mjd1001

I don't want this team to lose, but I agree with most of what you said. There are just so many people on this board that want to complain. If one of us chooses to be positive, chooses to look at things in a positive matter, its like we become the enemy, like we are stading in the way somehow of heads starting to roll and that just can't happen so shout us down! Those of us who are postive on the direction of the team right now...maybe we are wrong about it and this team will have a change and get better because of it. But then again maybe not. But to all the negative people out there who have made up their minds and are just going to complain about everything...well, we all KNOW they have never been wrong about anything on this forum, right? That must be why they get so offended they feel the need to respond to so many posts some of us make that are positive and not challenging anyone else other than saying things we like about being fans of this team. Look, I THOUGHT this team was going to challenge for a playoff spot and probably get one this season when we were talking about it, but I did not think it was guaranteed at all. They started out bad, but for the last few months (since January 1) I have LIKED watching this team. I think the team Defense has gotten a LOT better. They have a winning record since then. They have hardly had a game they haven't been in late in the game. They have a lot of big wins. So No, I am not happy with the beginning of the season, but I think 3+ months of them playing MUCH better is not a small sample size. I LIKE that direction since then, I think it might be sustainable, and I'm looking forward to the team, in the offseason, supplementing what they have had for the last 3 months. Like the Vancouver game. They lost. They didn't play well. But they were on the road. West coast. 2nd night of a back-to-back. They were within one goa the entire game. Against one of the best teams in the league. After playing a great game the day before. They lost, but guess what, in the big picture, I'm not all that upset about it. Why? To me as a fan its not the end of the world if a team loses a game like that. But the amount of venom, hate, vitriol on this forum during and after that game...thats just not me. My life doesn't revolve around the success of this team, they are entertainment. If I watch a game and they win, I like that. And since the beginning of this calendar year, they have won more than they lost so I like that. I also think with most of this current team, and the current GM/coach, that is likely to continue into next year, and I like the thought of that possibility. If that is offensive to so many people, then too bad, I don't care I'm going to keep posting about it unless/until they get a LOT worse over a long stretch again.

Nope, not at all. It is laughable how much you "don't get it" that it is almost funny that you make a post back to me that way. It is amazing to me that some of us have a differnent opinion and state it, and how many comments back those of us who are optimisitic about this team get like the one you posted...do all of you negative people have such a fragile ego that you need a mental victory lap that bad that you need to make smart comments back instead of actually debating the topic? I guess so. So you are another one just making a point because you want to without regard to reading or understanding my posts. Lots of that going on around here lately. Adams wasn't here for the last 13 years, Neither was Granato, not the players either. RIGHT NOW I am happy with the franchise's direction. What happened 13 years ago has basically zero to do with how they are performing now/their direction now. For an emotional, irrantional fan, I guess it could be. But the decisions being made now don't have much carryover from what happened 13 years ago.

The Hockey 4-nation tournament is now less than a year away. Canada. Sweden. USA. Finland. As with most international tournaments, it appears Canada will be favorites to win. I was just thinking, what are the likely lineups, and who has the best chance of beating Canada? From what I can think of myself and read around the news, it looks like the teams will be mostly: Canada: Forwards: McDavid, MacKinnon, Crosby, Marner, Bedard, Point, Marchand, Barzal, Stone, Reinhart, Thomas, Marchand, Stamkos. Defense: Makar, Morrissey, Toews, Dobson, Bouchard, Dunn Goal: Skinner, Hill. USA: Forwards: Matthews, Tkachuk, Tkachuk, Eichel, J Hughes, Larkin, Tage, Connor, Robertson, JT Miller, Keller, Debrincat, Boeser. Defense: Huges, McAvoy, Fox, Werenski, Trouba, Slavin Goal: Hellebuyck, Demko or Swayman Sweden: Forwards: Backlund, Pettersson, Lindholm, Forsberg, Carlsson, Nylander, Backlund, Bratt, Eriksson Ek, Landeskog, Kempe, Zibanejad, L. Raymond Defense: Hedman, Dahlin, Karlsson, Eckholm, Anderson, Lindholm Goal: Ulmark, Gustavson Finland: Forwards: S Aho, Barkov, Rantanen, Granlund, Hintz, Teravainen, Haula, Tolvanen, Lundell, Kotkaneimi, Lehkonen, Luostarinen Defense: Heiskanen, Lindell, Risto, Jokijarju, Mikkola, Hakanpaa Goal: Saros, Raanta, or UPL Would anyone think any changes would be made from the above? Also, I would rank them Canada #1, USA #2, Sweden #3, Finland #4. What are the odds that anyone knocks off Canada though?

