mjd1001

Tuch SHOULD be a slightly better version of Zucker on a good team going forward into his early 30s....as you said playing 'middle six' minutes. If he can make that adjustment to his game where he doesn't rely on his declining speed. As you said, it doesn't look like this roster would be the best place for that (for the next few years if he stays here, he will be asked to do TOO much, more than he would likely be capable of doing into his 30's).

I think Tuch is still the best winger on this team (I'm couting Tage as a part time center/winger). The team would be worse without him. He's one of the top 25 wingers in the leauge to me RIGHT NOW. But I think he is starting to show the very first hints of 'aging past his prime'. Unless you are a mega superstar (and even some cases with them), we know that MOST forwards (and the averages in the numbers show this) have their peak offense production years between the ages of 24-28. Yeah, some guys hang on to that high level a bit better than others, but once you get to 29-30, your best years are usually behind you (just what the numbers say). This isn't to say they can't have a great/bounce back year once or twice past 30, but normally production has already peaked. So how does this relate to Tuch? Hes 29 now. If the Sabres made the playoffs he woudl be 30 during this years playoffs. The FIRST year of any new contract for him has turning 31 at the end of year 1 of that deal. -Its only 1/4 season, but to my eye, he seems to be having more 'lapses' where he makes bad plays. A handful of more games compared to the last few years where he's just not as noticable. Not much, but enough to notice. -His numbers: Over the last 3 previous seasons, he averaged 33.4 goals per 82 games and +13.8 per 82 on a negative team. This year, his 82 game pace is 26.3 goals and a +2.9. Not a huge drop, but noticable. His PP numbers are dropping. The last few years he went from 20 PP points, to 11 PP points, to 11 PP points again, and now hes on a pace for 5.8pp points. -His ice time is down. He hasn't been injured this year, but he has the lowest average ice time this year of any other year (or partial year) since he has been in Buffalo. Now for the actual skill based numbers (and remember, he seems to be healthier this year than in the past): His shot speed: 93.4 his first year with the Sabres. Down to 89.2 and 89.7 the past 2 years. This year? 85.1 Top skaing speed: 23.2 mph 3 years ago (when he was 26).....23mph 2 years ago (when he was 27)....22.6mph last year (when he was 28)....and now this year 21.83 this year. In terms of MPH, a drop of more than 1mph is a LOT in the NHL. He is losing speed, that is 100% true. How about his skating "speed bursts over 20mph"? This year 1.25 per game (at age 29). How does that compare to the most recent years? 1.75 per game last year (age 28), and 2.36 per game the previous 2 years (since he was with the Sabres, ages 26-27) -Tuch relies SO MUCH on his speed and skating. His shorthanded breakaway goals. His forchecking (which is the best part of his game). As he loses skating speed, that is going to impact the best part of his game the most. Its staring to happen now. Its only going to get worse as he gets older. Again...Hes 29, going on 30 this season. The FIRST year of any new contract for him has turning 31 at the end of year 1 of that deal. This is not to say he's not one of the better players on the team. But the 'eye test' to me says his game is SLIGHTLY off compared to the past (just slighly), and the more you dig into the numbers, especially his skating, it shows you those numbers are, without a doubt, on a downward trend already. For me it further reinforces that I'd like him back here, but not on a big dollar, long term deal. His "raw skill" numbers in terms of top speed, how often he uses his speed, and his shot are already in clear decline. The production is showing signs of a decline, as are his deeper analytics. If, and I realize this is an "if", the recent trends in his skating and production continue, you might be regretting a $10m+ deal with Tuch...not in 5 to 6 years from now, but possibly in year 2 of the extension.

Tage, simply because the most exciting/fun thing in hockey for me is not a great save, its not a fight, its not a good defensive battle..but rather exciting goals. He's the best on this team at that. Other than that, at this point I don't care.

Its not that I think they don't care. I just think they aren't good enough. Its not that I think Ruff is a bad coach, its just the things he is good at are not a match for this roster. He might be asking them to do the things they can't do. Its not that they totally don't have heart. If anything I think they have gotten better in that part of their game. I think its again, they aren't good enough. The roster isn't good enough, AND the parts that are good don't mesh well with each other. For me that is most of the failings of this team. IF they change the GM, coach, most of the front office, this team will not be good enough to go on a deep run magically. The new guys have to fundamentally change a large part of the roster. -Samuelsson should not have games where he is your best D-men when you have 3 other guys picked in the top 5 overall. -Tuch is a very good winger, but hes not a great one, is more of an analytics darling than how it translates on the ice, and I think he is STARTING to show a tiny bit of a sign of being past his peak because inconsistency is creaping into his game. -Tage is a premier goal scorer. Top 20 talent in the league. He cares, but his still set is NOT one where he can do it alone. He's not a superstar Alpha. -Dahlin is good, very, very good. But he isn't the McDavid of D-men. He's not a generational player. -Their goaltending is average (at best), probably below average. Every guy they have tried over the last few years. -I tried to convince myself Quinn was getting better. He's not. He's bad. A veteran journyman winger might not score as many goals (or maybe he would) but the team would be better with one of those guys instead of Quinn. He is a negative overall when on the ice. This team has some talent. They have some good pieces. But they have too few stars and no truly effective superstars. They aren't good enough, the roster simply hasn't been put together well.

