mjd1001

Florida's first goal, Bryson didn't make a bad play but he rushed the chip/pass form behind the net. It was Krebs who lost control of it at that point and gave it away. Not all on him, but a little sloppy/rushed/not winning a battle by Krebs/Bryson that caused that goal. Florida's 2nd goal, both Power and Bryson were at the front of the net with just one Florida player, but FL got the goal. No major mistake by them, but a little more awareness with expereince might have helped. The bigger issue was abourt 10 seconds before the goal Thompson could have cleared the puck or carried it forward, but he blindly threw the puck in front the the Sabres net, Where it went right to Forsling to had a great shot that the reboud was put in. That goal is on Tage. Ekblads PP goal was a case where Girgensons went in deep, Lyubushkin stayed at home instead of moving up to cover Girgensons spot. To me, it looks like a possible mistake was made by Girgensons going in so deep to 'stay with his guy' where the Sabres already had 2 guys there, but it could have been covered up y Lyubuskin moving up, which he didn't do. SH goals allowed are tough to place responsibility on, but Girgs went deep to stay with someone, and the rest of the PK unit didn't adjust to that quick enough. Montours goal was just a case of a couple of minor things. Comrie being a bit sloppy with the rebound is the main one. You would hope with the puck in front of him AND 3 Sabres players surrounding him that the puck would not get out away from all of them but it did. None of the goals allowed to me were goals where Florida's talent just overwhelmed the Sabres. All of them are either correctible or a result of bad breaks/luck. The opportunity that led to the first goal was 30% on Bryson and 70% on Krebs. 2nd Goal is 90% on Tage. But those thing are (hopefully) correctible. Krebs worries me a little so far, and yes I know it is early. We were always told he thinks the game well and is skilled, but lacks speed and size. The first FL goal today was a result of him giving away the puck on the boards. The only goal they allowed against Ottawa wasn't his fault directly, but he was 1/2 step faster, he would have been able to interfere with Tkachuk (the goal scorer).

If Bryson had a good game great. I also understand they are going to want to give Power more ice time than him, no matter how they perform. What I don't get is if he had such a good game, why so little ice time. He by far and away had the least ice time of the D-men, and was even considerably lower than his average from last year.

I like to look at anything notable with ice times, to see how Granato is using the players: Forwards: Spread out pretty evenly. Tuch (17:07) and Mittelstadt (17:04) led. Thompson, Cozens, Okposo not far behind with over 16 minutes. Least went to Quinn(11:25) and Peterka (11:55). Krebs (13:29) also low. Asplund, Girgensons, Cozens led short handed ice time (all over 2:00) D-men: Dahlin (24:16) way out front. Bryson (12:19) lowest. Dahlin led on the PP (over 5 minutes pp time) and Samuelson led PK time (3:41 on the PK)

The plan is to do what they are doing, keep trying. Who COULD be the solution? Anderson and Subban are not. Comrie could be. UPL could be (I personally am more than 50% sure that one of them will be a very good NHL goalie). You have possibilities (still) in both Portillo and Levi. You drafted Leinonen. So you have a lot of 'lottery tickets', and these aren't 1-in-1000 chance lotter tickets. Based on their backgrounds/draft status alone odds say (but not guarantee) that 1 of more of them will be a solution. You can still draft goalies going foward next year as you get closer to getting your answer on the guys in your system now. You can always take a shot next year on a guy in the same situation as Comrie. And, If this team gets better you are more likely to be able to trade for/attract a higher level free agent next year and beyond. So are there any guarantees? Nope. But they are in a lot better position now for their goalie options going forward then they were just a couple years ago (now knowing that Ulmark is not an option). Am I happy with the current goalie situation? No, not happy. But I am happy with the quantity and quality of the pipeline/future plan.

Most teams (except for the very bott Most teams (except for the very bottom dwellers) average their 4th best D-man taking up 3.5-4% of the cap. Some are in the lower 3% range, some have their 4th D-man taking up 5.0-6% of the cap (Such as Brett Pesce in Carolina, Nick Leddy in St. Louis, Josh Manson in Colorado, or Travis Sanheim in Philly). If you can have a decent 4th D-man at 3.5%-3.8% of the cap or a good one at 4%-4.5% of the cap, you are in decent shape. Obviously the teams I mentioned above can fit, or deem it appropriate to pay their 4th D-man 5-6% of the cap. I judge a contract at what it will likely be at the mid-way point. In the 2026-2027 season, he'll be making that $4.2 million, will still be a young 26 years old, and of the few cap projections I have seen (Frank Serevilli usually updates this), the cap might be well over $90 million by then and possibly approacing $100 million a year or two after that. If they think he is going to be a very good #4 D-man, him getting paid 4.5% of the cap is about right. If he ends up being the 3rd best D-man on your team...at the midway point of his deal and still at the age of 26 improving...then him getting paid about 4.5% of your cap will be a bargain.

