Thorny

Goes pretty well with what I'm getting at in the other thread. Because we could add Eichel to this team and still finish last, and teams can add E-Rod and that guy can make a huge positive difference. It's about the overall environment. For the most part, a grouping buoys the individual, not the other way around. This isn't the NBA, or a QB in the NFL. Your best couple players *don't play* the majority of the game. Adding Casey Mittelstadt and Alex Tuch to this roster from game 1 wouldn't make us notably better. We shouldn't be surprised a Bjork or E-Rod couldn't, then. An MVP level player could not.

And I don't know why you don't understand why I keep doing it. We don't have key players. We have a roster literally designed with the idea of "next man up" being strictly viable. People have been saying in threads all year our roster is ideally structured for exactly that. Because it's true. Put someone in, take someone out. Put a couple in, take a couple out - it's not going to matter in the standings. The gap from Mittelstadt and Tuch to Eakin and whoever, when compared to the gaps other teams have, OR EVEN DON'T HAVE, when looking at their injury or covid situations, are but a drop of urine in the ocean. With the exception of Dahlin, the rest is mostly interchangeable. - - - We could add Jack Eichel to this roster and we'd be at the bottom of the league. How do I know? Cause I freaking saw it already! We aren't adding that kind of talent to this roster if we somehow could retroactively grant the team a clean bill of health for the full year. Add every single player that's been hurt and they don't add as much value as replacing Krebs with Eichel would.

I've been thinking we are in the Wonder Years.

whoops sorry it wasn't supposed to read aggressively, LGR. my apologies. - - - I legitimately believe people forget about the development Eichel underwent because it was, you know, even "expected" is probably the wrong word. It was pre-ordained. But it still did happen. Even if it wasn't to a generational level. Not saying you, specifically.

It's okay to be of the position that says, "Not only could we not have expected better on-ice this season, from the players we have, our GM also had no choice in assembling said roster the way he did, and taking the pathway he did." - it just doesn't leave any room for discussion. We are simply witnessing justified inevitability, then. I do know that certain posters I may or may not be conversing with right now were posting screengrabs of the Sabres' position in the standings this past October after a few games, so I have indeed been under the impression taking a stance on the actual results may have merit, and/or bear discussion.

Ghost is having a really good year. Surprised that guy got through waivers.

I like how people pretend Eichel didn't develop. He had a more linear upward trajectory than any Sabre in my memory. Reinhart also had a strong, strong development curve. Eichel went from a 56 point scorer as an 18 year old rookie to a player who finished 11th in the ENTIRE LEAGUE in points per game at 19 lol. I guess that doesn't count though because it was, as they say, "All part of the plan" - The Joker. It's all framed through expectation. - - - The advanced metrics identify Eichel-the-rookie as contributing more negatively to possession than positively - and in a mere 4 years he was top 10 in league MVP voting. Development.

I agree with the first bold. As for the second, I don't think you are understanding my argument. My entire point is that the Sabres being "less able" to deal with disruption isn't something that should be construed as "bad luck" or a potential area for improvement, heading into next season. We will continue to be hampered by injuries to a greater extent than other teams if we continue to have a lack of depth relative to other teams. It's a self-made failing. The roster with a lack of depth is the roster we chose to assemble.

Will the Sabres benefit from inside improvement more than some other teams? I could see it. Without added depth, they'll almost certainly lose a portion of that increased benefit due to injury, once it has it's affect on our team next year, as it will with all others. Would need to see some outside addition to the roster this summer from KA to prevent that portion of loss. We will also lose a portion of that benefit due to other teams also having an influx of talent. Will we lose the full benefit? No, I think overall we have more talent on the way than average, but I am perhaps biased towards the Sabres - can't claim to be as familiar with the prospects units of all the other teams. Owen Power seemingly presents a notable exception, which is encouraging. Again, one need only look at the general statistical WAR of players across the NHL to see we are looking at a near-insurmountable gap, over one year, should we be adding said young players to a 60 point team. What's the expectation? That brining back the same team plus rooks nets us 70-75 points? It is uncommon for a team to improve that much year over year, but I could see it being possible. If the conversation is, Jack Quinn, JJ Peterka, and Owen Power are going to come in year 1 and with the addition of one of Casey or Tuch (one will be injured, yes, we can assume a non-healthy lineup) we'll be fighting for a playoff spot - I'm not there.

I can acknowledge the 10 guys, but I'm also aware most teams undergo similar turnover in most other years. I can't remember who posted it a little while back, but changing out a third or so of your roster *every* year is really quite common. Maybe the Sabres turn over a couple more guys than normal? My argument isn't so much that we don't have talent coming - we do. It's that it *isn't* being added to a team that is being misrepresented by it's point total this year. The Sabres are where they *should* be in the standings this year - that they didn't have the depth to withstand injury, something every team is tested on, every year, is not a mark in Adams' favour. They can't have expected better, is my point. They do not have an absurd amount of talent missing relative to other teams, one can't reasonably expect Craig Anderson to amount to more than he has. It was a bad bet to begin with. There's no credit there. If we start the projection for next year out from a ~ 60 point, bottom 5 (soon to be bottom 4) roster, I think we are more/less on the same playing field here. We may differ on how much improvement we'll see, next season, by Adams doing what everyone wants him to do - which is sit on his hands and draft players. You may just see more improvement coming from the infusion of youth than I do. Or, you may not - maybe I see the same and I just see the starting point as much lower. All I can do is keep consistency of argument, it's what matters to me - I've said all along that I was NOT ok with a "this season wasn't about winning anyway" attitude, and I know you are familiar with my posts. Nothing has changed for me, I'm not skewing anything to fit my stance: I wanted to see the team perform better *this* season. For me, if we were seeing more promise from the young players and team we have now, if Adams had added further supplementation, whatever the reason may be - I'd be a lot more confident the guys we have coming could serve to bridge the gap. To me, things look a lot further away than next season. And it's a good point. Owen Power is the one guy who gives me hesitation in predicting little improvement next season should Adams more/less sit on his hands.

