JoeSchmoe
-
Posts
1,808 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JoeSchmoe
-
-
1 hour ago, French Collection said:
I’ve watched every Canada game. He is skating hard and blowing by people. The odd time he will go through someone when he loses control of the puck. His shorthanded goals have been the driving to net variety. His PP goals have been snipes.
22-23 he was blowing by people all the time. I think it was the best part of his game... He had speed and power.
This year he'd always pull up and wait for help. I think this is the biggest reason for his regression. Not sure if it was coaching, confidence, injury, or what.
-
59 minutes ago, French Collection said:
Brandon Tanev playing a solid 4th line game for Canada. Blocking shots, PK, huge hit and hard on the forecheck.
Gritty, effort type of player that the Sabres need.
I feel like he's played really well every time we've faced him on Seattle.
-
Not looking for specific names or anything, but what does Joki and a prospect (preferably Östlund or Rosen) get us up front?
Can we get a legit good middle 6 forward?
Could adding a pick get us a legit good 3C?
-
5 hours ago, dudacek said:
The Sabres have the 9th most space with $23M
They have 13 NHL players signed and 10 players to re-sign or replace with that space:
Luukkonen, Jokiharju, Krebs, Bryson, Clague, Olofsson, Girgensons, Jost, Comrie, Robinson.
For sake of argument, I’m going to dedicate $10M to re-signing the first 3 and let the rest go.
Also for sake of argument, I’m going to budget $3M on the 3 guys starting in the press box.
That leaves $10M to spend on 3 top 12 forwards and a backup goalie.
That’s plenty of space for upgrades to Okposo Girgensons Olofsson and Comrie, particularly when you have a Comrie upgrade already available at $900K in Levi.
What's Bryson going to cost? He was visibly better this season and has the advanced stats to prove it. I like him in the 6/7 slot for next season. Arguably RJ is good for this, but I think he might benefit with more ROC time.
-
17 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:
Not to put too much of a damper on your enthusiasm for possible UFA upgrades, but if the Sabres just give conservative extensions to their RFA's and promote Levi, Johnson and Rousek to back-up roles, they are left with under $10 million to fill out three bottom-6 forward positions. If the plan is to "up" spending on the bottom-6 (ie: spend more than the $8.6 million paid last year to Girgs, Okposo, Jost and Robinson), then the cap is nearly gone. That assumes the Sabres are even considering spending something close to the cap. I'm not trying to be pessimistic as I do think there are meaningful changes that can be made. But, unless they are willing to spend to the cap and/or trade a vet (Joker $$$ or higher) and/or buyout Skinner, they will just be playing with the edges of the roster.
There goes my enthusiasm! Thanks!
-
Improving our bottom 6 is the low hanging fruit that we can most easily cover through through FA. If we upped our spending there and spread it around across 3 or 4 players that are better than Robinson, Jost, Girgensons, etc we can really improve vs previous years.
Our top 6 still needs improvement too. Let's do that by trading picks and prospects.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, K-9 said:
Wish I could agree, but I’ve had beers so bad that drinking urine strained thru Fat Bastard’s soiled underwear would have been preferable.
Maybe it went bad. I've had that happen to me before. One time I emailed the brewery and got 2 free cases.
-
12 minutes ago, French Collection said:
When our best guy is not even 50% the odds are even worse.
That's true.
I think what Taro said is right too. Players get better with more strength and experience as well as learning more tactics. Kind of like how most MLB hitters don't even get into the league until well into their 20s. It just takes time to learn the skill.
I just wouldn't sell the farm to get better at this. Much wiser use of cap to focus on scoring rather than face-offs.
-
1 hour ago, SwampD said:
DG never cut ice time when players sucked.
I feel like he did in the early days, but then stopped.
The same story goes for his concept of practicing hard. The first year or two, you heard about him pushing the 💩 out of them in practice. Last year, the story was the opposite.
