LTS

I'll say this. Nashville has the 80's NHL schtick down. I'll even give them early 90's. Also, the Sabres don't win with 44 in the lineup and that Carubba Collision sucked. I've seen harder hits from a 75lb junky.

He didn't even try to play the puck. Bio way you get that call.

That was so weak. Typical Lehner weak sauce. He needs to fix that part of his game.

He scored and I immediately thought of this thread and how awesome it would be for one fan in attendance.

Sounds about right. A few weeks ago we played a game in Buffalo and afterward we ate lunch with a parent from the other team. His niece is Jack's girlfriend. Anyway, he said that for Thanksgiving Jack comes over and he spends more time in the basement playing with the kids than he does hanging around with the adults upstairs. He's done this at every family get together he's been at apparently. He loves kids. This is just absolutely awesome that you had this all come together. So cool.

Against the Avs? Not as impressive... But seriously.. well done. That is impressive.

So is the game in Virginesee or Tenneginia? It's all I really care about.

It's getting real around here. A lot of junior development programs popping up. The scary thought for me... that showcase discusses 2001-2003. My kid if 2004... it happens so fast. And no, I don't suspect he will be in that showcase. He's got a lot to improve upon.. but still... time.

He should have fermented the honey first... just saying. :)

Yep. I had it as a kid. I was turning 4 a few days after it hit. I remember playing in the snowfall in the apartment complex we lived in. I remember being pulled on a sled by my dad through the woods behind our apartment complex across the the grocery store when it was finally able to open. I remember large tunnels people had carved out (precisely because the snow was so hard). Don't remember much more than that.

Yea.. kind of like the Sabres and yet a lot of people think they should be better after missing ROR, Kane, and Eichel for many games. :) See, I'm not even sure why you were put off by my message so much to respond like this. I didn't say you can't be negative. I said it sounded like you were being negative just to be that way and that you were dismissing the counter-argument to your claim that Lehner was out of position rather than discuss it. You kept on about how he was out of position when others were providing explanations on why he was that far over. Instead of responding with a rebuttal you reverted to "He overcommitted". I am begin negative on Kane. I am up for discussing it should there need to be discussion but no one has questioned his positioning as being incorrect. Why is it unreal that someone may attempt to refute your initial statement? If you want to stimulate conversation stop being offended that people are questioning you and engage with a rebuttal that furthers the conversation.

That's how I saw it. The puck coming down at Fedun's feet means that the two players are allowed to jostle for position and Larkin did so just before or as the puck landed. When the puck landed it moved away from Fedun and Fedun shoved Larkin and boom.. you get 2 minutes for interference. I think anyone wanting Larkin to get 2 for shoving Fedun back is just upset at the penalty call. It was nothing.

It's almost as if losing a star player is enough to make a team not be as good as it could have been and fall to the basement.... despite all the talent the Lightning have. I've no problem with you wanting to find the negatives but I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that Lehner was out of position. He was forced to commit to the original shooter and had he not then the more likely outcome of that play is that there is no pass and instead it's a goal. The glaring issue is that Evander Kane is standing IN the crease which clearly indicates he is not where he should be and creates the attack scenario in the first place. So Lehner made a great save. Someone compared it to Hasek who made saves like that routinely and rather than agree you tell people not to compare him to Hasek. Well, that save was Hasek like. It doesn't mean he's as good as him just that he made a great save. At least that's my take of the situation.... you do seem to want to be negative to be negative. It's your choice but at least understand that that's how people are seeing it.

It's fun to read the GDTs after the game just to see all the negativity people have early on when things don't go a certain way and then the Sabres still win. For back to back games I thought they did rather well and they had their opportunities. It wasn't a pretty game but they come away with 2 points and find a way to win using a few different players (Franson, Bogosian). I'll take it. All-star break is coming up.. Ristolainen will get his rest.

And as I pointed out.. show me another team that is missing 30% of its offense for a good amount of games and I suspect they are struggling just as much. You show me a team that lost 3 bottom 6 forwards and I think they'll be doing just fine. You can give whatever weight you want to anything. But if you want convince anyone of your point its probably not best to ignore that for nearly 25% of the season the team was playing without 30% of its offense. If the Sabres were lucky enough to have two RORs or Eichels in their system we wouldn't even be concerned. What teams have that?

