mjd1001

I agree with almost everything you said above. As for the last point...if they ever built a new Arena, where would it go? Let me say to start that I have always been a 'downtown guy'. On the surface I think the football stadium should have been downtown, I want money spent to develop downtown. HOWEVER, the reality is, a football stadium or a new arena isn't going to pull Downtown 'up' with it. You want the best atmosphere for the fans, AND ammenities that the players and their families will want? A suburban Arena i THINK is where things are going. If you have a very vibrant downtown area, VERY vibrant (Boston, NY City), a downtown Arena works. I have doubts whether or not this team ever gets a new Arena (at least in the forseeable future), but if It did...for the first time in my life I would start to consider the idea of something in a nice area in the Suburbs. Almost as the centerpiece of a 'lifestyle and sports' center.

I'm still in the same spot I was 2-3 weeks ago with this topic, despite some thought to it. Instead of a #1 or #2 or #3 line(s), I want 3 balanced lines with my 9 best forwards, the remaining 3 on a 4th line that gets less ice time. In the first 3 lines, they can all 'average' about the same equal strength ice time, but on an individual game, one line may get more or less depending on matchups. Its about who plays best with who, not about putting together the 'best' #1 line. With that said, I still want to see: Doan-Kulich-Tage. Benson-Norris-Tuch. Quinn-McLeod-Zucker. Doan is the wildcard there. Maybe you can swap him and Benson...or maybe someone else steps up and takes that roll from him. I'd lalso have a quick hook to get Quinn out of there if he doesn't show signes of stepping up since last year. I think that gives you 3 fairly balanced top lines, the 4th line will get a lot less ice time and be used situationally.

The language that seems to be more and more common in public: -About a month ago, my wife and I were out to eat a quick-service mexican place (kinda like Chipotle but a local one). We sat in a booth, and right next to us 4 guys (probably 30-40 years old) sat down. No problem, no issue. I think they worked together...maybe security, maybe corrections, maybe even law enforcement. Again, no problem..yet. Then they started talking...one guy, its seemed like every single adjective and adverb was replaced by a version of f**k. When he talked it was something like..." It was f****n strange. I got out of my f*****n truck and I went him and the f*****n door wasn't locked so I f*****n pulled out my f*****n phone to call my wife, and she said everything was f****n OK she was just in the f*****n backyard." The guy wasn't mad, wasn't angry, but that is just how he talked, about everything. Now earlier this week it was a little cooler so we were out to eat again, this time we sat outside at a place on picnic tables, and the people next to us, probably a group of 5 or 6 poeple...mix of men and women probably 25-35 years old...and a different guy from above is talking the same way. Not angry, not talking about an emotional topic...just that is how he talked. And we are right outside on the sidewalk, there are families and little kids going by occasionally, but this is just how he talked. I'm noticing it more and more often in recent years. I guess we can complain about things about everyone, but this just seems....out of place and happening more and more often.

There is one single thing I think size/height helps you with....without regard to any other talent or ability: Penalty Killing. In all the years I have watched hockey, the #1 issue when killing penalties for the guys on the ice (not counting goaltending) is when they 'break the box' and start chasing. If you maintain discipline, you are likely to have a very good penalty killing unit.. Being tall with a good reach allows these guys to stand in the same spot and cover a lot of ground...get in the passing lanes with just their reach without having to move too much. A Tall guy with a big-time reach, with just a little bit of basic coaching and discipline, is likely to be a good penalty killer.

Goaltending. Had the sabers got ten the gold tenny from 2 years ago Last year they would have been in the playoffs. If I have to pick something besides goaltending... Second would be no major injuries, and third would be luck. But after last year I can't say anything else other than goaltending.

Is there a way to search this forum and gather analytics... Which month... Or better yet, week of the year, over the past 20 years, has the most and least posts and replies?

I just no longer believe in labels like "first line" or "2c". I guess I can get behind a '4th line' for the role they may have and the fact they are getting the least ice time. But beyond that, in your top 9, you play where you play the best, with who you play the best with. If that means Benson (or anyone else) plays the best with Tage, that doesn't make him your 'best' winger and therefore he should get the label as the 1st line winger. Is he a top 9 guy? Is Tuch a top 9 guy? Is ANYONE not on the 4th line getting '4th line minutes' a a top 9 guy? Yep, most of these guys will. At that point its less about slotting them as "1st line, 2nd line, etc" and more about just seeing who plays the best with who in your top 9. As far as who gets the most ice time....current play and matchups can dictate that. Benson is, and should be, a 'top 9' forward on this team. Who he plays with and how many points he gets will determine his ice time, not where he is 'slotted' on a dept chart. Personally, I would expect mid-teens in goals, close to 40 points from him. 15-16 minutes per game, without much time on the PP or PK (yet). If he gets a minute or two more, or a minute or two less, it should be more about who he is playing with and HOW that LINE is currently playing. IF he ends up playing mostly with Tage and Kulich, AND that line is as good as it was in the last 1/4 of the season....AND they stick together for most of the year, he MAY end up with 60+ points and 17 minutes of ice time per game. IF he gets moved to a different line (with McLeod as his center), he may end up with a minute or two less ice time per game and only 30-40 points. That doesn't mean he was 'demoted' or had a worse year. Its about who you play best with and situations.

