mjd1001

I agree. This team is not scoring goals. I posted this in a different thread, but your top 5 goal scorers last year accounted for 177 goals last season (2.15 per GAME). This year those same guys have 3 goals in 4 games (0.75 per game). That is a big difference. Sure, this team makes mistakes in their own end, might get out-hit, lets in a few bad goals, but the drop off in scoring from your top guys from last year to this year (small sample size of course but we ARE talking about the first 4 games) is the main issue. Its not as if scoring is down across the league. There are currently 114 players who are averaging a point-per game this early in the season. Zero of them are Sabres forwards, the only one they have is Dahlin. Again, small sample size, this can change quickly, but that is exactly what has to happen.

I still maintain that if you are a die hard, hard core hockey fan, one who lives and dies with the Sabres and the game of hockey.....then you may now be BEST served by watching the game on Television at home rather than in the arena. Large screen-high def viewing, camera angles that show clearer action/more detail than you can see at most seats in the arena. Replays not on a scoreboard or your phone but on your own big screen. The ability to go on the computer and read instant analysis while loading up replays of plays or goals and viewing them frame-by-frame if you wish. The Arena experience...well, you may or may not have the best view of the game. You have the loud music pumped into the arena, the announcer or scoreboard employing the fans to 'get loud'. More promotions than replays. We all know what it is like. So again, when I really REALLY care about a particular game, that is the game I want to watch at home. By myself, with my laptop next to me or on the big screen but sitting at my desk with my computer already fired up. The day (and I THINK it is coming soon) when you can subscribe to a package and be able to log into an app or website and select whatever camera angle you want...once that happens there will be virtually zero reason for the 'hard core/the game is all that matters' fan to go to the arena. If you want many of us to give up that at-home experience and go to a game, then the 'outside' entertainment better be top notch, not annoying. The seats I sit in better be comfortable, not with cracks in them and with broken cupholders. If I'm going to pay $10+ for food and more for a drink it better be pretty darn good. The 'arena experience' is important. VERY important. People can joke about the cracks in the concrete and the bad sound system or the broken cupholders, but that stuff DOES matter. For many people, they are giving up a little bit of a 'true viewing' experience at home to to to the game, and THOSE things are the difference makers.

Interesting that Girgensons is now 13th all time in Sabres games played and he could break into the top 10 by the end of the year. Girgensons now has more games played as a Sabre than: Hecth Ruff Housley Vanek Shoenfeld McKee Playfair Stafford And of course a lot of others.

Honestly, that is a tough question to answer. To me, a 'star' or 'superstar' doesn't mean you are the best. It means you are close to the best but you are fun to watch. Or you bring a lot of personality to the game. Its kinda a sliding scale. 70% how good you are. 20-25% how exciting to watch. 5%-10% your personality off the ice. Guys like Denis Potvin, Patrice Bergeron, Larry Robinson, Ryan O'Reilly, Chris Chelios, Rod Langway...they were great defensive players, maybe some of the best ever. Some may have been called stars (although as a kid when watching I never heard Langway called a star), but rarely ever have I heard them called 'superstars' because there wasn't much flash to their game. I was only a little kid, really really little, but Bob Gainey may have been just as important to the success of the Canadians of the late 70's as Lafleur and Schutt, but he certainly wasn't called a 'superstar' by most because of the role he played and how he played it. So to me, personally, to be a superstar you must have both Great play AND something that is fun to watch and fans (even casual fans) notice. I understand your point of view, and I can't disagree with it. But to me the difference between a 'star' and a 'superstar' is both the level of how good they are AND a slight bit of how exciting they are to watch (right or wrong, how many highlight real clips of them are there on sportscenter or twitter) On the Sabres, no one at that level yet, Thompson is on the border of it. Around the league, McDavid, McKinnon, Patrick Kane (when he's not hurt), Pastrnak, Kucherov, Ovechkin, Matthews, Maybe Crosby or Makar, and to me Pettersson. Drasaitl? Maybe, but I don't find him exciting to watch. Matthews? Sure, again, not electrifying but he is a great goal scorer. Kaprizov, yes for sure. He's like Pettersson to me, LOVE to watch him play, gets a bit less attention though because he's on a team not in the national spotlight. Matt Tkachuk...he is on the border of superstardom also to me..not flashy, but fun to watch and effective.

