mjd1001

The "eye test" to me says that when you put Okposo and Girgensons on the same line as wingers, no matter who the center is they are the one line that can pin the opponent into their own zone and keep the puck there for some time. I almost would like an experiment of putting a Center with Finishing ability (Tage?) between them and see if anything comes of it. KO and Girgs keep the puck in the zone, battle along the boards, and Tage could hopefully get some chances in the center out of it.

I think the Sabres are a LOT more willing to 'stick to their plan' than to trade for a goalie to get a handful more wins that might, MIGHT lead to an increase in attendance toward the end of the season.

I agree with you. I truly do. If I never saw a fight in a hockey game again, and barely saw any hitting BUT I saw a lot of scoring chances and goals with end to end rushes, I'd be 100% happy with this sport. But with that said, different people like different things. Just as much as I like skating and scoring and don't even care about seeing big hits.....there are other people that I understand could care less about a smooth skating forward compared to seeing a 6'3" tall 230lb guy who will drop hits all over the ice and drop the gloves a couple times a month. A lot of fans started liking hockey when it was a lot 'tougher' and that is probably a large part of why they liked it to begin with. To be honest, I don't want my D-men to be the hitters on my team. I want my forward to be the hitters. To me the key to D-zone play is positioning. Most times when a D-man makes a hit, he is risking taking himself out of the play, leading to chaos in your own end. I want the D-men to be on their skates, reading the play, ready to react the instant they can get to a loose puck or break up a pass and get the puck out of my own end. The one exception is I want one true huge Ogre of a D-man who can move anyone out from the front of the net when shorthanded. He can be my short handed specialist, but can be on my 3rd pair otherwise. My forwards? THOSE are the guys I want to hit, to create chaos in the Offensive zone. Look at the past 2-3 seasons the Okposo and Girgensons (when he is playing) line. They play physical and hit along the board in the O-zone, and often times THAT is the thing that keeps the puck in the zone. Give me 1 or 2 physical hitting wingers on my forward line with a sniper (or at least someone with good hands) to go near the net, and I think you have a winning line.

Exactly. He doesn't have to become Pronger or Chelios or even a Mike Ramsey level lock down D-man to be the most valuable guy on the roster in his own zone. With experience he will/should learn to anticipate the play better. His quickness should allow him to get to a lot of loose pucks, and then there might not be anyone in recent memory better at getting it out of the zone than him. He doesn't need to eliminate mistakes, just cut down on them...and then pair him with a partner who IS rock solid positionally, and Dahlin could be more valuable to this team than anyone because the best way to play Defense is to make sure you get the puck out of your zone, which he looks to be very good at and is getting better.

I am happy with just about everything that is happening this season, of course with the exception of the results of the games the last few weeks. I don't know what "the plan" is exactly, but I am very happy with how Kevin Adams is handling things. -Get a respectable return for an Injured Eichel who didn't want to be here, for Sam who didn't want to be here, and for Risto who very few people wanted here. I am very happy with the overall returns for them. -Keep most of the young guys in the minors, resist the urge to call them up until they have a lot of time in Rochester. Good so far on that. -See some progress from players we didn't expect much out of last year. Thompson, Cozens and Asplund are progressing, Bryson has shown flashes...Okposo Skinner and Girgensons appear to be more productive than most thought they would be. Most of the rest of the guys on the roster are on a 'try out' for 1 or 2 spots next year. -Dahlin. He has mad some very bad plays for sure, but overall I am happy with his offensive production and they are sticking with him. One thing I think most people don't realize is, his Value in the D-zone isn't limited to some young/boneheaded mistakes he makes..but he actually does a GOOD job in the D-zone by carrying or passing the puck out of the zone better than just about anyone on the D-unit we have seen here in a long time. Yes, he has to stop making mistakes, but if that comes with time I am encouraged with everything else in his game. -Goalies. They need Tokarski to keep playing like he has AND someone up to step up as well. Medium term they need someone better than Tokarski for 1-2 years. This is an issue right now, but I'm not sure if there is an immediate solution. Overall though, I'm happy with about 95% of what Adams has done/is doing, in my mind SO FAR into his GM career he is the best GM the sabres have had since Darcy.

All Bandits game are on ESPN plus? Didn't know that, I guess when I have some free time I'll be watching a lot more Bandits this year.

That doesn't make sense at all. 30 to 40 percent better than what? BEtter than he is NOW? how good is he now? 30 to 40 percent better than when he was fully healthy? What, did they insert some bionic parts so he will be part superhuman cyborg now? I'd expect more from Shannon, but this seems like a fluff tweet that does nothing but sound silly with its point to be to pump up expectations by Jack..and even then I don't get it.

Agreed. And what would firing him accomplish? What is the goal? Bring someone in here who is going to do their best to bring in talent that will make this team average to above average? And to get to THAT level you would have to give up some young talent/future talent. What would the point be?

Remember the reason for that not being allowed is they don't want the scrums around the net with loose pucks to turn into a kicking contest, where players (goalies and others) are often on the ice...with shark skate blades flying around in a kicking motion. A re-direct by a skate I can see counting, but I wouldn't want things to turn into a soccer match with loose pucks around the net.