So you are the judge on objectivity? I think this D-unit is highly talented but the youngest in the league by far and I feel they will get better with more expereience. I think Tage is going to bounce back next year, he hurt his wrist, and Matthews had a similar injury and has his production drop about 30% the year he played through it. Since the beginning of the year, it is obvious to me the team is playing a different style in their own zone, in over 30 games they have a winning record and even in their losses, 90% of them have been close. So you may not agree with me, but to say that I dont' have any objectivity at all? That is YOU not being objective. Seeing the team is playing better over the course of almost a half season is being objective. Understanding that a Defensive group who's top 4 is by far the youngest and most inexpereienced in the league and realizing that is being objective. Saying "enough is enough" and just being negative and wanting coahes and GM's fired because you ran out of patience? Not objective, that is more of an "Agenda". I refuse at this point to be that way. Next December, if they are still floundering out of the playoffs, sure I will likely be there then, but not now. I'm choosing to be 'objective' in that I realize the only way to improve is not changing who the players and coaches are, but to understand your existing players and coaches can improve.

I guess I should not have said "literally guarantees" and instead said 'mostly guarantees' as the vast majority of D-men and D-units are better when they are older than what the Sabres unit is. MOST guys have their best years, MOST teams have the best D-unit play when their age/average age isn't under 23 years of age. Still doesn't change my opinion of the team. I LIKE Adams playing the long game. I do not want to do anything too risky to upset that (yeah, I would be open to trading some prospects for a vet, but not just any vet and certainly not many of the names being floated around here). I also am oveall happy with Granato at coach. If there are those around here that just want to be negative about the team, the coach, and the GM I guess that is going to happen. I'm not there.

Yeah, I know that is the prevailing opinion around here, I just don't agree. I don't care if no other team would agree with it, if I think things are going in the correct direction I don't give a you-know-what about what other teams would do. As far as staying the course being acceptance of failure? Yeah, sounds good, but guess what, with the youngest team, staying the course almost LITERALLY means the team is getting better with age and experience.

I'm still fine with Adams and Granato starting next year. I haven't seen much in the past couple months to think a change makes things better right away.

It would appear they are thinking Krebs could take that 3c job...but since the Mitts trade, he is only averaging just over 12 minutes of ice time per game. Not exactly throwing him out there and waiting for him to take that spot. Only Robinson and Jost are getting less ice time than him (and even they are within a few seconds of Krebs). I'm thinking/hoping Thompson is playing through a wrist injury that will be better next year. He had a 'career' year last year, but it wasn't just last year, he had a full year the season before where he was shooting at 15+ percent and scoring at a 40 goal pace. If he gets back to that 40+ goal guy they team is in pretty good shape, I just need to see it.

Dahlin is still growing/learning/getting better. BUT, I think his play gets better and he gets more recoginition if/when he is on a team that is doing a lot better. If the Sabres were to be a 100+ point team next year and fighting for a division title, he may very well get attention as one of the best in the league.

Interesting comparison. It might be true. I think Jackson had a slightly wider 'net' so to speak of fans. I'm not saying Taylor Swift doesn't have fans from all ages, demographics, genders, she does, and maybe she is bigger than Michael Jackson. My memory of him in the 1980's and early 90's was a slight bit more diversity (gender wise) in people who listened to his music.

I can argue what is harder to find both ways. This team (Sabres) spent a LONG time trying to find top Centers...and while you can argue you did have 'decent' #2 or #3 guys, you haven't had a very good one through most of the last 15 years. A top pair D-man, yeah, those are REALLY hard to find. But, you have one in Dahlin, I think you could say you might/should have one eventually in Power. Is Byram overkill in terms of top D-man, and what you might have to pay them when he is up for a new deal? Again, I could argue this either way. Ultimately, I'm happy with the deal. Mostly because in a VERY small sample size, Bryam looks really good here. But also because I think Mitts is a 'good' #2 or #3 center, but I was not as high on him as many on this board and I think a player like Byram has a better chance of being a bigger difference-maker on this roster than Mitts did.

In just over 5 minutes, the Sabes have as many, or more goals than they did in 4 of the previous 5 games vs this team.