Same. I work nights and it starts pretty much when I get home. They somehow manage to keep it entertaining for 3 hours every day, the hosts deserve a lot of credit. Kay is the best. Isn't really another sports show like it. Brandt's Angry Runs is a highlight for sure

You should be good to go, then

Does anyone else watch Good Morning Football regularly? Good show.

If the Sabres are good, no one will care about what Eichel does. If the Sabres are bad...we'll hear about it.

We'll see.

Every whisper, of every waking hour I'm choosing my confessions Trying to keep an eye on you Like a hurt, lost and blinded fool, fool Oh no I've said too much I set it up

The Sabres are where they *should* be this season, in the standings, based on the roster they assembled. If we run it back, we aren't going to make up ground next year simply due to health - it just doesn't work like that. It's not bad luck. It's something that needs to be expected. That we couldn't withstand the injuries should tell the GM he's in need of roster supplementation. I understand that is coming next year in the form of rookies - I am of the opinion, due to how far down the standings we are, that it's not going to be enough. I really wanted to see a team this year performing better - to the extent I really had some optimism that the kids coming could represent a tipping point. I don't think we are near a tipping point yet, based on what I've seen committed to visual this year. Still some runway left, though. It's why I watch the games.

Exactly. Injuries are affecting us more because we were in a lesser spot to withstand them relative to the rest of the league. It's the key distinction. It's why it's not a point for optimism, some sort of avenue of improvement we can key on for next year - the way injuries work isn't going to change. It only represents an area for improvement if KA actively goes out and improves team depth. But saying a team can be better if said team goes out and adds better players isn't a revelation - every team is literally in that boat.

What can one say? McDavid just isn't a leader of men, I guess. Deal him. For the culture.

I really don't think so. We've seen guys like Jokijarju shuffle back into the lineup and make not so much as a dent in team performance. If we were to add Mittelstadt and Tuch in, and let all the other teams get 2 players of their choice back, I really fail to see how we make up any ground at all. Every team has injuries and is missing players - this doesn't make up an avenue for improvement next year. The central point of your argument is at once correct, and relatively meaningless - sure, we'd be better with those guys. No, I don't believe there is much relative ground to be gained. Are injuries going to disappear from existence next season? Do we think universal health is on the way next season or something? So long as the Sabres don't have depth, they'll be shaken by the factors that test depth. Craig Anderson doesn't deserve an argument here. No way I need to formulate an argument for why that short stretch of good play from him was fool's gold when I spend all offseason predicting it's exactly what would happen. Everyone did. Again, an accurate point perhaps, with little meaning. Sure, Anderson's numbers were better. How does that represent an avenue for improvement next season? Do you think if we brought Anderson back next, that would be a viable strategy? Would you do it? Of course you wouldn't, cause you know he doesn't actually represent an avenue for improvement. Which torpedoes the argument.

My point is that there's little gap between our "projected" 1st liners and our "projected" 3rd liners. I don't care if it's Casey Mittelstadt this year or Zemgus Girgensons during the tank years - those guys being projected for a role doesn't mean they are actually of that quality. We didn't lose a 1C, we lost Casey Mittelstadt. Losing Craig Anderson isn't losing a 1G. He was never going to hold up as the 1G. Health wise, numbers wise, take your pick. A bad bet turning out bad isn't a cause for optimism, it's the revelation of bad planning by Kevyn Adams - - - If every team was completely healthy, I'd imagine we'd be right about where we are in the standings. The types of injuries we've had certainly don't represent any kind of significant WAR differential - and certainly not to the point where we'd be making up ground on other teams, should they have all their health in tact, as well.

Maybe a little bit. Looking at the numbers, there isn't too too much of a discrepancy relative to the rest of the defenders in the league manning the top page of the D scoring leaders. About 63% of his points have been at evens, which is similar to other top D. He's tied for 14 in the league among D men for points, and tied for 24th in even strength points, so there isn't too much of a gap there. I think he's good enough that the minutes probably remain regardless, and with an improved team I think the raw scoring totals go way up, particularly on the PP.

So when I pointed out I was still worried with the direction of the team why did you tell me "the bad men are gone, it's been cleansed" or whatever? I never really understood that when we both agree Pegula is at the root.

I don't think it's meaningless, at all. Unless we think the Sabres have lost more talent relative to the rest of the league due to injury, I'd say we see nearly every team struggling with losing players to covid. Looking at each team, yes, most have lost key players for a significant amount of time. The Sabres aren't worse off - they are in the same boat as everyone else. We probably feel it more than other teams because of our lack of depth - but that isn't a positive. Lack of depth will *always* be a death knell for team, covid or not - the injury bug always comes around, as we've seen in every other year. Also, it wasn't a blanket dismissal, I went on to make several other points in that post