For the harder core fans, you are correct. For many of the casual fans, and kids who go to the games that might be bored of staring at the action on the ice, that stuff matters. Ideally you get both. Winning is MORE improtant, but the other stuff matters to many of the casual fans.

Mcdonald's. Other than last year stopping to get one of their ice cream sundaes, I hadn't been in a McDonald's for years until a few days ago. I was driving back from work and stopped at the McDonald's in Medina, New York. First of all, the bathroom was bordering on disgusting. Next, I don't know what kind of tile floors they have, but the floor had just been mopped and it was like walking on ice. Even when I got to a dry part of the floor, Even the tiniest residual moisture on the bottom of my shoes made it where I was about ready to fall and slide again. I looked at the breakfast menu, they have combo meals that cost almost $10. Really? Finally, I'm not a big coffee drinker but the graphic they have showing their coffees looked interesting so I tried one. Some sort of iced coffee...but it was very bitter, and they put caramel syrup in it where the syrup was dripping down the inside of the cup and the outside of the cup where it was sticky when I grabbed it. Then it said at the bottom of the cup and when I had some through the straw I was getting weird chunks of caramel.. it never fully mixed with the coffee. If this is representative of what McDonald's are like these days, I can't see why they are remotely doing as well as a company as they actually are.

Good shooters get to the good spots? Good shooters also are more ACCURATE from the good spots. Every point you make, there is an equal counterpoint to. And doesn't GF% take into consideration where the shots are taken from, regardless of whether the shooter is good or not? I think so. Xgf takes into account the defensive side of things...as does GF%. I'm not arguing that xgf is a terrible stat. I'm just saying it is just one peice of the puzzle, just like gf%. I tend to SLIGHTLY like gf% over xgf% when looked at over the course of a few seasons. But again, I'm not going to evaluate a player on gf% alone, xgf% alone....I think you need to look at them with context to each other...AND the other stats, and over a course of time WITH looking at their teammates comparison. The only major problem I have with xGF% is when people just throw it out there and use it as the best stat to judge a player. When someone says "They are good because they have a better xGF% than the next guy", I tend to think that only tells 10% of the story, or less. In the past we have had some posts were people supported their opinion of whether someone was good, or not good, based on xgf% and little else.

Actually, that is my point...why do I want to evaluate an individual player based on 'league average shooting percentage', when that player may be quite a bit higher or lower? Yeah, there may be 'noise' in actual goals, but to me at least it takes into account the difference BETWEEN the league average shooting percentage and that actual player I am evaluating. That 'noise' will, statistically, likely 'even out' when you look at the actual goal numbers over a long period of time. I get looking at a partial season, or a half season, may not be helpful, but if a guy is below 50 year after year, vs a guy above 50 year after year, the trend is your friend. Again, If Cozens is, for his career, a 10% or below shooter, and a guy like Tage is 15% or higher....XGF might be the same for both of them but in reality it vastly over-rates Cozens and under-rates Thompson.

Agreed. I actually prefer ACTUAL goals for/vs against, as it takes into account shooting percentage (from what I can tell, xGF% does not take individual shooting percentage, so it doesn't really take into account that a player like Tage is a 50% more accurate shooter than a guy like Cozens). Plus-minus is not a stat that can tell you everything about a player, I admit that, but it shouldn't be totally thrown away either. I think the key with the 'advanced stats' is to use them in combination with each other. A guy has a good xGF%? Well, what is the competition he faces, or is he on a line/paring with a guy who is a super accurate shooter or a terrible one? For me, you have to look at the advanced stats, all of them...if you see anything that stands out (good or bad), think to yourself...why? Is there something that accounts for this? Is this something that is a one time/one year thing or a long term thing. By using all the advanced stats in combination with each other, and asking 'why' when presenting them....you can get a somewhat more accurate guage of how good a player is rather than just using your single favorite one. Many people on here may know my favorite 'whipping boy' for Sabres problems over the years has been Cozens. And that isn't because of one or two stats. Its because many/most of his advanced stats are below average (not just one of them), AND they have been for years (even his really good year), and more often than now other players advanced stats are worse when they are playing with him and get better when they are with anyone else, AND simply watching him, the eye test backs all that up. Personally I usually use the eye test first, form an opinion of a player, and then see if the advanced stats/analytics back up that initial opinion. The only time I really work backwards (analytics first) is when the Sabres trade for someone/acquire someone that I haven't seen play all that much.