My original quote was that he is under-rated. That doesn't mean he is going to be passing Matthews and McDavid for league MVP. Superstar? To me if you are a top 10 scorer in the league AND you are very exciting to watch at the same time, then yes, you are becoming a superstar. I think Pettersson is on that path now for sure.

He's probably not wrong, but the reason this team isn't winning early is not the D play. The top guys aren't scoring. MAYBE part of playing "Team D" is getting the puck out of your zone and giving your forwards more time in the offensive zone, I can see that. But the bottom line is...your top 5 goal scorers last year accounted for over 2 goals per game (on average) and this year they are getting less than 1. The Top line (plus Cozens) score, this team wins more often than not.

Most of us agree on this topic. The team is still in a 'prove it to us' mode. They had a sellout opening night. If they won and put up 5+ goals I'm pretty sure that would have helped the attendance the next couple games. That didn't happen though. This team needs to be in playoff contention all the time. The WORST case scenario for fans wanting to see this team is for them to, after a week or two into the season, for them to be near the bottom of the standings looking up, AND not scoring. They are 2 for 2 on both of those. They can't be 'chasing' in the standings. if they were to make the playoffs with 100 points, for attendance you want them to start fast and maybe fade a bit to get to those 100 points rather than start slow and catch up at the end. They have played 4 games of average/boring/low scoring hockey were they have been playing mostly from behind. They need to play the next 4 games of high scoring/playing with the lead, mostly winning just to for the fans to get back to the excitement they had before the opener.

What can you change? You just have to keep going with it. MAYBE you shuffle the top 2 lines. People can blame coaching. They can blame Clifton making mistakes. People can say you should have gotten a better Vet goaltender. The team is starting out bad and people will pick their own agenda and blame what they want to for this but I see this as primarily one reason they are starting out slow: Your top guys aren't scoring. Last your your top 5 goal scorers (Thompson, Tuch, Skinner, Cozens, and Olofsson) had 177 goals. This year through 4 games they have a total of 3 among them. If they were producing at the same 'rate' as last year, they would have close to 9. To me thats not really coaching, thats not your D-man play, that isn't goaltending. That is your top guys needing to get going. Your top 5 goal scorers are 'pacing' about 6 goals short of expectations collectively. If they even had HALF of that back, you'd likely be 2-2 or 3-1. You aren't playing Olofsson, but get the other guys going. That is all this team needs right now.

if it comes with offense, sure. I'll take 2-2 in one period over a 0-0 defensive battle.

I don't know if this will last, or if they will win. They have some bad play this period but we are seeing goals. 4 goals in one period, that is the hockey I miss from last year.

One can make the case that the Sabres played pretty well last game, but we are now in game 4 and how many periods have they dominated? Or if not dominated, but were what you would call very good? Almost 10 periods into the season, I'd say they have 1 very good period, 2 kinda good, and at least 3-4 that are awful.

I don't think he's going to make a difference to that team. Its early. But 3 games in, 8 minutes per game. No points, -3. But he can win fights right? 2 fights so far, nothing groundbreaking. He probably won against Foligno the other night, but it was a draw or a slight loss in his fight Vs Montreal. If he's only good enough of a 'hockey player' to get 8 minutes of ice time, I want a 'better' hockey player in that spot instead.

Right down the street from El Cubilete is La Galera (near the outlet mall in Niagara Falls). Been to both a few times. Like both a lot. When we visit Florida, our relatives often take us to 2 Mexican restaurants down there that are similar, but the 2 above in Niagara Falls are so much better than what we are subject to down there.

I have a close friend who spends a ton of money and doesn't really mind (I guess?) He has a full cable package with internet, plus a few premium packages with cable, and his cable bill is a bit over $200 per month (with internet). Him and his wife have most of the major streaming services also. I'm guessing his total for Cable and streaming is closing in on $300 per month. I joked with him about it a couple months ago, and his response was....they want all the options and he doesn't mind the cost.