-
46 minutes ago, Taro T said:
O'Reilly isn't going to win the "key faceoff" against an "average" opponent ONLY 55% of the time. He'll win it significantly more than that because he's better than the other guy and he actually cares
Average guy wins 50% of draws. ROR wins 55%. Game is on the line.
The takeaway is only ROR cares in that situation and he'll win nearly every time because he's that much better than the average guy who somehow manages to win 50 out of 100 draws, as opposed to ROR's 55 out of 100.
I feel like this is the same kind of logic that keeps casinos in business.
-
6 minutes ago, Taro T said:
So, you don't see that there is a situationality to when O'Reilly or Crosby win those FOs? Would almost have money on it that O'Reilly's career FO% is higher in the O-zone than it is in the neutral zone. Could see either or both of them (meaning ROR or Crosby) being right around 50% there because it doesn't matter as much as other faceoffs matter. Would also expect that his D-zone win rate is higher than average even though it's likely lower than in the O-zone because he doesn't have the same advantages in the D zone as in the O zone.
Where and when a FO occurs goes a long way towards just how hard a guy is going to try to win it. He's not going to get his opponent used to facing his best move and possibly figuring out a counter at CI or the other guy's BL very often.
So it's a key faceoff with Crosby vs ROR. Do they both win 100% of the time?
I agree you put your best guy in there to get your extra couple % odds at winning. You just don't give up a roster spot for a face-off specialist a la Paul Gaustad for a 1st round pick.
-
42 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
(sigh) Okay but that's the trouble with stats. This overall averaging pile of numbers blurs the realities of the situation.
Face offs are a situational play. They are at times a key situational play that can change a game's outcome.
It's not about how many face offs you won all year or even all through a game, it's if you won key face offs at key moments.
Examples, you get a PP 20 seconds before a period ends, winning that face off matters a lot. There's a minute to go and you pull the goalie, winning that face off matters a lot. Same in the reverse on the defensive side. You can kill the clock, end the game, take away a final scoring chance, get an empty netter. It all matters a lot.
If you want to hyper analyze stats and look at things like percentages when down a goal (or up a goal) in the final minutes with a goalie pulled or other key moments, then you might have something to look at. But just looking at the league and which team won more faceoffs over the year is pretty meaningless because the overall differences are only a few points around that 50/50 mark. It's not about how many faceoffs you win it's about winning the important ones at the important times. That's when teams send out their RORs or whoever is their top faceoff guy. We don't have one.
Everything you're saying is predicated upon thinking there's a unicorn that gets you 100% face-off winning percentage at key times in a game.
ROR's career average is 55.7%. Sending him out there in crunch time gives you a 5.7% better chance of winning the puck vs the league average guy. You'll take that chance every time, but realistically it's not that much.
EDIT- at key times, the other team is probably going to send out their top guy too. So if their guy is a career 53% guy, you'll win about 3 more faceoffs out of a 100 with ROR.
-
5 hours ago, Weave said:
Beers from continental Europe ruined me for American beers.
Beer is like pizza. Even the low quality stuff is still good. I'll drink any beer and enjoy it, whether it be cheap-swill North America macro, high hop craft beer, Euro pilsner... It's all good.
That said, a grapefruit radler is the Hawaiian Pizza of beer. Again, I'll still drink it, but it would be much better without the grapefruit, just as the pizza would be better off without the pineapple.
-
13 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
So you're arguing against the fact that a face off win on the PP gives you an extra 20-30 seconds of power play time in the O zone?
The issue is that the difference between a good face-off team and a bad one is pretty small.
The very BEST teams in the league will win about 1 more face-off out of 10 vs the very WORST teams.
If there was a way to win 100% of face-offs you could really make a difference. But the reality is A VERY GOOD FACE-OFF TEAM WILL WIN ABOUT 3 MORE FACE-OFFS OUT OF 100 VS AN AVERAGE FACE-OFF TEAM. The advantages of this is pretty negligible compared to going out and getting better players that score more.