Addition by subtraction. To me its not simply taking someone away, but what you replace them with. With that said I have always thought that getting rid of Cozens fits the term 'addition by subtraction'...simply because without him at Center, The added minutes that McLeod, Krebs and Kulich got after he left served the team better than the minutes Cozens had. They 'helped' the team just about as much offensively, and they hurt the team a lot less. That is not to say Cozens doesn't have talent, but His 16-17 minutes per game going to 0 for the Sabres, and those other guys getting the extra minutes were a bonus. Basically, would I rather have Cozens getting 18 min per game, McLeod getting 12-14, Krebs getting 10, and Kulich not having a big role at all? -OR- Cozens getting zero (subtraction from the team), Mcleod getting his 16, Krebs getting 12, and Kulich getting 12-14? <--- I'll take this one. The productivity/score is just as good (last year maybe better with McLeods and Kulich's game toward the end of the season) and those guys, even Kulich as a rookie, make/made a LOT less costly mistakes than Cozens did in his minutes. I would expect that to accelerate this year with Norris getting any productivity. As for the rest of the guys, they didn't play enough of a role on the team for me to care about.

My point was: 1.) it wasn't a failed plan 5 years in a row. 2.) UPL has only had 2 seasons as a 'starter' (more than half the games) and in terms of being very good vs. very bad, hes at 50%. I'm not saying he is going to be good, but I'm not writing him off as 100% bad. His "good" year he was just as 'good' as he was 'bad' last season.

Maybe not, but that 'strategy' in goal was pretty successful just 2 seasons ago. It has not failed 5 years in a row. UPL had a great year, and, if I remember correctly, was the best or 2nd best goalie in the league in many/most metrics the 2nd half of the season.

But you know, the only way the Sabres goaltending gets better is if we talk about in every single chance we get.

Yep. The Sabres last year ourscored the Leafs through the season. Yet Toronto finished with 108 points to Buffalo's 79. And Toronto's D-men were Morgan Reilly (who had probably his worst season of his career), Oliver Ekman Larsson (who had his game fall off a cliff over the last 3 seasons comapred to early in his career), Chris Tanev (35 years old), Jake McCabe (31 years old, given up by both Buffalo and Chicago), Simon Benoit (undrafted 26 year old who was almost a -30 2 seasons ago), and Connor Timmins (yes, the new Sabre) as their most used 6 D-men. I would venture that the Sabres allowed more 'high danger' chances because of their Defensive lapses, but overall the Leafs even allowed more total shots on goal. Its the Sabres goaltending. If UPL is even half way back to where he was the 2nd half of 2023-24, they make the playoffs.

There is a very dangerous combination that happens to some people as they age: 1.) As one ages, some lose their 'mind' a bit quicker than others, I think Jones is not 'senile' by any stretch, but he seems to be going down that path a bit quicker than some. 2.) He is, and always has been arrogant. Put those 2 things together and you have a recipe for some REALLY bad decisions/really bad chances to run your company/team poorly. I think that is where Jones and the Cowboys are right now.

The difference with Quinn is that: -He stopped going to the net. In 2022-23 Quinn had a shot from the front of the net ('high danger' area) once ever 1.7 games played. In 2023-24 Quinn had a shot from in front of the net every once every 2.25 games played. Last year, he had a shot from in front of the net once every 7.4 games played. The 1.7 and the 2.25 numbers aren't stellar (Tuch gets one about ever 1.2 games, Kulich himself once ever 1.6 games played), But the drop-off with Quinn to once every 7.4 games basically makes him the most 'perimeter' scoring forward in the league. Something happened to Quinn. Mentally? Physically? I don't know, but his game turned in such a way that was greater than almost any other player I can remember in recent memory year-over-year without much of an explanation to justify it. I can see Kulich maybe having his game slide a bit due to adjustments. I cannot see happening to him what happened to Quinn last year simply because of the above.