I agree with you here. We too are watching less as the prices go up. Our 'spend' on entertainment is lower now, and sure, we have less total to choose from, but it doesn't impact the quality of our viewing experience. As far as any streaming service, cable service, channel, even sports....give me a bargain or at least a 'fair' price (not going up year after year) and we are likely to give you some of our money. When the costs rise or service is lowered (a few streaming services have cut shows we liked), we'll step aside and not worry about it too much.

Usually when I watch a game live, the team loses, when I watch it delayed they win. tonight was the opposite. After they took a 2-0 lead, I stopped watching to spend some time with the wife. I turned the game back on in OT and saw Cozens score 10 seconds after I turned it on. I like watching games that way.

LOTS of empty seats in that lower bowl.

In the first 2 games and the one shift this game, it looks like Okposo lost a full 20% of his speed since last season.

If you have an abundance of talent, you can make up for being small... DeBrincat, Johnny Gadreau, Zuccarello, Adam Fox, Pointe, Patrick Kane, Marchand, Aho, Jack Hughes, Tyler Johnson and many others are all 5'10" or under I beleive.

I'm the same way with Krebs. Last year the first few weeks of the season I thought he was probably the worst forward in all of the NHL. I still don't think he's great or bound to be a star, but he turned his play around by the end of the year and now looks like at least a legit NHL forward. Many of us has expressed frustration in the other thread about Spectrum/MSG/MSG plus....but again it deserves repeating just how bad the NHL is with making their games available to their fans.

Some very, VERY early observations from the first week of the season: -Good thing I don't gamble. If I had to pick 3 teams I thought would take a step back this year, I would have picked Vegas, Boston, and Pittsburgh. They are a combined 7w-1L. Two teams I thought would fly out of the gate were Buffalo and Edmonton. So far a combined 0w-4L. -Elias Petterson has to be recognized soon as an NHL superstar. Probably my favorite player in the league to watch right now, he doesn't get the attention being on the west coast and in Canada the way he should. -Philly may not be awful this year. They won't be good, but their D-unit actually plays 'above average'. (without Risto in it) -Is Austin Matthews really the 60 goal scorer he was from 2 years ago and last year he nursed an injury? Or is he more of the 40 goal scorer he was last year? So far it looks like he is the 60 goal scorer and last year he was a bit injured and that held him back. -Toronto still lacks depth, but they are going to punish their top line to make up for it. Marner is averaging almost 24 minutes per game, as a forward. Matthew Knies is NOT going to be their savior this year (like you would think by listening to/reading some leaf fans) -Ottawa looks for real. The Rangers don't look presidents tropy worthy, but they are solid everywhere with few weaknesses. -Seth Jones used to be very good, then for some reason about 2 years ago he started to play awful, at both ends of the ice but in particular the D-Zone. He was on a bad Blackhawks team but you have to play some pretty bad hockey to be a -75 over 2 seasons. Well, I've watched 2 games of him this year and, again its early, but he looks really good to me (other than one awful giveaway I saw). Could be a big bounce back/comeback season for him.

Or as others have said a shot clock. From the moment you touch the puck at center ice, you get 5 or 6 seconds to shoot the puck. If you don't, its like the shot clock expiring in the NBA, you forfeit the attempt. A version of a 'reverse off sides'. I like it, or at least a variation of it.

Hopefully that changes. Last time I checked it said the rain should be ending right around kickoff, but as you said, windy during the game.

Yep, I thin it is a different game. Hitting isn't as important. Fighting doesn't happen hardly at all and you don't have to have a certain percentage of your roster devoted to it. 20 years ago hardly any teams employed any kind of trap. Lots of other subtle changes. I think it is a much different game. Look no further than coaches....Guys like Sutter, Keenan, Torts, and Mike Babcock either can't get jobs anymore of when they do they don't last long...yet guys like Granato and others that embrace analytics are more in fashion now. A guy like Patrice Bergeron in today's decade gets credit for knowing when to turn away from a hit, not finishing a check because it got him back in the play quicker. In the 1990's he'd be doing sprints in practice for not finishing a check. Guys are being taught and play the game in a different way than in the past.

You mentioned Reinhart...it goes without saying a lot of the 'scouting report' is the same between them. Lacks elite speed. Shot average to above average at best. kinda small. The differences? Reinhart has a bit more size and maybe a slightly better shot, but seemed (at least in the fans eye) to lack the grit/motor that Benson has.