mjd1001

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?

Anyone know the rules based on his age and the AHL next year? If he doesn't make the Sabres NEXT year, could he go to Rochester or would have have to be in juniors?

Who does everyone think has a better shot? Accuracy, release, everthing. Thompson or Olofsson?

It is hard to say much else other than 20-25 goals and about 60 points in a full season. He has a body of work now in the NHL and that would appear to be the player he is. Any upside surprise to that production would be welcome, but if he goes well beyond that it indeed would be a surprise. On a note related to Tuch, I don't remember but was he nursing an injury toward the end of the year. Not only did is production dip slightly, but look at his ice time. Coming off the injury he had when he was traded to the Sabres, his first 25-30 games with the Sabres he had a noticably higher ice time per game than he did the last 20 games. Toward the end of the year, he had a couple games with under 15 minutes of ice time, and most games he was in the 16-18.5 minute range. In the earlier part of the season, he has several games with well over 20 minutes per game. Was he injured during the last month or so to cause the limiting of ice time? Or does anyone know of an obvious reason I'm missing or forgetting about?

Elite 'goal scoring' is not elite. Goal scoring is only one part of a players game. A big part, but only one part. My whole point, and the point of this thread i was responding to was about him being an 'elite player'. If you want to move the goal posts away from the discussion about him being an 'elite player' to an 'elite goal scorer' to fit your argument, fine. He still isn't that currently as an NHL player. AHL and OHL are not the NHL. Plenty of players had 'elite' goal scoring in the minors without it translating to the NHL. For the argument of what kind of player he will be in the NHL, with NHL experience already, tjunior/minor scoring means little to me (and I never referenced it in my argument) So, in the NHL, 17 goals in 51 games in his first year and 41 in 74 last year is NOT elite. It is GOOD...do not confuse good or very good with Elite. -Last year he was 13th in thee league in goals. Very good? Yes. Elite? Not if you aren't in the top 5 for the "Elite" label. -The last 2 years, he is 18th in the league in goals. Not elite -The last 2 years, he is 33rd in the league in points. Not elite -He missed some games, so how about per games played? Last 2 years he is tied for 32 in points per game, 26th in goals per 60, 10th in points per 60, 19th in goals per game, 32nd in points per game. Those are very good, but not elite numbers. I don't know what you consider Elite, but none of that is close to elite in my book. You need to be top 10, PROBABLY top 5 to be considered elite. I understand you like him. I know he is very productive. He scores more than anyone on the Sabres, he might get even better than he is. But in no way has he been up to now 'elite'.

30th in the league is good, not elite. I reserve the term elite for the best of the best, not someone who had one good year finishing in that position in the league. Good, great, elite. He is not elite. Matthews, draisatl, Ovie. Top 10 in points or top 5 in goals. Robertson is not there.

Honestly, hes just not someone I want the Sabres to chase. I don't think he is a good 2 way player and he is a very good finisher but he doesn't create many chances at all by himself. He is good, but not Elite. If the Sabres WANTED to trade for him, I don't know. To me he is the type of player you WANTED Jeff Skinner to be when you signed his contract. Skinner was never going to kill penalties, he wasn't going to be a player to transition the puck out of your own zone. He was just going to put up goals and be good around the net with a good shot. When I see Robertson, I think I would value him like Reinhart, just with a bit more size and a slightly better shot, but a bit less playmaking ability. What is that worth to you? To me, I like the prospects/young guys the Sabres have now so I'd rather roll the dice with them and see which pan out. If Dallas wanted to take a future protected (non top-10) first rounder, Mitts, and a 2nd tier prospect I'd think about that. But I don't think Dallas does that and for the Sabres I don't want to do more than that. Then you have to consider what he wants to get paid. Again, I don't want to pay someone like him $9 million per year AND give up assets fro him when he isn't a complete player and he has done it for 'one' year.