mjd1001

22 is really young for a forward. Guys taken in the 5-10 range of the first round sometimes they don't get 'it' until they are 23-25 years old. With that said, Cozens had such a good year last year that its a real disappointment to see this year, espeically with how bad he is in his own zone. And, you are paying him $7m on his new contract to score you 25+ goals per year, I don't think 10-20 goals is going to cut it starting next year.

It's a message board. Isn't that what opinions are for? I have every right to say that I don't like it... Just as you do to respond to my last post which obviously you just did. If me complaining about it gets annoying enough to you, You could just block me... Just as if I get tired of hearing that made up nickname so much, I could block those people. It'll make for a lot less conversation, but oh well.

The point you make about it eventually working is interesting. There might be parts of 'the plan' that make sense, but it just isn't structured that well. I posted some of the below a couple weeks ago: Something to consider as far as team defense goes: Last year Vegas wins the cup, with a very veteran D-group on the blue line. Seattle has surprised many with how good they have been since being in the league, and they did it with a very veteran D-group. This year: Winnipeg 1st in the NHL, average age of their top 4 d-men: 30 years (all of them 28 or older) Vancouver 2nd in the league, average age of their top 4 d-men: 29 years old (Hughes is the youngest at 24, everyone else a lot more experience) Boston 3rd in the league, Average age of top 4 d-men: 28 (no one under 26) Florida 4th in the league: Ave age of top 4: 27.5 (no one under 27) Now how about Buffalo? Ave age of top 4: 22.75. ( ALL of them 24 or under) So maybe the problem isn't development of each individual player, just how they chose to put the roster together and whether there is support for the correct players at the correct time? You can develop your forwards but you BETTER have experienced D behind them. Or if you are developing your D-men you BETTER have experienced forwards in front of them. This team? Neither. The very few Vets they have had are NOT guys who are going to support their teamates with great defensive play (Okposo included), that is for sure.

Maybe a reason that the Bills can't seem to beat the Chiefs in big games is that, when it comes down to it, the Chiefs and Mahomes play better against zone defenses than they do man-to-man, and the Bills/McDermott play primarily a zone. The Bills under McD have always played primarily zone. Of the top 5 teams that play the most zone in the league besides the Bills that KC played this year, Only Chicago is on that list (and Baltimore coming up plays a ton of zone). Historically the Bills have had trouble with Mahomes obviously, and this year against Chicago, KC put up 41, their BEST point total of the season and Mahomes had over a 127 QB rating, his best of the season also. And Chicago wasn't exactly bad, they had 7 wins and overall allowed less points that Detroit, Philly, and the Dolphins (all playoff teams) and if you take out that KC game, they allowed less points per game than also Cleveland and the Rams. On the other side of its, KC vs the teams that play the most man-to-man: The Raider, Pats, and Chargers are among the top 5 teams in Man-to-Man. KC is clearly a better oveall team than all of those, yet they barely got by the Chargers scoring 13 points in their first game (winning the 2nd to a worse team), Lost to the Raiders scoring only 14 in another, and beat the Pats by 10 in a game Mahomes threw 2 ints. Mahomes had 3 total TD's in 2 games vs the Raiders. Yes, Mahomes is good enough that he has good games vs both man and zone teams. However, some evidence exists that, espeically in big games/playoff games, the excels more vs zone teams than he does vs man teams. It may not be that the Bills have a Bad D or that McDermott is a bad coach, or he is always outcoached by Reid...it might be simply he is a Zone coach (no doubt about that) and the chiefs/Mahomes can exploit a zone D much better.

I do, and a couple people who liked my initial post do, and anyone who is responding to this (you)) do also enough to make a comment...so....yeah, there are people.

Agreed, but I just have this feeling watching that even when Tuch and Thompson are playing, they aren't fully healthy.

When it comes to the draft, I'm starting to think it doesn't matter as much as we want until this team puts even more into development. Benson...he's OK, but hes hitting a wall, but he is the on player recently that made the team right away and looked good, but he had minimal time/contact with the Sabres development system. The rest of the high picks....some that look better than others, but no one that is turning this team around. 10 top 10 overall picks in the past 11 years, and how many have turned into legit NHL stars/gamechangers? Eichel won a cup but hasn't lived up to the 'semi-generational' label. Dahlin still has a chance to be elite, but hes not that this year. Reinhart seems to be having a truly NHL impact level season, but years after he left the Sabres and almost a decade after being drafted. I mean, I guess the development isn't truly BAD on this team, but its certainly not good.