Zemgus keeping the puck on the boards to flip to Thompson on Tage's goal, and now in front of the net providing a distraction on Tuch's goal. He's not a long term solution on that line, but he's not dragging it down either.

Ok, beat this team already. 5 games vs them. 0-5 record. Only one of them was close, a 4-3 loss just over a year ago. The rest were blow-outs (or at least borderline blowouts), most recently a 5-2 Loss in January, a 5-1 loss, a 7-4 loss, and another 5-2 loss. So, 5 total games against them. 5 losses. 12 goals scored, 26 goals allowed. I just want to see them beat this team. One positive note...the last 2 times they faced Seattle, they have outshot them 73-48 (but still lost those 2 games by a combined score of 9-5)

Agree with you (partially) on Diggs. I'd be open to the team not losing much if he wasn't here. But your take on members of this forum sticking to Hockey is way, WAY out of line. Many posters here follow the Bills just as much as the Sabres. Just because someone 'likes' hocky more or likes to 'talk' hockey more on this forum, doesn't mean their opinion should be invalidated or put down because its here vs 'over there'.

Yeah, I really don't see that as negative. Different is different. Could be longer practices, could be different structure. different times. Different drills. When you were part of any coaching staff's practice for a few years, or any organization for as long as he is....I dont' know. I think the people reading that deeply into that line WANT to view it as negative to Granato.

I know people just want to take shots at Granato if that is their/your agenda...but reading that article, can someone point out to me the part of it where he takes shots at Granto's coaching as opposed to just general comments that the team didn't make the playoffs in his tenure here? I don't see it.

Its Dahlin for me right now. Bryam has such asmall sample size as other have said. Lets see how he fits into this team, lets see what happens as he gets 22-24 minutes game after game after game. Maybe he will be great. He has been great in a very small sample size, but I also haven't really seen enough of him in his own end to know. Dahlin has had some struggles early in the year, but I think he's already a top 20 D-man in this league. In the offensive end he may not be 'elite' at everything, but he is very good at almost everything...skating, shot accuracy, finding open guys, controlling the puck and making others miss him, avoiding hits. Defensively, he can be somewhat physical, scoops up loose pucks and controls them in the D-zone, often makes great exit passes/stretch passes. With a 'better' team around him and one or two less minutes per game, for an entire year, he's getting Norris consideration.

Not sure, but doesn't that number go down quite a bit if they trade him after June 1?

It was only the first 6 games where he didn't play. Since game 7, he has started 39 of 67 games (almost 60 percent basically being the starter since then). And as far as those first 6 games, UPL wasn't playing well in the beginning of the year. Even after he was installed as the De-facto starter in late October getting the majority of the work, he had a GAA of 3.13 and save percentage of .892 through the end of the calendar year. Maybe he was battling a nagging injury, maybe the team in front of the Sabres goaltenders was playing awful Defense...but I don't think he would have made an appreciable difference in the standings if he played those first 6 games. After he did take over, he played 7 of the next 9 games, winning 3, losing 4 and having a GAA of over 3 in those starts. He, and/or the team, wasn't playing well at the beginning of the year.

After 67 games, the Sabres have 69 points this season. Last year after 67 games, they had 72 points. Last year starting at game 68, the Sabres went on a 3 game losing streak, losing those 3 games by a total score of 19-5. IF the Sabres get 3 points in the next 3 games, they will have the exact same number of points after 70 game as they did last year (and actually be better in terms of tie-breakers due to more regulation wins) Last season, the Sabres got 19 points in the final 12 games. They are now also a positive in goal differential. The last time an eastern conference team finished with a positive goal differential and did NOT make the playoffs (pre-covid, traditional playoff format) was in the 2018-2019 season.

Clifton gets Lee off the ice, their 5th best scorer, I guess thats a good trade.

Alex Nylander, 6 goals in 10 games for Columbus after scoring again tonight.

Not to say it was Okposo's fault, but when he was with the Islanders, they weren't a really good team overall for the first part of his career. Also, the Islanders were not the 'play team defense and shut down the opponents' back then they way they are now. Basically, he NEVER was part of/learned a 2-way game with them, and he certainly didn't learn it with the Sabres.

For the season.... Period 1: Opponents outscore the Sabres 78-50 Period 2: Sabres outscore opponents 67-60 Period 3: Sabres outscore opponents 76-55 Either it is the fault of coaches they start so slow because they don't have the team ready...or it is credit to the coaches for making adjustments as the game goes on to make them better at the end.