illustrates that the Sabres players are immature. That's been their story all season. Those are the cards the coach has been dealt.
Suddenly surrounded by talented, driven adults, maybe it's dawning on Casey that there really is another level.
Or let me put it this way, you add MacKinnon to the Sabres and Granato would suddenly become a much-better coach.
Lindy Ruff coached the Sabres to 82, 72 and 85-point seasons from 2002-05 — or basically 3 straight years of what we have watched this year.
And then Darcy gave him Chris Drury.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, ... said:
This is what happens when you hire milquetoast people who have never played in the NHL.
Meatballs will never understand what it takes to compete at the NHL or even AHL level because he's never experienced it.
Not exactly the best argument I've seen for rejecting a coach.
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
Owen Power Leads the League
in The Aud Club
Posted · Edited by dudacek
Maybe.
But if you applied a similar exercise this year to Thompson, Tuch, Cozens and Skinner I doubt the results would be nearly as shiny, especially when you add the power play to the equation.
Whether it's commitment, culture, coaching or circumstance at fault, a significant portion of the failures of this season can be laid at the feet of our top forwards.