UPL is easy enough, and its mostly universally accepted.

Being 'physical' and being 'hard to play against' might or might not be the same thing. When I think of hard to play against, I think of what an opponent would think. What is the type of team they want no part of, the type of team that shows up in your arena and can't wait to get the game over with. A team where they have to 'worry' about being a fight, that isn't what I am thinking of. To me, the hard to play against team is one that give 100% effort ALL time time. Up by 3, down by 3, doesn't matter. No matter the score, a team where as an opposing team I can't take a single shift off or I'm going to be embarrassed. I can't turn my back for a second...I can't coast for a second. A team that can be physical in hitting just as bad as they can be a pest, not letting me ease up chasing a puck at all. I see one player on this team that is like that all the time, and that is Zemgus. Its not the opponent always being afraid of being hit, it can be as simple as everytime the whistle goes after a puck over the glass or icing, they turn around and an opposing play is 3 feet away from them or less. I don't need them to pick up the hitting, I NEED them to just be relentless, no matter the score. I don't want an opposing team to think that if that team gets up by 3 goals that its going to be a fun/easy night.

Well, if Tage is/was a 45+ goal scorer like last year, the Sabres had the bargain of the century. If what he is...is a guy that CAN give you 40, but will also have years where he is up and down like this year and gives you 30....then you are still getting what you are paying for.

I'm actually good with Dunleavey. Is he great and memorable? No, but I have gotten used to him. I'm being honest, RJ to me was pretty bad his last year or so, he was behind the play a lot and made mistakes. Dunleavey is not as good as Peak RJ, but I'm find with him now.

Martin played because they did not want a different holder for Bass (how did that work out?) As far as Miller, I agree with you that I wish he could be gone. But his contract is close to 100% guaranteed (or something close to it). You'd have a better chance of moving on from Diggs (post June 1st cut) than you would from Miller. Miller, however, I though had his first DECENT game of the year last week.

I just don't understand why we are using nicknames for players that are made up...when that player already has one....and the first time or two I saw it used on this forum I didn't even know who they were talking about.

"6k" two times in your response? Now you are just intentionally trying to work it in. I do agree that he likely will get at least $2.8-$3m per year, unless his play really really suffers for the rest of the season.

UPL was drafted in the 2nd round in 2017....so..I thought I'd look up what other goalies were drafted in the year or two before him (that might be on their 2nd contract now), how successful they have been and what they got paid at a similar point in their career: -Connor Ingram (3rd rounder, 2016). Waiver pickup. 3 yr, $5.85m contract. (1.95 per year) 7 career wins upon signing -Philp Gustavsson (2nd rounder, 2016). 3 yr, $11.25m contract. (3.75 per year) 32 wins upon signing -Carter Hart (2nd round, 2016). 3 yr, $11.9m contract. (3.97 per year) 49 career wins upon signing -MacKenzie Blackwood (2nd round, 2015). 3 yr, $8.4m contact (2.8 per year) 24 career wins upon signing -Ilya Samsonov (late 1st round, 2015). 1yr, $3.5m contact. (3.5 per year) 79 career wins upon signing All had some NHL experience before signing those deals. Various degrees of success...overall stats in many cases slightly better than UPL, but UPL may be playing better now (if he keeps it up) than some of them did. Add inflation/the cap rising since those deals were signed, I think the price for UPL is going to be in the $2.5-$3m per year (possibly more depending on length) if you want him for 2-3 years. Is he worth it? maybe, but if he keeps playing solid for the rest of the year, that just IS the going price for goalies of his age/draft status/experience. No way you are getting him for $2m per year...$1.75m per year...as some are suggesting. That is just not the going rate. UPL has 31 career wins now, likely to be in the 40's by the end of this year when you have to think of re-signing him.

I'm hoping he will be fine. But, what is 'fine' Is it close to 50 goals like last year? Close to 40 goals like the year before? 45 goals per year which would be averaging his last 2 years? If last year was a career year do we totally throw it out and look at the previous year? If we do, he is still WAY off that pace. And if that is what he is fine....but.....the team being where it is now is in large part because of his dropoff in scoring. Compared to last year, this team is allowing LESS goals, it is the scoring that the issue is. Tage and Cozens combined account for about 70% of what is missing from last year. So, what Thompson should we expect and what is 'fine' for him? And as he goes, so does this team.

