LGR4GM
-
Posts
55,067 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LGR4GM
-
-
You know what's interesting. There are a lot of ppl around here who talk about giving Krebs another chance or seeing what he does this year or not getting rid of him too early etc... but Dylan Cozens has 1 down year where his coach was trash and it is all doom and gloom that he is some 3rd line level player that we are stuck with for 6 more years. Just interesting how perceptions and expectations shape how we feel. Not necessarily commenting on whats correct or incorrect.
-
2
-
-
If we are looking at drafting a talented wing at 11 with more size than a Savoie type, I would lean Eiserman over Connelly.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
KA is not a proactive GM when it comes finding veteran talent for his roster. Every major deal has been reactive. He's told to sign Hall, he signs Hall. He is told to redo the rebuild and he trade Risto, Eichel and Reinhart. He fails to sign Ullmark and has no plan B, thus signs Dell and Anderson. The team is up against the internal cap because of the long-term extensions, so he can't re-sign Mitts and therefore trades him for whatever he can get even if that player doesn't really fit any need on the roster.
I guess the only thing he is proactive about is signing players to long-term deals after one good year. Makes you wonder how he is going to be able to retain JJP and Quinn when they have another big year this coming season?
Trading for Necas is arguably again reactive since he doesn't have any centers after TNT and Cozens. At least it would be a move to add depth and talent where it's needed and Necas is at least a legit player.
I don't agree with this line at all. It was very clear that after the failed Kruger/Hall fiasco season that Adams came up with the rebuild plan and sold it to Terry.
We aren't trading for Necas IMPO. As you say, Adams is reactive and he will leave the top 6 in place and react later if they suck again under Ruff.
-
36 minutes ago, French Collection said:
I’ve listened to a few podcasts about the draft.
It’s tough to get a read on prospects weaknesses because all they focus on are the strengths. I like to hear about the areas of their games they need to work on to get a full report on a kid.
I realize they can’t be too negative but these guys are not all the next great one.
Which kid?
11 hours ago, thewookie1 said:Would love it to fall this way so we could take Iginla.
Iginla will not be available at 11. Calgary picks at 9 and that is about as far as I could see him go and expect he could go anywhere 5-9
-
May 2024, consolidated rankings
-
-
14 minutes ago, dudacek said:
isn’t it really just about spending your money wisely?
I think it @GASabresIUFAN who has talked on here about Adams choices at the bottom of his roster.
While Vancouver was paying $4M to Lafferty, Blueger and Joshua, the Sabres were paying $7.2M to Okposo, Girgensons and Jost.
That’s not just about having a better bottom 6, the difference might be what allows you to acquire an Elias Lindholm.
It”s not something the Sabres have really had to worry about as they stocked their roster with players on their first and 2nd contracts.
But it’s something they need to worry about now.
Adams has been a compete failure at pro scouting ufas. He's been trash at filling out the roster to this point.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I'd put Benson around 45-50pts this season. Benson got 30 last year as an 18yr old with barely any pp time on a terrible pp. He's only getting better.
Jack Quinn, 70+ if he's healthy. Quinn already broke out, we just can't say it cuz it was a short time frame. He's gonna be great if he's healthy.
These are probably the best 200ft players we have currently. I think if you can build a line around Benson, he could drive it. If you put him with Quinn Cozens, he'll hit 50pts.
-
1
-
-
-
2 hours ago, TheAud said:
Have the sexual assault charges been dropped and he is exonerated? If not I’d just as soon they stay away from any of those guys.
I thought they were but others are saying they weren't. If they weren't you can't bring him in. I don't see anything recently to tell me so guess he's off the list for now.
Edit: I found the article I had read and I misread it. McCleod is still charged with 2 counts so he is clearly not an option and most likely will never play in the NHL again.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, ska-T Chitown said:
This sorta baffles me ... he was nearly as productive (11-19-30 in 71 games) as Quinn (14-23-37 in 75) Peterka (12-20-32 in 77) when he was 18 while they were 20/21 and people (not everyone, I know) had trouble hiding their boners after the Quinn/Peterka rookie years ...
It's because he's short. Zach Benson will probably be better than JJP and also Quinn when this is all said and done. Most 18yr olds don't play in the NHL and most don't do what Benson did. He almost perfectly hit his projection and that was while playing on a team that had major offensive issues due to players and coaching. Kids gonna be a stud.
-
1
-
1
-
-
If you want to look at UFA/RFA in an easily sortable list:
https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/free-agents
Can filter by position and a bunch of other options. I find this to be the best way to look at guys.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, TageMVP said:
I think you're missing the point on what's being said about faceoff wins
I think you and others have missed my point specifically about faceoff wins and pp success which was the original idea PerreaultForever tossed out. Granted there's 0 evidence a faceoff win on the pp gets you an extra 20 seconds of zone time but apparently my idea of looking at the numbers was dumb. They are just going to be ignored anyways.
-
1
-
-
I've said my piece. Since no one here makes decisions for the Sabres, I can only hope they (sabres) are not dumb enough to think an extra 7% in faceoff wins will fix the craptastic pp they run.