I have long been an advocate for keeping him and Tage together on a line. If it doesn't work after a while, make the change, but at least start with it. Why? Their production last year: -Tage was one of the best even strength goal scorers in the league last year, with him on the ice without Kulich, the team scored a goal every 20.3 minutes (pretty good). -However, when Tage and Kulich were on the ice together, the team scored a goal every 12.6 minutes. (and only allowed a goal every 18.5 minutes) -For comparison: Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner paired together had the Leafs scoring once every 17.4 minutes. -Draisaitl and McDavid together had the Oilers score once every 13.1 minutes. This also was done with a pretty decent sample size. Over 350 minutes together on the ice even strength. (over 20 games played as primary linemates) Having Tage and Kulich start out together also doesn't have to come with added pressure. They don't have to be the "#1" line. You can position them as just "one of 3 lines" that get rolled out there. Again, I have mentioned it in other posts, the numbers were SO good last year and the eye test had them playing so well together, I at least want to give that pair a shot this year and see how it goes.

A few times. The new one has kinda the same 'vibe', just not as good. Not awful, just a step down imo from the original, a few too many cameos.

-Happy Gilmore. It was entertaining, but thats it to me. Not bad, but not good. Just a decnent way to kill an evening with a few laughs. -Fantastic Four. To me, good, but not great. I was really waiting to be surprised on some way, to have something that, I don't know...meant a lot to me in a way I didn't think (if that makes sense). It was executed pretty well, but one of the most predictable and least surprising movies I've seen in a while. And the actress who played the lead roll, scale back on the fake eyelashes....they were so bad that everytime they showed a closeup of her, I couldn't stop seeing them instead of anything else in the movie. -Superman. I though the plot of the movie was just OK, but there was one reason I really enjoyed it alot. They got the Superman character right. He's a nice guy, he wants to help everyone. No brooding superman, no doubting himself. no rolling his eyes. Just he's a superhero who cares for others and is a really nice guy and that is what I loved about it.

I would THINK about, and maybe try in preseason, a line of Doan-Kulich-Tage. I think Tage can carry the line offensively and him and Kulich were one of the most dangerous combos in the league when they were together last year. That leaves Benson-Norris-Tuch....and McLeod-Quinn Zucker. I think doing that gives you 3 lines to just roll out there in any order, and the 4th line is used situationally. Which line is the official '1st' line? I don't care. Whichever line is playing the best, or the one that gives you the best matchups on a given night, they get the most minutes, that can change night-to-night though.

I agree. Look at some of the key players on this team (the guys who are most important/get the most minutes) -Tage: 8 NHL seasons (all but 1 of them playing more than half the games), going into his 9th. 450 career games played. -Tuch: 9 NHL seasons (8 realistically not counting his brief appearance his first year), 536 games played. 66 additional playoff games, 4 playoff runs including deep to the cup finals. -Dahlin: 7 Full NHL seasons so far. 509 games played. In his 7 seasons, only 7 players in the entire NHL have more total ice time than him. International tournaments. -Zucker...14, maybe 15 year vet? 770 games played. 9 different (years) playoff appearances. -McLeod. 5 years (4 full seasons) going into his 6th. Most importantly with him is 4 years in the playoffs including a full run to the cup finals. -Byram has a cup run (and one he got a lot of top minutes in) Power is still young, but even he has already over 240 games played in his career, should pass 300 this season, and is 39th out of about 250 Dmen over the last 3 years in total minutes played. This isn't even considering other older 'veterans' who will play a lesser roll but have a lot of experience like Greenway, Danforth, Timmons, Malenstyn, even Lyons. That is less than most teams sure, but its not 'nothing'. There is more than enough there, in terms of age and experience, to generate a competent leadership core.

I really think he did well in those tournaments because they are less structured. You are playing against, and with, teams that have a total of a few weeks to get to know each other and implement systems. Not only that but in the NHL, the D-partners (and lines for that matter) you are playing against sometimes have years together, know what they are supposed to do and know what each other will do. If there is any advanced scouting of opposition in those tournaments, its a fraction of what the NHL does. In short, compared to the NHL game, those 'slap the team together' tournaments are more a form of pond hockey, throw the puck out there and play some hockey! (not quite, but compared to the structure of the NHL. Cozens is going to do better in an environment where you don't get punished for mistakes as much, where positioning isn't as important. Where when he has some major holes in his game advanced scouting isn't there to drill it into the opponents head how to exploit it. I think in an NHL where your teamates were different every year (like re-draft the teams every year), there was minimal scouting, and little to no training camp/practice....in a league like that Cozens very well might be one of the top 50 or at least 100 players in the entire league. But that is not the NHL....but it is a lot more like the World championship tournament.