The worst part for me is that something needs to be done, ANYTHING regarding the front office/decision makers. The ONLY thing that isn't OK is to let things go this long and not make a change. If a change was made, we can debate is the new GM the right guy? Was it correct or not to bring in a POHO? Should a bigger purge of the front office or scouting department have happened (50% of the guys gone or 100% gone?) Stuff like that. The only thing this fanbase doesn't want is no action...yet that is the ONLY thing we get. This franchise doens't appear to be going anywhere. A reset is needed, on ice included. Unless this team lucked into a vezina quality goaltender that is. Let say somewhat this team squeeks into the playoffs, then what? Is this roster EVER going to contend for a cup (again, unless they get that Vezina goaltender)? Statistically and at their ages, you are getting "peak" Thompson and Norris. Tuch is at his peak and probably starting to decline. You dont' really have a bunch of 'stars in waiting' that will pick up from the older guys and take this team to the next level.

The 3 goalie thing I think is an issue. You HAVE to move one, dont' sit around and wait for a good deal. From most interviews over the years I have heard with Goalies, either during their career or after their career, they almost always mention as the #1 guy you want work, you want to play games to get into some kind of 'groove', and as a backup, you need to have a different mentality. I think Biron even said a few times there are some guys who are BETTER as backups than they would be as #1's, and some #1's, that no matter how good of an attitude they had, simply would not play as well if they got infrequent starts. Its kinda like with baseball pitchers. Some guys can be releif guys who go in whenver you want them, but other guys almost NEED to be starters. Mentally they want to know what days they will pitch and what days they will have off. Remove them from that role and the may not be as good, let alone they are going to be a lot unhappier with their role. This isn't a video game where your goalies have 'ratings' and they will play to their ratings no matter how often or infrequently you play them. I think its hurting all 3 goalies, and the team, by prolonging this. Sometimes I think this front office thinks they are plugging guys into a video game rather than playing 'real life' hockey. This team, this management causes self-inflicted wounds.

.590 point percentage is what gets you into that last playoff spot in the east right now (96.8 point pace). As of this moment, for the Sabres to get to that level, they have to win the next 9 in a row. 9 wins in a row and you will 'probably' be in 8th in the conference. They are tied for least points in the confernece. They have the worst point percentage in the conference. They have the worst goal differential in the conference. They have lost 4 of their last 6 and this is with them getting mostly healthy. So much for the injury excuse too. This team could be 100 percent healthy, or they could have a record number of injuries...it doesn't seem like it would matter. Either way they would/will finish 10 points out of the playoffs (at least)

No, not what I am saying at all, but if that response makes you feel better about your argument, go for it.

Yeah, and the other 98% of the time UPL plays that I do. Watch means nothing I guess. How about When he allows soft goals. When he gets beat cleanly on non-screened shots from 20 ft out that he should be ready for. When he gets beat to the outside of his pads because he can't get over quick enough. All those times over the past year and a half... Those mean something too. He has been so bad that at some point he has to play exceptional to make up for all of his bad play in the past.

I stopped watching after the 1st just to check in now. UPL with a .820 save percentage tonight....are we all close to being back off the UPL bandwagon?

To answer my original question, Zucker and Doan combined have 6 PP goals combined (in 132 minutes of PP ice time) The rest of the forward group has 6 PP goals combined (in about 380 minutes combined) Also Zucker has 24 of his 42 shots from the front of the net (57%) Josh Doan has 47 of 73 of his shots from the front of the net (64%) They go to the front of the net. The rest of the team, by contrast, has 150 of 662 shots from the front of the net (22%). Now that does include D-men...however Among forwards, Quinn is at 25% (much better than last year actually, last year he was 8.3%), Tuch at 33%, Thompson at 26%, McLeod at 20%.... Actually, the Sabres as a team are taking more shots from the front of the net than they did last year for sure, but still, Zucker and Doan are leaders in doing that, and the production from them shows. He goes to the net. His 'untapped' potential would be to get slightly stronger on his skates and work on the quickness of his hands/release. But unless there are major changes to this roster, he should always have a spot as the guy who 'goes to the net' and gets garbage goals (they still all count!)