Happy to hear this. Is he a good coach? I think so, but don't really know. Is he likeable? To me yes, for sure. Take a coach I THINK is good for this team, add to the fact that I like him as a person/like hearing from him, and I'm all for this.

I'm not sure what you consider an 'old guy', Im in my 40s (old to some people) but I hate it too. Annoying. I had season tickets when I was a kid (with my father) and teenager form the lat 80's through the 90's and never remember it then, I think it must have started in the 2000s. Either way, it is something I can't tune out, I hear it all the time and don't like it.

I'm not as sold on that 2nd line as many others are. Ok, I think they will be a good 2nd line but a lot of what I hear is that it could be one of the 'best 2nd lines' in the league. I think poeple are expecting too much from Giroux. On the games I saw him play last year, he looked done, like really really done. 21 goals and 65 points last year was pretty good production, but he didn't look that good to me. Also, that line is quick but there is no size there at all, they might very well be one of the smallest lines in the league. I do expect that line to be pretty good though, and Ottawa should be better than last year. They started out awful last year, winning something like only 3 or 4 of their first 20 games. For most of the rest of they year (the next 62 games) they were more than a point-per-game team. Just that hole they dug at the beginning of the year was so big. They did add players in the offseason, and their young prospects like the Sabres, are one year older, so could they be a playoff team this season?

So does that mean you think they will start with 3 goalies in Buffalo? I guess I'm wondering if you send UPL down because they wan't him to 'get work' and with 3 goalies up in Buffalo they are splitting games 3 ways. Yet he appears to be the most deserving to start the season here. Unless you stick with the 'long term' plan and not let 2-3 weeks of performance by them change that.

I agree there never really is a 'must win'...unless it is used inside of a particularly defined context: -When facing an elimination game in the playoffs, a 'must win' would determine whether your season ends or not. -when facing your magic number to elimination, that becomes a 'must win' in the regular season to determine if you make the playoffs or not. -when playing a game while riding a 4 or 5 game losing streak, a 'must win' would be a game that determines the sanity level of much of your fanbase. Again, no game is ever a 'must win' unless you define what the consequences are. Those can be different for many people, which is why the phrase gets used alot. Personally, I don't think I hardly even use that phrase on this forum at all, and yes, it can annoy me when it gets thrown out there a lot. However, personally for me I'l defend the right of people to use it. I have said many times, this is a message board, an online community that works best when the most people participate in it. Everyone is not going to agree with everyone else, and once we start 'gatekeeping' or even saying we want people to stop saying things here, that only hurts participation in this community.

I watched most of the preseason, but I missed this game totally. Comrie let in so many goals, I know a lot of people are saying he didn't have support in front of him,but still, 7 goals can't be a good game from a goalie. UPL has looked pretty good in his action in games and camp...with Comries performance, what is going to happen? He had limited time in Buffalo last year but had a .913 save percentage with the team in those limited games, and while that doesn't give him a spot in Buffalo, wasn't he the best goalie in camp and preseason by far?

If Wilson truly is done, that franchise is in a world of hurt like nothing we have seen in the NFL in a while. If I'm correct, they don't have anything higher than a 3rd round pick in an upcoming draft until 2025. With the division they are in, there is virtually zero chance in the next few years of them stumbling into a competive year like the NFC east teams have had recently. You keep Wilson until the deal is done and you may have below average QB play while paying more than the Bills pay Josh Allen. Cut him loose early and you have starting from zero at QB, no way to draft a high prospect for years, and STILL having less money to fill out the roster due to his guarantee. So Yes, if Wilson doesn't turn into his 3-4 year-old-self, Broncos fans might be in a hopeless mindset unlike anything they have ever experienced.

With Boston, is it will they fall or how far will they fall. Over the past 5 seasons, they have been incredibly consistent. They have had a 65.2% of points (107 points over a full season) exactly in 3 of the last 5 seasons. The other 2 seasons they were even better (.714, 116 point pace) and (.691, 112 point pace). If you average those 5 seasons 'point paces' (due to shortened seasons) out over the last 5 seasons they average nearly a 110 point pace. If that doesn't put them at the top of the league, it has got to be very close. As of this morning, the Vegas under/over ponts for them was 96.5 So the question is, will they drop that much (10 points from last year, nearly 15 from their 5 year average)? Even if they are getting older, it might seem a stretch to drop even more.

