mjd1001

When using the advanced analytics, you can look at it other ways also....that he performs BEST with middle-of-the Roster players or below (he 'brings their game up), and with Top of the roster players, those guys defensive production/goals allowed get worse (sometimes considerably) with Benson. -Tage with Benson on his line was a +1 goal differential (goal allowed every 18.38 minutes). Tage without Benson was a +9. (goal allowed every 20.58 minutes) -Tuch (in only a bit over 100 minutes with Benson) was a -1 differential (goal allowed every 14.79). Tuch without Benson was a +13. (goal allowed every 27.36 minutes, HUGE difference) -Peterka was a -4 in only 63 minutes with Benson (goal allowed every 7.35 minutes). Without Benson he was a +15 (goal allowed every 19.42 minutes) On the other hand: -Krebs with Benson was a +4 (goal allowed every 31.33 minutes, those numbers are great), without Benson was a +1 in more minutes. (goal allowed every 25.89 minutes) -Jack Quinn was a +3 with Benson (goal allowed every 43.4 minutes, great numbers again), without Benson he was a -10 without him (goal allowed every 16.87 minutes) When digging into that part of the analytics....Benson defensively works best with middle-to-bottom forwards, not the top line guys. Why? I don't know, it could be a statistical garbage...but that numbers are the numbers. https://www.naturalstattrick.com/linestats.php?fromseason=20242025&thruseason=20242025&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&rate=n&team=BUF&vteam=ALL&view=wowy&loc=B&gpfilt=none&fd=2024-10-04&td=2025-04-17&tgp=2000&strict=incl&p1=8484145&p2=8482097&p3=0&p4=0&p5=0

Why does it have to be one way or the other? Why does everyone have to look at the current situation and plant their flag on either? It's mostly or all youth or mostly or all veterans? I always want to have a somewhat young team, but I understand there's times to strategically add veterans even if that means giving up some prospects. Personally, even if you're on the verge of winning a cup, I don't want to strip the system bare to take shots at veterans to try to get you over the top... On the other hand, even in the most extreme rebuild, I think you need to have some veterans. I'm guessing everyone on this board is probably not to the extremes... But the way that some people are presenting their arguments... It seems like you have to be on one side or the other or you get a thumbs down.

I'm still going Marner (although I'd droppint out of the cost is $15m per year). At this point in his career, I don't think Knies is a 'game changer' unless he is slotted perfectly with other players. I don't want to pay someone that much money unless they can carry a line (even if its a 2nd line, I don't think he 'carries' it)

I don't like Knies as much. I really think his production is a result of being on a top line...he doesn't make a top line. Meaning I think Marner can elevate other lesser players you put with him, I think Knies is the one elevated by those around him.

Ok, let me start out by saying I do not think Saumelsson is currently worth his contract. But going forward, its under 5% of the cap, he may not be worth it but that is not al albatross of a contract. Its going to be under 5% of the cap, probably by the midway point of it 4% of the cap. Can his play/career be saved? I know he can't stay healthy, but I thought as the year went on he played better, and in fact had a few pretty good games in the last month. If you can get 60 games out of him on average, he IS a pretty decent penalty killer because of his size/reach and how much area he can cover while playing his spot....and if his play can maintain the level it did toward the end of the season, or even improve slightly...well, I just don't think it should be a priority to get rid of him just because of his contract.

I'm somewhat there with you, at least for how good he is right now, I'm not as high on his game currently as some are on this board, but I think he has time to develop into a top 6 guy, but I think he needs more 'finish'. I'll feel better about his development if next season he plays a full season, gets at least 160-180 shots, and shoots 10% or over. I think those are reasonable goals for him to have to show he will eventually be a legit 2-way top 6 guy.

I can't vote, none of the choices are close to how I think. To me, it would be something like "he is a solid 3rd liner now that can fill in temporarily on a higher line, but needs to show more offensive 'finish' to make that permanent leap."

The "plus' in that would have to be something even more valuable than Pettersson. Jack Hughes also has injury issues, but when he is healthy I think he is a better player than Pettersson, certainly one that is more of a 'game changer'. And asking for his brother also? That is a heavy lift.