Zucker and Doan are really the only 2 guys this year. Just how bad would the PP be without them?

I corrected my original post...I can't tell from the replay if it was Benson or Norris that dropped coverage. Either way, it was one of the forwards.

A follow up to the Defensive positioning. Before the goal was scored, you can see Timmons stay with his guy, Bryam went to the boards (as a D-man could/should rather than a forward deep in the zone) and Benson (or was it Norris? I thought Benson but this says it was Norris) 'kinda' picks up the front of the net. In the next screenshot, Timmons is still with his guy (he played that exactly as he should). Byram was out of the play because he was circling back, but thats fine because he was coming back from the boards. Until Byram circles back, the Forward was covering the front of the net/Connon and he NEEDS to keep doing that. It was Benson who lost his guy. This one is not at all on the D-men. They did their job. Forward coverage made them look bad for all that are blaming Timmons/Byram.

This is just what I mentioned in another thread befor where the Defense takes too much blame. The puck went into the corner down low and then up the side, Byram went after it. Timmons was left alone in front of the net. When Byram is on the near boards it is the job of a FORWARD (probably the center or the near side winger) to cover for him. Its perfectly fine for the D-mean to go to the boards, I'd RATHER have a D-man down there than a center, but it is the forwards job to cover for them. Timmons didn't do much wrong, he had to cover 2 guys in front of the net because of lack of support. Byram did nothing wrong, he went to the boards under the dots to chase a puck that is on the FORWARDS, not Byram or Timmons. Watching the replay, that looked to be on Benson, everyone's 2-way hero. It was Benson, or maybe Norris (can't tell from the replay this visualizeer says it was Norris) was the closest guy to the front of the net, as a matter of fact about 2 seconds before the goal was scored Byram was already on the boards and Benson was right near Connor. For some reason he 'floated' away from him and no one covered him.

Ok, just 2 minutes later and Krebs, Greenway, and Malenstyn are out there again already, this time for a longer shift. Maybe Lindy DOES anticipate this is the line he wants the use the most tonight?

A minor gripe, but I don't understan starting with Krebs, Greenway, and Malenstyn. Yeah, there is 'setting the tone' I guess, but their shift lasted a total a 19 seconds and nothing happened. You are on the road, so the Jets are going to match your lines not the other way around. Whatever line you envision getting the most ice time for you, your 'best' line, is going to get matched by the Jets anyway, so just put them out to start the game.

OK, UPL in net. I still don't trust him. Last year his play probably turned me on him more than any other player I can think. I would rather they moved in for spare parts a week ago. But, they didn't and he's in net now. So...play a good game. Maybe steal a game for a win. Those of us that don't trust you, win that trust back. If Ruff and the front office want him as the starter, then be a starter. no softies tonight.

I see the point about the D not hitting they don't do that a lot. But in terms of the Sabres defense overall play that he ripped, was he referring to just the D-men, or the entire group of skaters?

Actually, in the last 8 games between Buffalo and the Flyers, its 4 wins, 4 losses. In the last 12 games, its 6 wins, 6 losses. Go back to 2021-2022, the Sabres had a 5 game win streak over Philly. And that was much the same Sabres team as now (Thompson, Tuch, Dahlin, Krebs, Quinn, Power, Samuelsson, Bryson, and UPL were on those teams...Tage with 5 goals across those 6 games and the Sabres leading goal scorer)