I have been among the many on here that have been predicting the demise of the Bruins for a few years, without it really happening. I am still pretty sure though that when it does happen it will happen with little warning and it will come quickly. Marchand is an injured 34 year old with a lot of hard miles on him. Foligno is 34 and he looks like he is not even close to the player he was. Bergeron is 37, and while still great 2 ways, at 37 hes close to the end. Krejci is back this year at 36, but the last time he scored 20 goals in the NHL was when he was 32. Pastrnack and McAvoy are the only 2 players on that team under 30 that I would trust to carry a team, but they can't do it alone. What I expect is the Bruins to start slow, get hot in the middle of the season and have every say "yep, they are back" but have them slow down by the end of the year again. Boston and Pittsburgh are both due for a pretty hard fall. It may not happen this season, but if it doesn't it is close.

Goals mean 3 times as much to me as assists do. And I'll give a little more to Norris over Robertson because he plays center. I'm not saying Robertson is a bad player, hes not, he is a very good goal scorer. However, when I watch Norris I see a guy that looks like he is on the verge of taking over games, he controls the puck in the offensive zone really well. In the games (and yes, I have seen more than a few) where Robertson plays, I see a finisher, who is best close to the net, that doesn't really do much more than an average winger in the offensive zone when he is away from the puck. Hes a great scoring winger, but he just doesn't have the skill to controll the puck in the offensive zone that Norris does.

The Norris Deal is an interesting comparison, and if he has outperformed Noriss it is only by a small margin: -Over the past 2 years, Norris has 52 goals in 125 games. Robertson has 58 goals in 128 games. Robertson has more assists, but both last year scored more goals than had assists. -Josh Norris is playing Center. Like it or not, teams tend to value a guy who is a potential first line center a bit more than a potential first line winger with similar production. -The dollars per year are almost the same, the Norris deal might actually be cheaper long term as it is longer and will be less of a cap hit in later years in terms of percentage of cap. -They are both the same age -The only other difference is 'pedigree'. Norris was a mid 1st round pick, Robertson was an early 2nd. When you compare those 2 guys...their age....their production....the deal Robertson got is probably right where it should be based on Norris.

Through most of the recent NHL season, if you can be even or positive in your teams goal differential, that gets you in the playoffs or very close. No guarantees, but each year it is only 1 or 2 teams that are positive that don't make the playoffs, and about the same number of teams that are negative that do make the playoffs. So how do the Sabres closer to even, or possbily even positive? Last year they were -58. The average goals scored/allowed per team was I THINK 266 last year. How do the Sabres get from where they were last year to there? The scored 232 so they need to get 34 more goals scored. They allowed 290, so they have to cut that down by 24. What if the Sabres got better goaltending? The league average save percentage last year was .902. The 20th, 21st, and 22nd best goalies in the league last year (anyone over 35 games played) were at .910. The Sabres allowed 2702 shots last year. With leage average goaltending, they would allow 268-270 goals, almost 25 less than last year. With a goalie/goaltending at .910 (20th best in the league last year), they would allow 245 goals. Want to take it a bit further? The Sabres allowed more shots than an average team, in addition to stoping less shots. With Dahlin getting one year better, Power and Sameulson improving the D unit, what if the Sabres just became league average in terms of shots allowed? That brings them down to just over 2600 shots allowed (almost 100 less than last year). So my numbers might not be correct down to the goal but I think they are close. If they can allow league average shots and get league average goaltending, they allow 266 goals. If they can get that 20th best goaltending (.910) and allow league average shots, that gets them down to about 235-240 goals, (which would be 50-55 of an improvement from this season) I'm not saying they will, or could do any of that. But any combination of those gets them most of where they need to go in terms of goals allowed. If, IF they got top 20 NHL goaltending AND cut shots allowed down to league average, they would be very close to that even goal differential without even scoring any more goals.

I have no idea how many goals he will score, whether he will regress or not. I'm hoping he doesn't and if I had to place a bet I'd say he won't, but I would not be surprised by anything. A lot of it has to do with the fact that scoring is up across the NHL, due to rule changes, how the game is getting called, goalie equipment. Whatever. Tage finished 19th in the league in goals last year with 38. Go back a decade ago and the 20ths best goal scorer in the league were hitting the high 20's or right around 30 goals. He is actually listed as 28th in the league in terms of 'goals per game' last year with anyone that played more than half the season (.49 ggp). Can he repeat that? Sure. If scoring goes up slightly again next year, and his 'goals per game' goes up to .5 or .52 (a slight increase) and he playes a full 82 games...there is your 40+ goals. And if he takes a step back, how much? It'll be interesting to track his production as the season progresses, in light of his new contract extension.

