Kruppstahl

Someone please explain the generally accepted widespread love for "royal blue" with our uniforms. I find it to be cheesy and the deep navy blue is a much classier, longer lasting look. I agree it does tend to look too dark on TV, but that's a different matter entirely. It's funny, b/c I think most Sabres fans LOVE our uniforms, like they are clearly among the best in the league. I have been looking at them since the 1970s and have ALWAYS found them to be kind of cheesy. Blue, white, and gold is not really a great color grouping and there's nothing special about them other than the leaping Buffalo logo, which I do like. I hated the goat's head, but otherwise LOVED the switch to red, black, and white at the time. When we wore our all blacks, we looked positively evil and the overall look was fantastic. We had some very tough teams wearing those uniforms too, which didn't hurt, along with some very talented teams. I have good memories of those uniforms overall, and if you are seeing a replay of a significant moment in Sabres history, the guys are probably wearing the red/white/black stuff. Anyway, so what's with the "Royal blue"? It's cheesy. Conceptually, I do think we should stick with our historically correct colors, so I don't mind the return to white/gold/blue, but then you have to try and make the most of it. A darker, navy type blue is a step in the right direction. I would love to see the gold somehow represented as more of a gold and not a red-tinged yellow as they are now. I believe I have done this before, but I will attach a photo of one of the few good looks I have ever seen with our color scheme. Would be nice to work a tiny bit of red into it so we can replicate this with our uniforms:

Yes, the hinge! The idea being that not only should the 2 D-men work together, and they should not only be on separate sides of the ice, but also one in front of the other. That's the hinge. If I'm behind you and the puck goes over to you, I should then get ahead of you, or if the puck comes toward your side, I need to get back behind you. One forward, one back at all times if possible. That's an old hockey piece of conventional wisdom. Don Cherry has talked about "the hinge" on more than one Coach's Corner over the years. I agree Risto's hockey IQ is very low and it's not going to change. He turned out to be a real disappointment, along with "Big Z" Zadorov. Those are 2 big guys with a nasty streak in them, and they should be worth their weight in gold. As it turned out, both have a hockey IQ below room temperature. Imagine if they were both really solid D-men and Big Z was still in Buffalo. Our team would be a lot better than it is.

No worries, we already have that covered!

I don't know. It's like Botterill is stockpiling right shooting D-men as they can be a trade commodity in the league. I don't know if he is acquiring these guys as currency in future deals or if he actually wants to keep Jokiharju.

Hey Wildcard! This is some of the best content I've seen here. THANK YOU

He gets a ton of defensive zone starts and is outstanding (statistically) at keeping opponents' shots down 5 on 5. He doesn't score a ton but that's not his thing and that's not what he's been asked to do. What he does do he does well, at least compared to most guys on the team. He'll be gone after this upcoming season, if he stays that long. I wonder if this signing isn't about Botterill keeping him around for a trade piece to be used this off-season.

This is another nothing move from Botterill. A few more of these followed by a terrible season and I think we'll be rid of him for good.

Botterill is way too cautious and conservative by nature; I think he's shown that to date. Not sure he realizes the scope of this off-season project! Swapping out secondary and tertiary contributors for different names doing the same type of thing ain't gonna cut it. I do think we will start to see some moves soon though.

Anyone who just watched the NHL playoffs should be aware that this is not an either/or type of debate. NHL playoff hockey is a physical war and if you are not ultra competitive and tenacious, AND with lots of talent, you won't win the Cup. You need both and I can't think of a recent Cup winner that didn't have both.

If it makes you feel better, I have never heard that name before either.

Right, like the kid who, a few drafts ago, couldn't complete a single pull-up despite being a top draft choice, or some of the tiny kids being selected last night. Hughes looks like I did as a sophomore in high school; he has the body of a child. Look at current Sabres; they aren't all big, fast, strong guys; you are being overly dramatic. And every player from the '80s wasn't a talentless sack of *****. The '80s Oilers teams (some of them at least) had Paul Coffey on the blue line. For those here too young to know him or to have watched his career, take my word for it, he could skate backwards.

I'm guessing you are young. Maybe when you get older you're see this in a more complex way. Again, the issue here is not comparing the average player of today's game to the average player of the '80s. The modern player is better, faster, bigger, stronger. We're talking about taking the best players of former eras and putting them in today's game. If you think the best players of all time would not be able to compete against the floaters and mediocrities that fill modern NHL rosters, well, I disagree with you. Sure, *some* of the modern guys are big and *some* of them are fast. Some are both. Hockey is so much more than that. Years ago I talked with Theo Fleury in a bar after a Flames game in Buffalo. He was smoking along with goalie Mike Vernon and several other Flames players. On that night, I got Craig Berube's autograph on a napkin (!) which I still have! He was a big guy and had super long black hair and my buddies and I all thought he was the greatest. He was very nice and polite and signed autograph s for all of us. I digress. Theo Fleury was TINY and he was a smoker! So what....dude was one hell of a great hockey player and the 2020 Buffalo Sabres could really use him.