-
57 minutes ago, Jorcus said:
If you are talking goal production it should not be too hard to replace Casey Mittelstadt. He only scored 18 goals this season. He does a lot of things well but producing goals very often has not been one of them. Tied for 148th place in the NHL with 80 games played. This has been his best year ever.
He sets up goals though.
Many of our goals over the last couple of seasons don't get scored without him on the ice. Losing him means less goals scored by our goal scorers.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I'll summarize what I said in the posts I made above.
1- Trade picks and prospects to get a guy who can replace Mittelstadt's production.
2- Stay out of the bargain bin, and spend the necessary $$$$ to pick up legitimate NHL players to replace Girgensons, Robertson, Jost, KO, & VO.
If they do both of these, they will get more goals next season.
Adams said he's in win now mode. Let's see if he puts his money where his mouth is.
-
46 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:
Wouldn't free agency be a better route, or is that too expensive? I mean, we have cap space, right?
Maybe, but first you have to get them agree to come here, and history has shown that high priced free agents underperform their contracts more than they live up to them. If there's a guy at the right price, then sure.
If it's me though, I'm trading our overabundance of picks and prospects for the Mittelstadt replacement, then using FA as the Girgensons, Robertson, Jost, KO, & VO replacement. We can upgrade from them without breaking the bank.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Mustache of God said:
- Jack Quinn being healthy
- Tage being healthy
- Peterka's continued improvement
- Cozens finding his game
- Replace Girgensons, Robertson, Jost, Krebs, & VO with players who can chip in more consistently
- Power Play needs to do something, anything.
All this need to happen, especially the bolded.
That said, the elephant in the room is replacing Mittelstadt. Without him we're worse offensively going into next season. Hopefully we get a legit scorer in exchange for picks/prospects.
If we don't replace Mittelstadt's production, I'm predicting even less goals next year.
-
1
-
Can we all agree that the IIHF website is dog 💩 ?
-
You trade for Matthews and his $13.25 million contract, every future contract negotiation on the team will be benchmarked against that, instead of the $7 or so million we're paying Thompson. On the Leafs, the Tavares contract set the stage for their overpayments thereafter.
We'd be handcuffed by the cap just like the Laffs are.
-
On 5/9/2024 at 1:26 PM, Weave said:
I have a hard time accepting team names that don’t have plural names
This is 100% correct. Anything without the plural sounds try- hard / trendy.
-
4 hours ago, PASabreFan said:
Come in where?
Sabres training camp, where he ups his value and we package him for an NHL ready contributor.
-
1
-
-
Again... Though highly favoured, the Leafs lost this series.
Contrast and compare with real leadership.
At $13+ million, AM is not worth it.
-
1
-
-
1G 4A in 7 games vs MTL in 2021.
Vintage Matthews in this clip (fast forward to about 1:50).
Vintage series loss to MTL.
9 minutes ago, French Collection said:He is undeniably the best goal scorer in the NHL right now.
There has to be selfishness to his game to score 69 goals with only 38 assists. I’ve said it in other threads that they award 2 assists for every goal so there should rarely be a player with a ratio like his.
Ovechkin, not known for his playmaking, has averaged 1.22 goals for every assist over his career. Matthews scores 1.31 goals for every assist.He is definitely not the typical center, who sets up his linemates.
I believe it is no accident McDavid got 64 goals last year, after Matthews was given the Hart for 60 goals the previous year when McDavid outscored him by almost 20 points. McDavid could probably score 75 if he was more selfish.
Same went for Gretzky.
OT - IIHF worlds 24
in The Aud Club
Posted
If it was coaching, this is a pet peeve of mine. You'll score more goals 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 than you will if you establish the zone and let everyone back 5 on 5.
If you have a trailer to make it 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 by all means hold up, but that's rarely the case, so you end up getting low% 5 on 5 play instead of the chaos and playmaking you can get with smaller matchups.