mjd1001

They sure are. Got up and wanted to watch the F1 practice from Monza and no Espn. Or espn2, O or FX, or about a dozen other channels owned by disney. For me they have until 7am Sunday morning to get this fixed, or else we are canceling. I don't really need to resubscribe to the ESPN/Hulu Bundle either, we just dropped that after the price increases last month. I'll live without ESPN. I'm not a big fan of college football, so the games I do watch I'll watch over the air. Wife and I talk about this often. 95% of what we watch is done on a streaming network. And as the prices go up, we just rotate which ones we subscribe to. The vast majority of the content we want we can 'pick and choose' and not get cable. Even news now and highlights from most sports we can find online or a streaming option.

I looked two pages deep on the thread listing until I found it and it definitely was locked when I checked today.

Interesting point. While I think 'entertainment' at a game helps, it can be overdone. I want some highlights on the scoreboard. I want some music between periods. The songs between faceoffs can be fun. Would LOVE gathering areas between periods or more activity in the Arena between periods...etc, etc. All that stuff is good. But it CAN be overdone. Volume shouldn't be so high that you can't talk to the person next to you, and having a few minutes of 'down time' of noise coming from the speaker can be good. Entertainment outside of the game is good. But please, don't feel the need that you need to blast something out of the speakers if you have so much as 60 seconds of down-time.

Right now I would put Ottawa a tiny bit ahead of the Sabres, with Detroit 3rd. Of course I'm hoping the Sabres are better than Ottawa, but I can see Ottawa as having a similar year this year to what NJ did last year. Long term I would swap Buffalo and Ottawa (I think the Sabres ceiling of the current roster is a bit ahead of Ottawa) but Detroit is still 3rd long term. Detroit is built to win now, they have a lot of vets on the Roster. Debrincat will help, so they should compete for the playoffs but just don't have much high end to compete with the best of the best teams in the playoffs. Detroit won't be bad, but I just don't see the amount of young talent there as Ott and Buf have. I could engage in a seperate thread about Detroit, I just think they are so overrated long term. They have enough vets now that they might be a good team and their 'floor' isn't that low, they will be competitve just about every night, but I don't see the upside? Raymond did not take the step forward people were expecting. Seider MIGHT be an all star D-man eventually but he is no-where near that yet. Edvinsson and Kasper aren't even ready to make the team, and they are good prospects but probably won't be elite. They really have nothing else in the system that looks to be impact players.

Its hard to sometimes say what we mean when using words in the forum. I am guilty of thinking I am getting a point across when maybe I'm not. Maybe I should have started with "The Sabres have more potential devleopment of young guys left/still to go compared to Detroit and Ottawa" instead of saying the other teams are ahead of them.

Again, I'm not talking about who is better right now, or was last year. I am talking about how much development is left for who you project to be on your team going forward. The Sabres have a lot of young guys that may/might/should be part of this team going forward that still have a lot of development in the future. Savoie, Levi, Kulich, Rosen, Östlund, Kozak, Kisikov are all guys that have a ceiling that could be very good NHL players. On the roster you have Power, Quinn, Peterka also that have ceilings to be potential NHL players/goodplayers. They ALL have more 'development' in front of them than they do behind them. Neither Detroit nor Ottawa have as many players with ceilings that high in their pipeline that have more development in front of them than behind them. That is exactly how I am judging that the Sabres are 'behind' them in terms of development. Its not a bad thing...but it has zero to do with who is better now..it is just how much room there is between where the young players are and where their ceiling is..and just how many you have in that category. See my immediate above post. I am not incorrect. YOU are incorrect in that you probably don't see the direction I am coming from or that I view 'development' a bit different than others.

I think they are farther ahead as a team overall. Detroit's top 2 scorers were Larkin and Perron, both are there this year, and both are already seasoned vets. Debrincat is already going into his 7th season. Outside of Seider, their top 6 D-men are all close to or over 30 years of age. Compher and Copp are going to probably all get top-2 line minutes. This is a veteran team. They have built the team to do well now, there are a lot fewer players left for development here than on the Sabres. More vets with big roles (especially on the back end). I'm not sure how you can NOT say the Red wings are ahead of us when they have so many more vets in key roles. Ottawa is closer to Buffalo than Detroit, but again, I think Buffalo has more players they are expecting to play key roles in the future that still 'aren't there yet' than Ottawa does. Stutzle turned into a star last year, so while he can still get better he's already where he needs to be. Jake Sanderson played a lot, but he would fit into a role like Power has with the Sabres (one year down in the NHL, many more to go). But the rest of their roster isn't littered with 'top prospects' that you are waiting to mature. They too are trying to win now and really don't have several first round picks in the development pipeline like the Sabres do looking for their spot in the organizations. So again, The Seeing how many more young/high draft pick players the Sabres are 'waiting on' compared to Ottawa, I'm also not sure how you can't say the Sens aren't ahead of us.