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
Stats are a funny thing. There are many factors that go in to many things and correlating face offs with wins would be an extremely difficult argument to isolate accurately without considering all the other factors that go into wins.
But there are simple things that just make sense. You win a face off, you have the puck. That's a good thing. What you do with it after that is a whole other set of issues and data. Hence, face offs matter.
No. No you don't. Sometimes you do yes but every faceoff win does not mean you control the puck.
Talking to you is pointless. You're so convinced of your own infallible superiority on every topic why even bother.
Faceoffs can matter. But simply being better at them doesn't make the pp better as shown by facts. Not your feelings on the subject.
1 minute ago, Taro T said:So, you don't see that there is a situationality to when O'Reilly or Crosby win those FOs? Would almost have money on it that O'Reilly's career FO% is higher in the O-zone than it is in the neutral zone. Could see either or both of them being right around 50% there because it doesn't matter as much as other faceoffs matter. Would also expect that his D-zone win rate is higher than average even though it's likely lower than in the O-zone because he doesn't have the same advantages in the D zone as in the O zone.
Where and when a FO occurs goes a long way towards just how hard a guy is going to try to win it. He's not going to get his opponent used to facing his best move and possibly figuring out a counter at CI or the other guy's BL very often.
Doesn't matter for the stats I quoted. You're arguing a different point entirely. On the pp some of the best fow teams are the worst pp teams and vice versa.
-
1
-
-
-
17 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Thank you for the reply.
Not trying to create an argument, but am curious if you take Dahlin to task over his reaction to the "fi-re Donny" chants as well? He was at least as vocal in criticizing the fans as Tuch was at the time.
Personally, don't take issue with either's reaction to that evening, but don't take issue with others taking issue either.
I heard a lot less and IMO a different message from Dahlin. Tuch was still bringing it up months later.
Either way, the fact none of the "leaders" of the team, shot that ***** down is beyond concerning. Again, it is not the thing they stopped doing, it is the why they stopped. They wanted retribution on the fans and that is a bizarre fight to have as a player for those fans. Especially over something so insignificant. You want to support your coach, play better. Shows how everything is always an outside forces fault, not the players fault.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
So you're arguing against the fact that a face off win on the PP gives you an extra 20-30 seconds of power play time in the O zone?
No, I am not. If you had better reading comprehension and not this incessant desire to one up everyone around here constantly, while comparing every other thing to the Bruins, you would realize that. Also, nice strawman argument.
Let's do this correctly. I can look at 5v4 (normal pp) numbers. So this wont cover all the pp numbers but the majority, as 4v3 and 5v3 are excluded.
Buffalo ranks 31st in FOW% with a 48.32%. I am using goals for per 60 to adjust for ice time. Buffalo ranks 28th with 5.83 GF/60 on the pp. At face value this supports the idea that PP success and FOW go together. However we need more data points and so let us look at the 2nd team in FOW% Pittsburgh. At 60.45% they are 12.13% above Buffalo for FOW%. Sounds great... until you sort by GF/60 and Pittsburgh plummets to 29th. Pitt has the 2nd best FOW% but the 29th best GF/60 on the pp. You really get a mixed bag when you compare the two variables. In this case we are using faceoff wins as the independent variable for scoring pp goals aka the dependent variable. Ottawa sits 4th in FOW% with 57.92% but drops to 26th in GF/60 with 6.25. In fact there are 4 teams below 7 GF/60 in the top 10 of FOW% meaning that there are at least 4 teams that are 21st or worse in GF/60 on the PP. Now the inverse of that is this, the other 6 teams in the top 10 for FOW% are also in the top 12 for GF/60.
Where I am I going with this? Winning faceoffs can matter. I think we can all easily agree on that but I use the word "can" because sometimes it doesn't. You know those draws you win and it splits the defender and scoots down the ice? You get 1 win for that but it doesn't help your team. You know the draw you win by slamming it forward into the corner there is a puck battle? You get a win for that too but depending on the puck battle depends on if it matters. What I am saying is all FOW are not the same even though the counting stat treats them the same. Buffalo needs to be better at faceoffs for sure. Every little bit helps and being better at faceoffs is a little bit of help. But we can see with a team like Pittsburgh, who was 2nd in the entire league that FOW% alone doesn't improve your PP, hell Pittsburgh had a worse PP than we did (again at 5v4). The NYR have the best FOW but are 5th for GF/60, TB has the best GF/60 but is 26th in FOW.
What I can tell you is that having a good GF/60 on the pp matters to playoffs. Out of the top 10 teams, 6 are still in the playoffs now and 9 of 10 made the playoffs with Arizona being the exception. In the bottom 10, the only team that made the playoffs was Winnipeg. Shoutout to Wash and Vegas though who are just outside that cutoff. The conclusion here is simple, you can be good at the PP but bad at faceoffs, you can be good at faceoffs but bad at PP. You can be bad at faceoffs but a playoff team but you can't really be bad at PP and be a playoff team.