As far as locking threads, I'm all for keeping them open. If people want to keep posting the same things over and over, well, then let us. If the threads have 2 people causing problems, then suspend those people for a few days to calm them down. The only reason I think a thread should be locked is if it is totally out of hand with multiple people just going at each other and getting way off topic (politics for example) With that said, I think 35th sounds abour right for Eichel now. Is he capable of having a top 10 single season? Sure. But I don't see him as anywhere close to being a top 10 player. His 2 best seaons where 18-19 and 19-20. Take only those 2 seasons, and he wasn't even in the top 10 in scoring among forwards. Let along how many D-men were better 'overall' players than him, and that is over his 2 best seasons. For his career he is what he is. 47 overall in points since he got in the league. 58th in goals. Injuries DO matter, but take out his games missed and look at his 'per game' totals and he still is 35th (how about that) in points per game. While he isn't a total trainwreck in his own end, hes also not moving up the list of 'overall' play with his defensive skills. The forget about points, how many D-men or goalies are better overally players that don't rank above him in points due to D-men usually not getting as many points? Again, I'm not saying he is awful, and he just may have some top-10-in-the-league scoring seasons in him at times, but until he shows a few of those in a row, I'm comfortable with saying he is close to that 35th area.

I'm not sure if you are serious or joking. He is a good player, a VERY good player. But I think this is a major over-pay. He is already in the prime of his career, the most goals he has ever scored was 22 in full season (and that was 6 years ago). He has never since scored over 20 and last year he played most of a full season (73 games) and only scored 15 during a year when league scoring was WAY up. He was tied for 186th in the league in goals last year, and if you include his rookier year (which was his best year) for his career there are 132 players who have scored more goals than him. If you want to count assists also, he is still only 62nd in the league in total 'points'. Again, he is good, he is very good, he puts up assists, but I can't see paying a player what is going to be about 10% or more of your cap (over the contract length) when he has scored over 20 goals once in his career. If you value his 2 way play, he is a good leader, and he puts up 40+ assists in addition to his 15-20 goals then fine, pay him 7% of your cap, maybe 8%. But $9+ million dollar contracts have to be reserved for guys that will net you at least 30 on a consistent basis and bring those other things too.

Figure out a way to not make penalties such a big part of the sport and so influential to the viewer of the races. You want some ideas that may not be perfect but would be a starting point to doing this... -Too many "5 second penalties" issued during the race or even worse, AFTER the race. Someone does something terrible in the race, black flag them (or whatever the F1 equivilent is) and make them do a pass-through down pit lane, right away. Issuing a 5 second penalty 'after' the race is awful. -Some drivers suggested this one a month or two ago. You want drivers to stop cutting the corners too short, someone brought up a 'coated gravel' right on the edge of the racing surface. Drivers CAN drive over it without crashing or causing gravel to go all over the track, but it will give them a terrible vibration and going over it just a couple times might even lead to excess tire wear (but likely no blow-outs) -In place of some of the in-race penalties, start issuing HEAVY fines and take away point after the race. If its not a driver error but a 'team' error that causes a penalty, start supsending guys from the team. Start suspending and banning team principals from a race or two, with some hefty fines on the team, and I'll bet a lot of the garbage stops pretty quick/

I get frurtated with all the rules in F1, but at the same time I follow it more. Races last no more than 2 hours and zero commercials during it. They redid the entire track in Atlanta, added a lot more banking and made the track narrower. It now drives more like Daytona or Talladega than it does other mid-sized tracks. Traditionalists hate it but I love how it races now. To me, it is 90% of the way to superspeedway racing, drafting matters, cars drive in packs, but it isn't quite to the level of Daytona or Talladega. Its hard to describe exactly. Just to me the races there became a LOT better and not like any other track at all. If you want to take a few seconds and see what it looks like:

-Toronto Blue Jays, sneaky good season. I haven't followed MLB too closesly this year but earlier in the year I though they were in trouble, they look better now. -Formula one. Too many rules and too many penalties. I know, it is different than Nascar, but figure out how to do it differently. Too many engine penalties, Cost cap penalties. Track limit penalties during the race. Safety car violations for being too close or too far from the safety car (in Nascar I have seen drivers bump the 'pace car') Multiple investigations for incidents during the race. Time penalties assessed AFTER the race. Again, I'm not saying it is easy, but figure things out! -Nascar. medium length ovals are boring. Change all those tracks to the new Atlanta layout or just replace them. -Hockey. Just can't wait for it to start.

Lamar Jackson starting vs Buffalo in his career (3 starts including the playoffs): 1 win, 2 losses 4 passing TD's, 4 Ints 64% completion percentage 150 passing yards per game (Average) Either he is due for a huge, major game vs the Bills, or something about the Bills D-scheme shuts him down better than most other teams.

I'm fine with no drama, I just want to see this roster the first 10 games. I always though Krebs was just abot 100% to make the roster, never thought that was in doubt. I'm interested in Pilut. Is he in Roch? is he #7? or does he actually crack the opening day top 6?