I agree with most of this, I still have some differences though. The goals allowed. I think a lot actually IS on the goalies. The defense isn't perfect, they aren't one of the best in the league, but over the past 2 years I still maintain I am seeing the same things: Goalies allowing more 'weak' goals than they should. Yeah, I get forwards have 'nhl shots' and can pick corners, but when a goalie is set in position, facing the shooter, isn't screened, and the shot is coming from 10-15 feet out (or more), he should be making more saves than he does. And the D-men, they get blamed a LOT more than they should (at least on this forum). I'll give 2 examples/reasons: 1.) The forwards are SO bad in their own end that the D-men get hung out to dry. I have seen forwards just kinda roaming around leaving the trailer uncovered, chasing pucks they will not get to and leaving huge areas open in the D-zone for the oppents to walk into. How does that make the D-men look bad? The D-men are often in position, but because of zero defensive play by the Sabres forward in their own zone, the D-men have to choose, do I stay in MY assigned spot, or do I cover the WIDE OPEN area of the ice the forward on my team left open? When I watch replays I see the D-men often play it 'half way', trying to cover a little bit of their area, and a shade a little bit to cover for the Sabres forward who is 'out to lunch'. If a scoring chance came from the Defensemans are...the only reason they weren't there is they had to cover for a forward, but the fanbase IMMEDIATLEY points out its the D-mens fault because in the narrow view of the camer it looks like it. 2.) my 2nd point is related to my first. There are a few examples of this, but 2 weeks ago the Sabres allowed a goal and I swear there were 4-5 posts right away blaming Power. When I watched the replay, Power was the ONLY guy who played it correctly. The Sabres center was McLeod, he was right behind the puck carrier on the other team and that guy put a little move on McLeod and Mcleod fell for the move and lost him. The puck carrier went toward the corner, and the Sabres winger on the near side was trailing so far behind the play he was a non-factor. So Power, you can see, is watching all of this. As the puck carrier goes into the corner, Power actually looks up, sees he has no coverage in front of the net, but he also sees the guy put the move on Mcleod and leave him in the dust, so now he is all alone approacing the side of the net. Power looks up again, turns to look into the corner, and then shades toward the puck carrier because there is no support from the winger (and none coming). The puck ends up going to the front of the net, McLeod didn't get there in time, and a goal is scored. On the Camera, you can't see the winger WAY beind the play, and on one angle you don't see McLeod getting absolutly roasted by the other team, so while Power is hung out to dry, he LOOKS like he didn't know what he was doing when in fact he was covering for 2 forwards who either made a bad defensive play, or where lollygagging up the ice. Yeah, I know there are legit times Power (or other D-men) DO make bad plays, but I swear there are a lot of "obvious" bad plays they make that actually aren't bad plays, when you watch the entire play unfold and see the awful support they are getting from the forwards. Cozens was guilty of this and you got rid of him so thats good. Quinn might still be the biggest offender in the D-zone, he is awful, one of the worst forwards in the league in terms of supporting the D-men. McLeod has taken a huge step back in this regard this year vs last year. Tuch's strength is forchecking, not playing in his own zone, I get that, but Tuch also really isn't that good inside his own Blue line. I realize Zucker was playing hurt early in the year but he is guilty of this a lot this year too. Sometimes the forwards need to give more effort to get back. Other times when they get back they actually have to do 'nothing' but hold their position, clog up the shooting and passing lanes. This is where Tage is actually pretty good and doesn't get enough credit. He gets inside the blue line and holds his position, and now with his size and reach, that entire area of the ice is a 'no fly zone' for the opposition. He LOOKS like hes not doing anything. He's not chasing loose pucks, he's not forcing turnovers, but he is LETTING the D-men do the work down low instead of forcing them to have to constantly monitor the ice and recoginze where the forwards are messing up and then look bad when they try to figure out how to cover for them. I think more often than not, the best way a forward can help in their own end is to have your Center just patrol the center of the ice, the wingers ONLY engage the boards when there is legit chance to get a puck, and DO NOT CHASE the puck all around the ice. Again, hold your postion, play zone defense, and let the D-men engage the puck with the knowledge they aren't going to be hung out to dry by a forward who is wandering/chasing.

I'll take choice number one, number three, or number five.

I agree in a way. When I think of the term 'three headed monster' I think of something scary in a dangerous kind of way...not a negative way. I don't like this one either but the saying "If you have 3 goalies, that means you don't have 1 (legit) goalie"...is more appropriate than 'three headed monster'. Any catchphrase that lasts more than a day or two, however, can get annoying.

Any new ideas for OT? -4 on 4 with no offside or icing (pretend the lines aren't even there, its a pond hockey free-for-all!) -4 on 4 but only 1 guy listed as a 'defenseman' can be on the ice at any given time. (we see how bad forward are when they have to defend a rush pretending to be a D-man) -how about we stay with 3-on-3, but you can only have 2 skaters inside your own blueline at any time, so every offensive zone possession will be 3 on 2, but there is a chance for a breakout rush in the other direction at any time? -Goalies before overtime have to change pads and wear pads that are MUCH smaller (overtime pads!) along with they can't use a goal stick, but have to take on of their forwards or D-mens regular sticks. -instead of a shootout, lets make it a TAD more like real hockey. The shooting team starts with the puck at their own blue line, but with 2 guys out there. The opposing team has 1 defender, so every 'rush' on the shootout isn't a glorified penalty shot, but a 2-on-1. Not a breakaway competition, but rather a 2-on-1 break competition. C'mon, there has to be some crazier ideas out there!

I can't figure out what role he should have on the PP. He is a player that has the offensive skill, supposedly an accurate shot....but he hasn't really found his 'spot' on any PP unit yet. Point? Nope, as you said. Setting him up for one-timers? He's not really a 'one timer' kind of shooter. Hes going to the net more, but he certainly is still not (and hever has been) a guy to stand in front of the net to take a beating. Down low on the wall as a 'pivot'? Maybe, but he's decent as a puck handler/distrubutor, but not stellar. I'm not really sure where he would truly excel on the PP.