He looks like he plays hard. His metrics/analytics are mostly really good. Just needs to be a lot more actual production to back up that potential. He's played 2 seasons now, and is shooting under 10%, a sniper he isn't. Does he have to be? No, but if he is going to be an eventual fixture on the top 6, I want/need him taking closer to 200 shots per year instead of 100, and he has to convert on at least a BIT over 10% of them. In terms of scoring chances, the numbers are 'kinda close', but with Tage on the ice vs not on the ice with Benson: Tage's number of scoring chances per minute are higher without Benson than they are with him. Their OVERALL numbers (including defensive metrics) are better with Benson, but he still needs to develop a bit more of his offensive game to get more ice time to me. He is still very young so those issues above can easily change. But until they do, he's more of a 13-14.5 minutes per game guy (which is 3rd line minutes) than anything more than that.

I think there is an above average chance there is 'below average' movement in the franchise...the front office..the roster...everything...over the time until next season starts. If that happens, without much 'new' to talk about, and with most of us posters with our own beliefs well established, this may become a pretty quiet place over the next few months.

A rebuild/retool has to be done the right way, but Boston is going to have a shot at it where they can turn things around quickly. I don't think its a coincidence they totally fell apart once McAvoy was out..he is back next year...and him and Pastrnak are still in the primes of their careers. They have a high first rounder this year (probably top 5), 2 firsts next year, and probably most importantly, they have a lot of guys up on their contracts next year. Pastrnak, Lindholm, Mitts, and Zacha are the ONLY forwards getting paid over $1.5m per year that are under contract, so they have a chance to reshape the team while still keeping their 'core'. If they execute their retool/rebuild like the Sabres it'll be bad. But if they make some good choice, they can turn this around REALLY quick.

Of course, unless one of the 'out of shape' guys was UPL and he was really, REALLY bad with it. And who were the players who came in 'out of shape' and it hurt the team early on? -Tage had 10 goals in his first 15 games and was a +6. Doesn't seem like he was dragging out there. -Dahlin was playing through an injury in the first few games, but once he worked through that, he had 13 points in 14 games in November and was a positive player also. -Peterka had 7 goals in his first 15 games. -Tuch had 4 goals and 12 points in his first 15. A SLIGHTLY slow start from him, but I don't think he looked slow out there or lacking effort. -Zucker or Greenway? Aren't those the 2 veteran guys that know better? -Mcleod had 4 goals in his first 15 games. He wasn't getting much ice time early in the year, was the because he was one of the guys 'out of shape'? He just came from the team that was in the cup finals. Through Thanksgiving the first month and a half of the season, this team had a winning record, they were in a playoff spot, They had 23 points in 21 games, a 90 point pace. If they were out of shape, why did they start the season 'relatively' good and then fall part NOT at the beginning of the season, but 2 months into it? I mean, you lost 5 of your first 6, but that was only 6 games and you recovered from that, things got bad much later. I'm not saying for sure they weren't out of shape, but I'm not 100% buying it...I think its more of an excuse to throw out there. And another thing, why the heck am I up at 4:30 in the morning posting this?

I'm not sure why that would get Pegula or Adams upset?

I still think the "palm trees and taxes" thing is code for "We don't want to spend that much money to attract guys". If you are already good, or if you pay up, players will play where there is high taxes and no palm trees (See the Rangers the last few years before this year, or Winnipeg now, or the Bills for that matter"

I do. Sports for some of us is not always rooting for the playoffs. Some of us can have fun watching an individual game, rooting for an individual player we like to reach a milestone or to have some kind of achievement. So to answer the question you asked, not everyone, but a lot of us do.

Some people just watch sports for different reasons, and don't take it as seriously as others. It has nothing to do with the Stockholm syndrome. As a matter of fact, I would say that those who use that term as you have above are doing so to try not to be victims of it themselves. To those of us who view each game as entertainment, there isn't much more to it than that. There are no REAL victims here...we all have the option to not go to games, to not buy the merchandise, to not watch the games on TV. But there are some people that actually do enjoy it because they don't take it too seriously.

A few of us have been saying this is kinda how we are 'getting' through the season....for me thinking of why I liked the games as a kid. You want them to make the playoffs of course, and even as a kid I was watching the standing and thinking a bit about the playoffs. But, it was much, MUCH more entertainment on a nightly basis. There is a game tonight! I want to see goals! You might or might not be aware of the front office/coaching staff, but sometimes you weren't and if you were, you didn't care. The team won 36 games, that is 36 times you felt good at the end of the night. The last team to make the playoffs won 40 games. They got that 'winning feeling' less than 1 time per month more than you did. I don't think there is any fan that doesn't care at all about the playoffs...but there are some fans that just want to see hockey and 'hope' their team wins...nothing more.