As far as Beane goes, my opinion is he his "OK". Don't love him, don't hate him. But as far as judging him by his drafting record.....I always had the impression since he got here that the draft was as much McDermott as it was Beane. Yes, Beane is the GM, but I don't think a pick gets made without McDermott signing off on it...and if it came down to a difference of opinion I think McDermott wins out.

At the moment, I'm the opposite of you. We have the streaming services to get all those national games, but I haven't decided to spring for the expensive cable package or MSG plus subscription. That might/probably will change, but maybe I'll give it a month or so (of watching games at a friends house or restaurant/bar) before deciding to go all-in.

There are so many ways to look at it. Overall New Jersey seems to be 1-2 years ahead of us in my opinion, but they are doing it a different way (by choice or necessity) 2 #1 overall picks (both forwards), and a #2 and a #4 overall pick (both D-men, both yet to make an impact.) They have the Sabres beat in 'top 5' picks. Buffalo is doing their forward ranks with talent that, from an outsiders view, is slightly less 'ultra-high-end' but with more depth. And as far as Ottawa and Detroit. I think Detroit is a year (or two) ahead of us in terms of development, but I just don't think their ceiling is that high. Ottawa I think is slightly ahead of the Sabres in terms of their timetable also, but they have a higher ceiling than Detroit. Where teams are in their development can be viewed from so many different ways because of timing, depth, individual development, starting point, potential ending point (ceiling), etc.

Slightly better overall than last year. High teens for goals, 40 points or a bit more. Stretches where he starts to show even more than that. His overall stats, however, will depend on his usage. If he gets more ice time and more PP time, he could get into the 20's for goals.

I'm hopeful for him to have a bounce-back season. He is what, only 24 or 25? D-men take longer to develop than forwards usually. Guys who turn into NHL caliber guys who are not early first round picks often take until their late 20's before they reach their potential. Does that guarantee he will be great? No, it sure doesn't. But he has talent, skating ability, and he still has a chance to improve. I don't know if it is an 'expectation', but more a strong hope he will be an improved 6/7 guy with the ability to jump up the lineup in case of injuries and be more effective than last year.

I agree. If Allen is done for the year, so likely are the Bills. The key to a good back up is if Allen gets hurt for 6 games-or-so. A good backup you hope can get you 3, maybe 4 games (depending on the schedule), a bad backup might not....and that can be the difference between making the playoffs or not. Overall though, I'm not worried about the backup QB. Every week that has gone by I am more and more worried about the secondary. Poyer and Hyde are the glue you think will hold things back together there, but every clip I have seen of both of them I worry more and more they are sliding quickly down on their already average athleticism, and that I think will be a big issue (at least bigger than many are thinking now.)

He's in the prime of his career. We should have expectations that are high for him. Production at about the same level as last year (if not slightly more) and a tealder/top 5 player on the team.

I have no expectations for him this year with the Sabres. That doesn't mean he will do 'nothing' but I think the club has enough experience ahead of him that this year isn't the year for him to make an impact on the club.

I'm not a huge scoreboard type of person. I agree. I think there are major issues in the Arena. Its 'good enough' to watch a game, but it is miles behind other new (and renovated arenas.) As has been brought up many times here, the Atrium could be better utilized, the concessions are bad (food quality and how they are setup). Restrooms can be in issue. Seats are in bad shape with many broken, more/better entertainment could be available besides the game...etc, etc. However of all those things I agree with, I never looked up and said "we need a newer/better scoreboard with better video".

I know where you are coming from...but its actually better than some other places. Try going to a show/concert at Sheas...or take in a game at Fenway park. If you are over 6'0", they can actually be painful.

Except when you consider the age and the wear-and-tear. Hes going to be 35, with additional playing time, a surgery, and injuries since the last time he was a point per game player.

To many people he isn't very likeable. (to each their own reasons). As far as his numbers, he is basically a mid 20 goal scorer per 82 games over the last few years with awful defensive play and defensive metrics (same for his whole career even when he was on a good team.) AND he is coming off of a major injury/surgery now at 35 years of age. After joining the Rangers, he wasn't really a difference maker for them (6 goals in 26 games including playoffs, a 19 goal pace) To me, not much to like.

I don't think its a bad deal for the leafs, not a good deal, but not a bad deal. Is Toronto getting last years 40 goal version (because he is closer to a 40-50 goal scorer who just had his 'career' year with 60 the season before?) Or is Toronto getting the 60 goal guy (because last year he was playing with a nagging wrist injury that brought his production 'down' to 40). I'm guessing he had a slight injury last year and is closer to a 60 goal guy than a 40 goal guy. Still, its a very high contract but it is fair for getting one of the top 2-3 goal scorers in the league. The problem Toronto has is they have no 'bargain'/team friendly deals. They really aren't overpaying for any of their stars (they don't have any deals that are a MAJOR regret). But on the other hand, they don't have a Tage or Cozens who can give you 30-50 goals each for $7m. They don't have a 26 year old Hintz who is signed for just over $8 per year long term who is basically a 40 goal scorer. A Jack Hughes who might be a top 5 player in the league and MVP contender who is signed for $8 per year long term. Toronto has no deals like that. Now, they have no terrible high priced deals, which will insure they are a 'good' team year in and year out. But without any bargain deals, it becomes hard to be a 'great, cup favorite' team year in and year out. They get great production from their top 4, but they are paying close to top dollar for that production.