Am I arguing against the "fact" (it isn't a fact at all) that winning a faceoff could give you more zone time on the PP, not really because I don't have any data to support or reject that claim. Of note, you have not presented any data that would support your claim. What I am arguing against is the notion that being good at FOW will magically make the PP better because the numbers don't support that. I would guess that FOW have less impact on PP success than other factors that are not part of this discussion. For example HDSF has a bit stronger correlation although even then, Buffalo sits 32nd and Pitt sits 5th so clearly other factors are involved (like screens, shot selection, pre shot movement, all the other stuff I don't have). Will fixing the Sabres faceoff wins make us better, probably, but will it magically make the PP better... no. Other things are more important to fix, my guess is pre-shot movement is the biggest one from what ik about models that track that and use it in their expected goals.
Hopefully this helps you understand my original point.
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
-
If Johnson isn't on the roster for 2024, trade him. There's no need to keep him with how many lhd we have and he'd have value to improve the forwards or get a good rhd from a team that needs some cap relief. 11 and Johnson would interest any number of teams who are looking to move an upper middle 6 forward. It's the exact type of trade you see around the nhl from real teams.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
A face off win on the PP saves you 20-30 seconds. It matters.
Just went and double checked. First, Buffalo was worst in the league because Granato failed. First in the league was Pittsburgh. Montreal is top 10 as is the NYI. The difference between first and last is about 10% so that's maybe 3 faceoff wins more than your opponent a game. Not saying we don't need to be better but the issue isn't simply win faceoffs and we'll be better, the best faceoff team in the league isn't a playoff team.
-
1 hour ago, Taro T said:
This team was the Avs in the last year of Patrick Roy as the head coach there. They were WAY too focused on puck possession and no where nearly focused enough on driving to the net and forcing chances from high danger areas. Swapping gears briefly to their defending, the Sabres had absolutely no answers for when a team drove the puck below the goal line and then back into the slot. Why might that have been? Could it be that they never ever faced that situation in practice as the Sabres never did that offensively themselves. Driving the puck below the goal line and passing it back into the slot could lead to a really ugly odd man rush against if that pass misses.
How many times this past season did the Sabres work the puck to the slot, but have a contested opportunity to get a shot off and rather than attempt the shot, they passed it to a teammate who was in an uncontested spot but with a much lower percentage shot available (if ANY shot was available)?
Those decisions aren't on the players. Those are on the coaches. You don't get an entire team's worth of players get to the highest level of their profession but yet not have enough confidence in their shot to actually shoot. Sure, you get a Power who doesn't feel his shot is hard enough to get past an NHL goalie because he's only ~20 and doesn't have full man strength yet, and the team is young so he's not the only one, but you don't get the entire bloody team so afraid to shoot from that high danger region unless it is by design. MHO.
They don't get shots there because they don't go their regularly. That's not simply a coaching problem, it's a player problem too.
16 minutes ago, dudacek said:These for vets are certainly capable of more than they scored last year:
- Tuch: last year 22, average past 2 years 29, career high 36
- Thompson: 29, 38, 47
- Cozens: 18, 25, 31
- Skinner: 24, 30, 40
They need to do so.
History says players rarely peak in the 2nd year. As a group, Quinn, Benson, Krebs and Peterka should be able to improve and need to do so.
Okposo, Girgensons, Olofsson, Jost and Robinson averaged 6 goals per player. They need to be replaced by 5 players who will contribute more.
Is it unreasonable to think they can get 25 more from the 1st group, 20 more from the 2nd and 10 more from the 3rd?
One of these things is not like the others
12 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:A face off win on the PP saves you 20-30 seconds. It matters.
I've charted it on this very board. The correlation between good faceoff teams and winning is almost non existent.
-
1
-
54 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Not sure precisely what you mean by this? Would be interested if you could elaborate.
He battled through some sort of injury that happened as camp opened / right before camp and was (along with Thompson and a few others) pretty bad the 1st 1/2 of the season. He seemed to get healthy around January and he started looking like his old self about then.
His poor start was a significant part of the team's poor start; but as alluded above, not sure that it was part and parcel of immaturity.
Dude was one of the clowns behind the "we won't salute because they booed our coach" trash, which is the exact sort immature shenanigans that a team in the depths of a struggle didn't need. It was a useless distraction that this team fed into and leaned into.
In fact Tuch even talked about it later in the season.
-
1
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Taro T said:
2 seasons ago, there were no better options. Last season, one of Dahlin or Tuch should've had the C and though few here would like this next call (and it would've made for a VERY awkward trade deadline) but Mittelstadt should've had the other A. The team NEEDED to have the younger guys that were top pairing / top liner that others look to to take on that leadership role.
And, in a worst case, we would've found out that Dahlin and Tuch weren't capable in those roles and Adams could at this point be looking for more than just a 2/3W and a 3/4C and possibly shuffling the 4W's. He could be looking to fill a leadership void.
My 2 cents. Ymmv.
Tuch proved to be immature. Imo
Off-season Game Plan 2024
in The Aud Club
Posted