mjd1001

I'm still fine with Adams and Granato starting next year. I haven't seen much in the past couple months to think a change makes things better right away.

It would appear they are thinking Krebs could take that 3c job...but since the Mitts trade, he is only averaging just over 12 minutes of ice time per game. Not exactly throwing him out there and waiting for him to take that spot. Only Robinson and Jost are getting less ice time than him (and even they are within a few seconds of Krebs). I'm thinking/hoping Thompson is playing through a wrist injury that will be better next year. He had a 'career' year last year, but it wasn't just last year, he had a full year the season before where he was shooting at 15+ percent and scoring at a 40 goal pace. If he gets back to that 40+ goal guy they team is in pretty good shape, I just need to see it.

Dahlin is still growing/learning/getting better. BUT, I think his play gets better and he gets more recoginition if/when he is on a team that is doing a lot better. If the Sabres were to be a 100+ point team next year and fighting for a division title, he may very well get attention as one of the best in the league.

Interesting comparison. It might be true. I think Jackson had a slightly wider 'net' so to speak of fans. I'm not saying Taylor Swift doesn't have fans from all ages, demographics, genders, she does, and maybe she is bigger than Michael Jackson. My memory of him in the 1980's and early 90's was a slight bit more diversity (gender wise) in people who listened to his music.

I can argue what is harder to find both ways. This team (Sabres) spent a LONG time trying to find top Centers...and while you can argue you did have 'decent' #2 or #3 guys, you haven't had a very good one through most of the last 15 years. A top pair D-man, yeah, those are REALLY hard to find. But, you have one in Dahlin, I think you could say you might/should have one eventually in Power. Is Byram overkill in terms of top D-man, and what you might have to pay them when he is up for a new deal? Again, I could argue this either way. Ultimately, I'm happy with the deal. Mostly because in a VERY small sample size, Bryam looks really good here. But also because I think Mitts is a 'good' #2 or #3 center, but I was not as high on him as many on this board and I think a player like Byram has a better chance of being a bigger difference-maker on this roster than Mitts did.

In just over 5 minutes, the Sabes have as many, or more goals than they did in 4 of the previous 5 games vs this team.

Zemgus keeping the puck on the boards to flip to Thompson on Tage's goal, and now in front of the net providing a distraction on Tuch's goal. He's not a long term solution on that line, but he's not dragging it down either.

Ok, beat this team already. 5 games vs them. 0-5 record. Only one of them was close, a 4-3 loss just over a year ago. The rest were blow-outs (or at least borderline blowouts), most recently a 5-2 Loss in January, a 5-1 loss, a 7-4 loss, and another 5-2 loss. So, 5 total games against them. 5 losses. 12 goals scored, 26 goals allowed. I just want to see them beat this team. One positive note...the last 2 times they faced Seattle, they have outshot them 73-48 (but still lost those 2 games by a combined score of 9-5)

Agree with you (partially) on Diggs. I'd be open to the team not losing much if he wasn't here. But your take on members of this forum sticking to Hockey is way, WAY out of line. Many posters here follow the Bills just as much as the Sabres. Just because someone 'likes' hocky more or likes to 'talk' hockey more on this forum, doesn't mean their opinion should be invalidated or put down because its here vs 'over there'.

Yeah, I really don't see that as negative. Different is different. Could be longer practices, could be different structure. different times. Different drills. When you were part of any coaching staff's practice for a few years, or any organization for as long as he is....I dont' know. I think the people reading that deeply into that line WANT to view it as negative to Granato.

I know people just want to take shots at Granato if that is their/your agenda...but reading that article, can someone point out to me the part of it where he takes shots at Granto's coaching as opposed to just general comments that the team didn't make the playoffs in his tenure here? I don't see it.

That has happened to me with loss/lost also, and I have many posts with 'edited' on them for grammer/spelling errors. I almost SWEAR sometimes there is some form of autocorrect going on though, because when I re-read my posts, the 'mistakes' I often find are not one-letter mistakes, but instead grammer mistakes that I swear I did not make.

This is a bad topic for me because when I post things, especially long posts, I find I make a lot of typos that I often have to go back and correct, and some I just miss. If I had to pick one, it would be lose - loose. Not because mistakes don't happen, but I have seen posts from people (I THINK on Twitter) that the same person will make the one over and over that I think its intentional.