He very well could hurt the team. First of all, what position is he going to be taking? Is he really going to be THAT much better of a scorer than one of the young guys/wingers? His production has been dropping over the past couple years, he's going to be 35 years old the next time he skates in an NHL game (with a LOT of miles even for a 35 year old). And he is coming off of a major injury/surgery. Over the past few seasons, he has turned into about a 25 goal per 82 game guy, and now he is a year older with that surgery and major injury so I think there is a good chance he won't even be that 25 goal guy. So you are getting a guy who would likely be outscored by Victor Olofsson. That is his recent offensive production. Defense? If people think Olofsson is bad, take a look at Kane. He is next level bad. Someone posted some advanced stats last year that showed he wasn't good at all. Basic stats show despite all his offensive production, he is a -48 over the last 3 seasons and he hasn't even been a plus 10 more for 7 seasons. And watch him play. I am not a coach and I don't know where people should or should not be on the ice but the 10 or so games per year I see him play I watch him and the eye test? it is really really bad in terms of his effort, positioning, and effectiveness of backchecking or winning battles (when that even occurs). So he won't hurt the team? I disagree with that. An aging, injured, declining production player who doesn't have the skill nor the ability to play much defense can for sure hurt your team if he takes that spot away from even the youngest of your prospects who could be there. Oh, and this Sabres team is no longer a team with seemingly endless cap space. And this is before signing Dahlin or Power. Once those deals are done, cap space will become a decision in any deal. I don't want Kane taking up really any cap space that will make it harder to aquire/fit in anyone else around the trade deadline (or offseason if Kane wants more than a 1 year deal.)

I agree with most of what you said: 1.) the OL for a few years has been average to below average. Unless they are playing an average-to-bad Defense, they don't get any push in the running game. Pass blocking, if they had most other QB's rather than Allen they would be at or near the league lead in sacks allowed. Dawkins is OK but overpaid, he is slightly above average at best. The rest? average to below average. But that is the way they are going. 2.) Dorsey I don't have a big problem with yet. I think as long as you have a HEALTHY Josh Allen you are fine. Dorsey was fine through the Jets game before Allen got hurt. 3.) DL. They are just average. They often has as much luck with the free agents they bring in as they do with their top picks. Not terrible, but not good. Average. The other area I see this team as being weaker than most people think is 'up the middle' on defense. D-line, middle LB, but especially the Safeties. I'm not saying Poyer and Hyde are bad (yet) but I think they are going to be more of a weakness than most think. They never were super-athletic safeties, they relied on their knowledge of the game. But they are both coming off of injuries, they are both on the wrong side of 30. Even if they stay healthy, I think you are going to notice they are often that 1/2 step away from breaking up a play. Plus, without Edmunds in the middle, they are going to probably have more responsibility covering the short-middle of the field because Edmunds's replacement won't be as good as he was...giving Poyer and Hyde even MORE territory to be responsible for. Again, I don't think they will be a glaring weakness, but I think we are going to notice they aren't as much of a strength as we viewed them over the past few years.

Please no

We saw last year that he still appears to be getting better. With very few exceptions, D-men take a longer time to reach their peak than forwards do. Being one of the younger ones on that list is a good thing. Some of the best D-men in recent memory (Charra, Karlsson among others) took years to get to be the best verision of who they ended up being.

I don't think I said or even implied in any way they needed to 'solve' the problems. I actually admitted they have problems, I listed a couple in my post that I think are major problems, but the whole point of my post is they CAN contend for a Superbowl with just Allen if he is healthy. Give me a team that has problems but a QB that is good enough to hide those problems and I'll take it. Before his injury against the jets, for a full season and a half that is exactly what the Bills were, a team with some problems but a QB good enough to hide them and make them one of the best teams in the league over that period. You have a different definition of a contender than I do. If you make the playoffs as one of the top 5-6 teams, you are a contender for sure. Most people beleive that each of the past 2-3 years they have been one of the top 5-6 teams in the league. I do. To me that makes them a 'contender'. In those 11 games before the injury, or even say the full season and a half before he got hurt, the Bills still had an average at best O-line, and they had some injuries/issues on defense and with coaching. But in that year-and-a half before his injury, they could, and did compete with anyone, and I would take that team with a healthy Josh Allen against anyone in the league on a given sunday. Does that mean they win every game? Nope, but it means no team over that time was head-and-shoulders better than them. I'll take that going into any season.