DarthEbriate

Listless, disengaged, and no push back. Then, late in the third they started hustling a bit more, but were ineffective with passes, puck retrievals, etc. Skating 6-5, the Caps played keep away in the Sabres end... they just didn't care

Olofsson beats Wilson on the boards, beats Vanecek in the net. That was an effort play and a finesse play. He's our entire offense.

If I honor what they fight for... yes. When was the last time we scored 5 on 5?

I might go watch a prequel Star War.

Is Eakin-Rieder-Okposo is our best 5 on 5 line this season?

Nice backhand from Miller on the blue line. I... guess that was a shot.

Whoa. Wilson forgot he has a stick and just recently scored a goal.

List...less. No response to the SHG, either.

Impressive. Most impressive.

We're so listless.

Gah. Joker couldn't get enough power on his stick reaching to clear compared to Backstrom right on top of it.

Thanks, Ullmark!

Widen the nets! More Sabres goals!

Rein - no.

I mean --- thanks in that you'll provide updates in the Amerks thread. Not necessarily in that you're choosing not to watch. But --- you may find your evening much more joyous for that choice.

More contact is better, but as the league and lower levels push for safety we'll see less physicality/contact. The other issue is loss of chaos. Defensive play is so well-coached with video study and the players are so quick and big is they fill up that space so quickly. The maddening thing about Risto up until last season was how often he'd go wandering off chasing someone. Pass. Goal. If the space is even further condensed the defense will be able to threaten while still collapsing -- less chance of wandering, fewer pucks getting through and less likelihood of finding passing lanes and skaters who can drive the puck into the mess. Although -- there might be more turnovers and odd-man breaks the other way instead. Pad size definitely needs to shrink a bit. But again, they'll fall back on player safety. Goalies do need full coverage not just for the puck, but for sticks, blades, rushes into their goal, d-men pushing forwards onto them from in front and behind, etc. And there's the size thing: a 6'7" goalie needs slightly longer pads than a 6'0" goalie so they can both move in the same manner and cover the same extent of their body --- and the goalies will quickly adapt how to use any size gear. I think an inch or two size increase in the net would allow goalies to feel plenty protected by their (smaller) pads, and challenge them to be more athletic and desperate and less schooled. They'll still play the percentages and get big and butterfly --- but that will still leave more net exposed.

Nice. Montour moving to the left side and Borgen on the ice. Thanks, @Brawndo! And Irwin as #7.

"You're all clear Sabres, now let's blow this thing and go home!" The Sabres skater elects not to shoot the puck. Caps win. End film.

Fun article. And it's nice to hear it from a goalie. Ways to make the game more entertaining? 1) unrelated to ice size: make each game worth 3 points. 3 to win, 2 to win in OT, 1 to lose in OT, 0 to lose in regulation. OT is continuous 3 on 3, no shootout. GMs and coaches whose jobs are buoyed by false .500 records are happy for loser points. Get the incentive to win, not to get to OT. 2) shrink the neutral zone and extend the goal out from the boards. I would keep offsides as a call lest you have a forward just parked full-time between the o-zone faceoff dots waiting for a bomb pass. That'd be like lacrosse forwards and... that's boring if your team stinks. This does pose a problem with the bench spanning the blue line even more than today and the whole "d-man waiting step off the ice is now offsides" when the puck gets turned around quickly. But that could be managed. One way would be to put the benches on opposing sides/ends of the ice and splitting the penalty boxes to opposing sides as well. That would also be messy. 3) Dryden mentions how basketball created the 3-point shot. I don't like the idea of a 2-goal shot in hockey... because there isn't that vertical aspect that there is in basketball. Keep the plane at the current level. But wow -- think of how space might open up if a screened shot that managed to get through from the point without being deflected by an offensive player would be worth 2 goals. Insanity. 4) But, like Dryden, I am good with increasing the size of the nets. Hockey purists be darned. The goalies are so big, so well coached, and their equipment so well-designed... make them cover just a bit more ice and vertical space. Just think how many posts/crossbars are in a game now. 3-4 per game? Some will still bounce away, but what if 2-3 of those go in each game? Think back before the COVID break... there was a game where... Hall? Skinner? had two in just the span of minutes. And then we had another later on. Even the Sabres would score more. And that might mean defenders stepping out just a bit, which opens pressures to the slot. Don't worry! We'd still be a bad team, because the opposition would also get an extra goal per game. But there'd be more of a threat to score. And the best goalies would still be the best goalies. And some of the littler more athletic guys would still be great (relatively), too. Edit: I forgot to mention. The nets don't have to drastically change to make a difference. 4'2" by 6'2" would probably result in an extra goal or two per game.

I dunno. If you're an opposing fan you love to see it when your third or fourth line cycles the puck against the Eichel line. It usually ends with your team scoring a goal and the Sabres folding. Whereas when we cycle the puck (was it last game?) for a minute, then change lines to the Eichel line with the puck still in the attacking zone... it ends with 0 SOG and an offsides whistle, against us.

Any Eichel trade is going to be primarily built on salary and cap hit. The other team has to give us back anywhere from $5-10M in salary and that limits the picks. Just like GMs don't ever offer up 4 1sts with a max RFA offer (well, not since Vanek), they're not going to trade just future cheap contracts for Eichel. More of a: really good NHL player, top prospect, a washed up NHL player strictly for salary purposes, and a 1st and 2nd, with Buffalo sending some picks for balance. PLD (disgruntled 1 year, then RFA) netted Laine (disgruntled RFA now) and Roslovic (local kid and not gruntled), plus Laine had salary retention. Only a few picks were involved.

Absolutely it's not all on PLF. The owners are entirely culpable. My speculation is simply that if he and they had stuck it out longer and worked together through an entire season and part of an offseason so they're gaining each other's trust, maybe the Pegulas see the value in his position/role, rather than simply not having it once he leaves. Instead it was 3 months, all within a season where the on-ice product was in the midst of a planned tank. Weird analogy: It's like PLF signing on as the pilot of the Sabres plane and yeah, it's a horrible flight and choppy and the pay is bad and everyone's miserable. But PLF was the pilot. At least land the plane and then get out and say "no thanks" to the return flight. Instead he grabbed a parachute and jump out midflight. We've (we're sitting in the very back in middle seats as fans) been in a tailspin ever since. In this weird analogy, the owners are either ground control in the tower or simply the owners of the airline.

Perhaps. But PLF also quit the Islanders as an advisor to the owner after a really short stint. If instead he'd stuck it out for a while, and built enduring trust (GM Sheevyn-style) with the Pegulas, they wouldn't have then soured on a president-level role as the buffer and translator and between them and a GM or coach. By quitting, he sowed distrust and discord. Right now, Adams is this president-level/advisor role, but he's also the GM, which becomes a serious problem if he proves inept at roster construction.

Maybe we've learned the lesson of having the high ground... meaning the high ground of moral victories. Not the high ground in the standings.

When we last played Washington we were but the learners... now we are the masters. (of something)