So, now its the playoffs for Cozens, something he obviously never got here. He has a chance to show if he is a 'playoff' guy or not. As far as the regular season, with 20 games with Ottawa...he basically was close to the same guy he was here. With Ottawa: -20 games, 4 goals, 9 assists, -4, 8.7% shooting (82 game pace: 16 goals, 37 assists, -16) -His advanced stats slightly negative. 50 being equal: Corsi 44.0, Fenwick 44.8, Shots 46.7, Goals for/against 44.0, Scoring chances 41.6, High danger chances 43.8 Link here: https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerteams.php?fromseason=20242025&thruseason=20242025&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&stdoi=oi&rate=n&team=OTT&pos=C&loc=B&toi=0&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=410&lines=single&draftteam=ALL David Perron was Cozens linemate he spent the most time with since the trade (almost 180 minutes). Cozens brought Perrons analytics way down compared to before Cozens was there. With Cozens, Perrons Corsi went down almost 8 points, his fenwick down almost 8 points, shots for vs against down 5.5, scoring chances down 5.5, high danger chances even. Again, its no mystery that I personally wanted Cozens gone. But, again, playoffs for him. A couple well timed goals and an upset over the Leafs and he may be viewed as a different player.

I don't think Pegula wants to give up any level of involvement, decision making, contact, etc with the team. If, IF they hired a President of Hockey operations, I don't think Pegula does anything differently. I think it would just be one more person included with everyone else, between him and the on ice players. And by 'between' I don't mean it would distance him from anything. I think there is the "on ice product", then a "group of 6-8 guys" in the front office, and then Pegula. The only think would change would be that group/pool of 6-8 now becomes a group/pool of 7-9.

I just don't see Bernard-Docker as anything good. Maybe he can still develop? I know some on this board like that he plays a bit physical, but I just don't (yet) see him as anything other than a borderline NHL D-man. I still like the trade. For Ottawa, I saw a fan characterize the deal in a way that might be true for them (the Senators). A healthy Norris is better than Cozens, but a healthy Cozens is better than an often injured Norris. For the Sabres, I'm just glad, regardless of the return, the minutes Cozens was getting are going to other players. Kulich getting minutes in place of Cozens (with some extra minutes going to Krebs and McLeod), is just fine. My personal opinion is the Sabres are slightly better with those 3 guys getting more minute and not having Cozens take minutes away from them at all. As for Norris? I'm hopeful he is going to be a major part of this team. For the contract, he needs to be.

Ready to give up on them no. There is not much they can or can't do, change or not change....there is no 'line in the sand' for me. However, I posted this about a week ago, something hit me then. I just didn't feel like watching anymore, I didn't care if they won, or lost. If they drafted 10th or 6th. For the last 7-10 days, I'm feeling very little about this team. And...that is new for me. I didn't feel that way through the losing streak, through last year, or the year before..or even most of this year. Don't know what it is...just, whatever happens, happens. I'm looking forward to the matchups in the playoffs. The Sabres just don't matter to the league, and at this moment not to me. The thing that gets me thinking is...this is what happened to me with Football and the Bills. Had Bills season tickets for years and years starting when I was a teenager. Never missed a game. Memorized the rosters...all that stuff. Even through the Bills drought I followed them a 'tad' less, but I was always there. 2-3 years ago, when the started making the playoffs with Allen being great...I just stopped caring. No idea why Now I barely watch half the games and if I hear Bills talk on the radio I'm usually switching the channel. No idea why it happened, it just did.

I would say they are very close, but I'd put McLeod as slightly faster actually. Using available data, If you go over their careers, in terms of absolute top speed, McLeod wins (23.83 to 23.76). If you also look at how many 'speed bursts" over 20 mph per game played, McLeod wins there too over the last 3 years: 2.86 per game for Norris, 3.77 per game for Mcleod.

I'm likely watching tonight, my wife is working tonight. But I'm feeling something the last week with the Sabres I have never felt before with them, something that hit me with the Bills 4 or 5 years ago. For the first time, I really don't care. It actually hit me during the win over Carolina last week, I kinda just stopped watching the game toward the end. I had the rest of the games on over the past week, but I felt less for the last few games than for any regular season game I can remember. I cared more during the losing streak this year, cared more for pretty much every game the last 5 years. Its probably temporary, but even during a win, something hit me and its like I lost interest. If I watch tonight...win, lose, overtime, blowout either way...I just feel it matters 99% less to me than it did even a week ago.

I'm going back and forth on both of them in my mind....but right now, this very moment, I might rather have Samuelsson as a 3rd pair guy with him on the PK all the time....rather than having Byram getting paid more in a new contract being a 1st/2nd pair guy. If I had to choose between those 2 choices.

Isn't El Salvador in North America?