Because while none of this will happen for sure, the theoretical has to do with building the team. The owners and the cities are constants.....I'm talking about everything else that is in the day-to-day aspect of the team. Buffalo and Seattle will exist as cities...The ownership group would not change....but if you could, would you swap every other aspect of the team? If you want to get rid of Kim and Terry, that can be a separate conversation (that has indeed been had a few times on this very forum)

sorry if this has been mentioned already but... I'm watching the SEC championship game...and right before half on the Alabama sidelines...there is someone holding a big sign...or a folding table...with a HUGE bills logo on it. If you watch the Alabama sidelines from 2:00-half time, you will see it on almost ever play. Anyone know anything about this?

The past 2 weeks they have gone from looking like one of the bottom 2-3 teams in the league to an actual good team. Here is the question, would you trade franchises with them right now (Coaches, roster, prospects, draft picks....pretty much everything but the city and owners?)

I agree. I never think of the owners of any team at all unless the media brings them up or they show their face on the broadcast. I do understand they ARE the owners of the team, but I watch the team for the game and the players, I care 0% about the owners. To me there isn't much good they can do, they can only mess things up.

I would like Power to spend a little time in Rochester...maybe 1/4 of the season..just to get a taste of that and prove/dominate at a lower level. Of course, that may not be possible. I'm sure as the first overall pick when it comes time for the Sabres to sign him this coming spring...his camp might make it a condition that he is with the big club all the time.

Yeah, I agree. Sure, the D-unit has breakdowns, but if you have to pick the bigger issue it is goaltending. I don't think anyone is arguing the D-unit doesn't have to get better it does....I don't get how people are excusing the goaltending by bringing up the D-unit everytime someone says there is a major issue with the goaltending.

That is why it is too bad things happened they way they did with Ulmark. Is getting paid $5 a year for 4 years probably too much for how he is playing? Maybe. Is he playing great in Boston? No. Would have have stayed with Buffalo if they matched the Boston offer? Maybe not. BUT, the way he played with this team last year...and even this year with a GAA under 3 and a Save % around 910, he would have been a great fit for this team and probably have the Sabres close to a .500 club now.

I think in the long run you are hoping for better than a 'good' goalie. My point is don't trade assets for a 'good' goalie that will help you this year....but who isn't good enough to be your long term solution. IF you want someone that is good enough for this year AND to be a long term solution, I don't know who is available and you might have to give up a lot for that.

I guess it doesn't really matter much, but on a personal level I just like when things have meaning. How about instead of getting "future considerations" you must make it something definite...like instead of getting 'future considerations' you just make it ' the next time team A has a better 7th round draft pick than team B in the same draft, Team B gets to swap it".

Its a shame, because with an above average goaltender, this team might be above average in the standings (contending for a wild car) and would be really fun to watch. The problem is, I can't blame Adams for giving up valuable asset(s) to get a 'good' goalie that might only serve this team this year. You aren't getting a 'great' long term goaltender for any assets at this point in the season. So, we are stuck with what we have....a young team that has potential to be 'good' and exciting to watch, but is let down by its goaltending more than almost any of us can remember.

Besdies 2023, I think the next best option is 2024, but that isn't a choice.

What I didn't want to see from MItts was him coming back from Injury and taking games and games to get on the scoresheet. It happened in game 1, so to me that is a big thing with him.

Sharks, Red Wings, Leafs, and Rangers. If NOTHING else changed besides the goalie performance, even with 'average' goaltending they should have/would have won those games. Of course, the flow the game can change, as well as opposing team strategy and other things if you were getting better goaltending. But I agree with your overall point. They would probably have 3 of those games be wins, and maybe ONE other game I'm not thinking of, with consistent average-to-above average goaltending. Instead of being 25th in the league, that would put them battling for a playoff spot right now.

I would agree with those who say no name on the back. I currently have 4 hockey jerseys (1 being from the Sabres) and all of them are name-less. I know its different for other people, but when I buy a jersey, I'm all about the design or the team on the front. Nothing against any particular players, but I never really liked the idea of wearing clothing that had someone else's name on the back, someone who might or might not even be playing for the team on the front for a long time. If I HAD to pick a name, I would pick someone obscure that you like. There are just too many Dahlin, Eichel, etc ones out there. If there is that former player that you liked but wasn't a star, or a current player that for some reason you like but isn't that popular or good...I'm being honest I would go with that because there will always be a story attached to it and it will be unique.

You are thinking like someone who is trying to win every game at all costs (nothing wrong with that). The disconnect is the Sabres (and Granato) probably WANT to win every game, but they are more interested in young player development. Granato has said multiple times on the radio and in interviews he is currently willing to let young players make mistakes so they can learn from them (apparently even if it costs goals).

In this case Rochester is 'misused' as an option. When you want a player to go to Roch, it is usually so they can get more playing time in...so they can be free to make mistakes and learn from them. Granato already gives him top playing time...and Granato already said 'multiple times' that Dahlin is going to make mistakes here and he has to learn from him. So, he is getting the 'Rochester' treatment already in the pros. The only difference is his mistakes are magnified in the eyes of the fans because of the level of the competition, and are more likely to make the Sabres lose a game than they would make Roch lose in if down there. If Granato is willing to keep giving him max ice time, and is willing to let him make his mistakes, there is not much benefit to sending him to Roch (Even if it WAS possible).