Back to what we thought they would be...except Cozens off of 'his' line and swapped with Mitts. Wonder for the reason instead of trying to put him with his linemates from last year to get him going long term.

I'm not all that upset today about the Bills game because, as I have stated many times, I'm not sure why but I'm not connected to the Bills/NFL as I used to be, especially in the last few years. However, seeing this is a forum I have a few opinions. -They don't have the best coach, they don't have the best WR's. Bass had a bad year. A lot of issues, but NO team has the best of everything. You just can't. Luck had a lot to do with them losing. For me, that is primarily injury luck. It was just too much of a lift to keep playing with the defensive devasted they way they are, and they still held the game close. -WR is an issue but not un-fixable. Diggs is done as a game changing WR. I wish the Bills could get out of his deal but they can't. Now, could he have a bounce-back year and put up 100 catches next year? maybe, but it would be more because he is still 'decent-to-good' and Allen decides to just feed him the ball rather than he is great anymore. -Von Miller. Wow, do I wish they could get out of his deal. I'm just hoping he will have an offseason and maybe come back a bit better next year, but I think the days of him being worth what you are paying him are LONG, LONG gone. -Tre White. When will he be back? When/if he comes back how good will he be? Can you move on from him if you must for cap reasons? From what I heard, those 3 guys combine for almost $70 million in cap hit next year, and not much you can do about it. Miller you can't even cut. Digg and White...there might be some longer term savings (short term hit) if you cut them post June 1. I'd consider it with those 2. With that said, I hope the Bills don't do a bunch of restructures to push the cap problems farther to the future. You probably have to run Diggs and Miller back out there as they are not movable, but take next year to take that half-step back, evaluate, load up on some younger guys. Basically, don't go 'all in', try to set yourself up for the next few years after. It won't be a wasted year, this team Still has Allen, likely the entire OL, Kincade, Shakir, Cook, hopefully a higher draft pick WR....the offense will still be fine. As far as the Defense goes? Some players not returning there, but honestly, even if you don't bring back the vets and cut some dollars there, is the 'healthy, scaled back Defense' you start the year with next year going to be worse than what you ended up playing with at the end of the year? Make some tough choices to get rid of higher priced pieces where you must, but even with that you can still be 'good enough' to contend for the playoffs. Roll the dice with the young guys next year and set things up for time after that.

Diggs had some good games, but overall, start to end of year, he just seemed like he was way off from previous years. Not sure if it is age or something else, but most of the time he just doesn't look like anything really special...certainly not in the converstaion for a top 10 WR in the league in my opinion.

He's a free agent at the end of the year (restricted). We have a Mitts next contract thread, but at least for the last few weeks UPL has probably been more important to this team than Mitts. Does anyone want to lock him up long term? Short term deal (if he will take it) to 'bridge' until Levi is ready to take over? What does UPL want or Demand? Since the Calendar turned to 2024, he is 4w-2L, a .955 save percentage, 2 shutouts, and about a 1.18 gaa (small sample size but it is a few weeks)

Goaltending is a bit better this year. Defensemen, while not 'good' are slightly better than last year. Forwards are just as bad as they ever have been in their own zone,I still have yet to see improvment there. As far as scoring, most of the drop in scoring this year is due to missed games and just dropoff in performance from Tage and Cozens this year compared to last year. Based on their goals per game, this year if they would be at last years level, you would have 45 goals between them. This year you have 22. That is a 23 goal shortfall. You are currently 32 goals behind last years pace. The dropoff in goals per game nets you 72% of the teams total shortfall just between those 2 guys.

I agree for the most part. On one hand, I could see some value of looking deeper into the numbers...generating a metric that shows you more than what the naked eye will show you, or would basic stats can show you so I get that. At the same time, a lot of people who like these stats, Totally disregard other stats like... Pure goal scoring or plus-minus. I know plus minus is flawed individually, but when you use it in conjunction with other available stats it still can be a tool. I like some of the fancy stats... But I agree with you that there are some people who use them as 100% of the basis for their argument... And when somebody throws out a bunch of the fancy stats and uses that and says that proves their point... It usually just gets an eye roll from me.

Me too. It's not like they can't call him back up in a day or two or a week or two depending on the amount of game time he gets down there.

Move makes sense. You're keeping both of your potential backups with some in-game work. I posted here because I refuse to post about UPL in a thread where the title has "6k" in it. The only thing worse than that nickname is having a member of this forum be the one who's pushing for it because he came up with it himself.