This is entirely my point. The highlighted is wrong. "Training" probably makes up a tiny percentage of what a player does on the ice. I would assert the Gretzky of the '80s is the more or less the same player he would be now. As I said, put him in a time machine and bring him here just as he was. Maybe give him modern equipment. The skimpy stuff he wore would give him an advantage IMO nowadays anyway. He hardly wore anything. Certainly not the football armor the guys where now.

I disagree with you. He would not be blown off every single shift. Do you think someone like Reinhart has some kind of elite size, strength, or speed? He has none of that. He gets by on smarts...and he's a tiny fraction of what #99 was. There is always recency bias when it comes to these types of discussions. I.E., what happened in the last 5 minutes is the best, anything that happened 40 years ago is terrible. It's like asking who the best 100 muscians of all time are; most people in 2019 are going to mention people they are familiar with, probably from the last 20 years. Folks they don't even know from 80 years ago aren't even mentioned, not because they aren't talented but because they aren't recent or known.

You're over-thinking it. I think the idea is that you take #99 in 1987 and throw him in a time machine, and throw him on the ice today. If you want to give him today's skates, great. If he could do what he did with his equipment then and lumber (later aluminum) in his hands, he'll only be a lot better with modern equipment. I would not go so far as to say he needs modern training. Keep him as he was, but put him in today's game. A lot of folks laugh and respond by saying " Are you kidding, those guys were smoking back then!" So what? Mogilny smoked like a fiend. Didn't really slow him down, did it? If you can do it, you can do it, and 30 years of time doesn't change that. It would be like suggesting Willie Mays couldn't play baseball in 2019. Not only could he play, he'd be one of the best 5 guys in the league.

Salary caps and free agency destroyed "team building" a long time ago.

A while ago, Mike Schopp recounted on the air a conversation he had with Darcy Regier when Darcy was still GM. This was quite a few years ago when New Jersey (I think) was one of the powers in the league. Darcy asked Schopp: "Who do you think would win a Stanley Cup Final series between the (then current, league champion) Devils and an Oilers team from the '80s? I know the answer, and it's not Edmonton." Darcy's point was that the average talent level of the average NHL players has increased so much since the '80s that one of the greatest teams of all time, say the 1987 Oilers, would not even be good enough to take on the Devils or whatever modern team he was comparing them to at the time. Schopp mentioned this story to Rob Ray during one of his game-day segments. Rob vehemently disagreed. The next segment or 2 later, Rob mentioned talking to everyone he could find around the game at the time (current or former NHL players basically) including probably the coaching staff, scouts, etc., and asking them the same Darcy Regier question. He said no one agreed with Darcy. Everyone said the '80s Oilers win the series. I always found this to be a really interesting discussion. It is true the average player's talent level has increased since the 1980s, but those Oilers teams still had Messier and Gretzky on them, and that is IMO possibly 2 of the best 4 or 5 players ALL TIME. Suggesting that the "game moves too quickly" for Gretzky these days or similar is absurd. He would slow today's game right down to whatever pace he wanted to play at, and control the game at that speed, just as he did then. Messier is one of the absolute best all time players with size, strength, skill, and "compete" off the freaking chart. I really don't like hearing how today's group of players out-class some of the greatest players of all time. It's just not true. As an aside, it's funny that this hypothesis comes from Darcy Regier, who was a mediocre talent himself, never really able to crack the National league as a player, and not a very good GM either. Poor conclusion drawn from a poor talent. I'm curious what others think of this.

Wouldn't call it "dumb" per se. Johnson is a solid prospect who might end up a strong #4 D Man or something like that; defensive defenseman, good player. But was this the best selection at that slot on this night? Is this really what the team needs most right now? There were several more splashy forwards still available and God knows we need help putting pucks in the net. Not really happy with the pick.

Who's the woman in the Foote entourage? Sitting next to Cal? Lovely.

Simon Holmstrom's sister (?) is cute.

That thing was horrible, though it did fit him well, which is more than most can say.

"Has some skill; maybe not high-end skill." LOL

If you go aggressive and fail, you're gone. It's why these guys are so conservative. Tim Murray knows what I'm talking about.

You won't see him for 3 years.

Kid's' mom looks like Barbara Streisand. LOL