I think you are arguing in a vacuum if you dismiss where this team is with or without Jack Eichel and do not also account for the other players missing time. The goal differential of a team with or without one player is only a good example if all the other players were playing at both times. This was clearly not the case. As such, the argument is avoiding key data points that matter. Ryan O'Reilly - 9G 18A - 10 games missed Evander Kane - 12G 5A - 11 games missed Jack Eichel - 10G 9A - 21 games missed The Sabres have 106GF in 45 games this season. Those players represent about 29% of the total goals scored by the team and set up another 30% or so of the teams goals. Now I'm not taking into account where they get A's on each other's goals.. so you can factor it back a bit. That said.. it's hard to argue for any one of those players without accounting for who is also missing. The Sabres are 7 points from the 11/12 overall spot in the NHL. If they were able to score 30% more goals in the games those players missed I'd like to think they'd be in a much better position.

The attitude that ROR displayed on his game tying goal is enough for me. Regardless of the coach these players are going to do what it takes to win and ROR is leading the way. That was as pure a "Hold my beer, I got this." moment as you can get in hockey. I loved it. Turrible officiating not calling Zetterberg for holding ROR's hands there in OT, but the Sabres made it out alive. The only thing I am concerned about with this team right now is their defensive zone coverage and breakout ability. They are too slow in both. Risto is developing a nasty streak that I love. He was all over Zetterberg last night.

I say.. when everyone is tired. Call in the Brute Squad and go Old Tyme Hockey... Line brawls, rack up the minutes, beat them until their whites become their reds... Or you know.. just go score a bunch of goals.

Why do all points get argued in a vacuum? The Sabres have had long term injuries to many of their top players this season. Does anyone deny that having ROR, Eichel, and Kane add a significant punch to the lineup? We can't judge Kulikov's impact yet because he's been injured too much this season. But it's probably safe to say that it's not insignificant. I'd go hunt down man games lost to injury but I hate that stat overall because losing a 4th line player isn't the same impact as missing Eichel, etc. That said, the Sabres have a lot of man games lost to injury and they aren't to their 3/4 line players. I think we need a thread that establishes the base foundation for arguing points on the forum. Take a question and debate it until we have an agreed upon foundation. For example, is Moulson a bust? Well, how much do factor in his presence for helping Eichel develop last year and bringing in Okposo this year? Do you agree that if you remove Moulson from the team you remove his salary (better served by X player that they would have definitely been able to sign) and they would have not signed Okposo either. Would that 1 player make up for Moulson/Okposo? If the Sabres hadn't been able to get Okposo would they have signed Shaw? These are all factors that play into the entirety of the debate. Unless we somehow agree they do not.

I guess it's a good thing I am still getting over this freakin cold... otherwise I am not sure a Friday evening out would not win over watching the Sabres game. (Can't always guarantee there is a TV where I'll be). Looks like I'll be watching. At least for a little bit.

This is a good point. He's a proven leader that can play up and down the top 9. He's a great option for a team looking for a piece to solidify their chances. He has Cup winning experience. I could see that happening and I could see him returning to Buffalo as well.

The drop pass is employed by many teams and the Sabres power play has been in or around the top 10 all season. Honestly not sure what we are complaining about there. The purpose of the drop pass is to get the 4 defenders lined up standing still on the blue line defending the 4 guys standing still. If you attack with speed you can chip by and attack. Of course that never happens because a D has to drop to protect against that and most of the time the guy attacking with speed will see which D drops and go to that point. The idea then is to gain the blue line and dish to the open attacker standing at the blue line where the defender left. If you attack up the ice with 2-3 the defending team can match you man to man and has a greater chance of breaking up the play. The thing about coaching... coaches can improve a team only so much over the base talent level. However, they hinder a team at a rate much lower than their base talent level. If every player were rated on a 1-10 scale with 10 being the highest talent level.. I'd estimate that a great coach at best can raise the play 1-1.5 points of a player where as they can reduce it by as much as the whole amount. Right now, I think Bylsma is reducing the talent output of this team by a 2-2.5 margin.

Go with the last option.

I also misread your post as pads and not pants. Less dubious changing pants than pads... I do remember the pants problem. :) It's been a rough day. The Sabres better not let me down tonight.

Haha... yea.. what a joke. Not too long ago they had a discussion on a high speed rail line. Louise Slaughter was asked how it would fund itself in year 5 and her response was "Let's build it first, then we'll figure that out." Brilliant business sense right there.