Its Dahlin for me right now. Bryam has such asmall sample size as other have said. Lets see how he fits into this team, lets see what happens as he gets 22-24 minutes game after game after game. Maybe he will be great. He has been great in a very small sample size, but I also haven't really seen enough of him in his own end to know. Dahlin has had some struggles early in the year, but I think he's already a top 20 D-man in this league. In the offensive end he may not be 'elite' at everything, but he is very good at almost everything...skating, shot accuracy, finding open guys, controlling the puck and making others miss him, avoiding hits. Defensively, he can be somewhat physical, scoops up loose pucks and controls them in the D-zone, often makes great exit passes/stretch passes. With a 'better' team around him and one or two less minutes per game, for an entire year, he's getting Norris consideration.

Not sure, but doesn't that number go down quite a bit if they trade him after June 1?

It was only the first 6 games where he didn't play. Since game 7, he has started 39 of 67 games (almost 60 percent basically being the starter since then). And as far as those first 6 games, UPL wasn't playing well in the beginning of the year. Even after he was installed as the De-facto starter in late October getting the majority of the work, he had a GAA of 3.13 and save percentage of .892 through the end of the calendar year. Maybe he was battling a nagging injury, maybe the team in front of the Sabres goaltenders was playing awful Defense...but I don't think he would have made an appreciable difference in the standings if he played those first 6 games. After he did take over, he played 7 of the next 9 games, winning 3, losing 4 and having a GAA of over 3 in those starts. He, and/or the team, wasn't playing well at the beginning of the year.

After 67 games, the Sabres have 69 points this season. Last year after 67 games, they had 72 points. Last year starting at game 68, the Sabres went on a 3 game losing streak, losing those 3 games by a total score of 19-5. IF the Sabres get 3 points in the next 3 games, they will have the exact same number of points after 70 game as they did last year (and actually be better in terms of tie-breakers due to more regulation wins) Last season, the Sabres got 19 points in the final 12 games. They are now also a positive in goal differential. The last time an eastern conference team finished with a positive goal differential and did NOT make the playoffs (pre-covid, traditional playoff format) was in the 2018-2019 season.

Clifton gets Lee off the ice, their 5th best scorer, I guess thats a good trade.

Alex Nylander, 6 goals in 10 games for Columbus after scoring again tonight.

Not to say it was Okposo's fault, but when he was with the Islanders, they weren't a really good team overall for the first part of his career. Also, the Islanders were not the 'play team defense and shut down the opponents' back then they way they are now. Basically, he NEVER was part of/learned a 2-way game with them, and he certainly didn't learn it with the Sabres.

For the season.... Period 1: Opponents outscore the Sabres 78-50 Period 2: Sabres outscore opponents 67-60 Period 3: Sabres outscore opponents 76-55 Either it is the fault of coaches they start so slow because they don't have the team ready...or it is credit to the coaches for making adjustments as the game goes on to make them better at the end.

I agree with you that is not really a 'top team'. But that is almost a 97 point pace, so 'good' at least, and the thing that makes it feel better is, they have been in just about every single game. Of their 11 losses, I would say most were either 1 goal losses or 2/3 goal losses due to empty net goals. I think there really have maybe been only 3 or 4 of those 28 games that they lost 'cleanly', in contrast to the beginning of the year where they would have 'clean losses' 3 or 4 times a month at least.

Skinner goes to the boards and wins a puck battle, leading to the goal.

If he is ready/not injured anymore, I would like to see him get a least a game or two of actual competition. Again, if he doesn't have greater a chance of re-injury. Just to get him in NHL game action now, so when training camp hits its not a 'hasn't played in 6 months' type of thing with him.

I mostly agree with this, but if that is the case, I think they went too far. Yes, early this year and last year the Sabres allowed a lot of odd-man-rushes against. That would seem to be the reason for the drop in offense, you have to be a bit more conservative on offense to prevent those odd man rushes. HOWEVER... I think the Sabres could have sacrificed VERY little in terms of offense and still made the defense better by not making the changes they supposedly made, and just focused on what happens when they DID get in the D-zone. Meaning, no changes to your rush habbits, no changes to neutral zone play. Just focus on what to do once the puck is in your own zone. Many, MANY goals have been allowed in the past 2 seasons that had nothing to do with 'getting back' into the zone, but simply how aware the forwards were/are once in the zone. I'm no sure if I 100% buy into the fact that they sacrificed offense to get better defensively. I think most of their drop off in offense is due to injuries (games missed) and playing through injuries they didn't have last year (Tuch and Thompson). But if they did change their style, I would rather have them not made so many changes and instead just focus on what happens in the D-zone once the other team sets up there.