erickompositör72

This game is the reason we will get no return for Lehner. Any scout who watches video of those goals will make sure they steer clear

I'd say most division 1 college goaltenders recover more swiftly

Maybe Lehner should just skate behind the net

Casey shows signs that he can drive his own line, I think. I think Nylander, despite all current doubt cast on him, could be an ideal winger for Eichel- Jack could literally do all the work and just let Alex finish the play

I don't think it's bias- I think he always looked soft and never looked like he could take control of the play. He scored points by playing with other good players, and there was always the possibility that he wouldn't be able to drive a line himself (I, personally, would have bet on that). Now that these things appear to be true, it wouldn't have been a bad idea even a year ago to get the most we could for him. From what I've heard, Botterill was trying to get rid of him at the beginning of the season. Wisely, it seems any interested teams wanted to take a closer look at him this season before making a move, and it's good for them that they did. I don't think he's impressing many at this point.

I have neither watched any of the game thus far, nor have I read any comments here... All I did was look at the score, and I knew Ullmark was in net. That is all.

Vanek was also one of the strongest players on the puck I've ever watched in a Sabres jersey, and could stick handle through traffic. He wasn't the fastest, but if he got a step on you, he knew how to use his reach and body positioning to never let you take the puck away from him. Oh yeah, and as others mentioned, he wouldn't fall to the ice if you blew on him So, no, Reinhart is not Vanek

It may be because it takes all 3 of our forwards working down-low to maintain possession of the puck. When we finally get it back to the point, the opposing defensemen have already set up camp to keep the front of the net clear. Someone like Reinhart is certainly not going to bump a defender out of the way I'd have to actually watch more tape to confirm this, but nothing they seem to do works in establishing a presence in front of the net, and actually cashing in on a rebound. It almost seems like every team can just watch the tape, though, and know exactly how to neutralize our attack. It's systematic. Every game exhibits the same failure to execute this.

are you saying, "here we go again"? But in all seriousness, that system could theoretically work, if our forwards were better and stronger at converging on the net and cleaning up the garbage. It would also require our defensemen to perfect the point shot in traffic- the Goldilocks zone- not too much traffic to get blocked, but not so little as the goaltender sees it clearly and can freeze any rebound. I don't see our team doing any of this well. Maybe Botterill's idea is to acquire players who can do this, and build the team that way?

One thing I've noticed, game after game, and illustrated by a graph someone posted recently: Every team we play against is successful keeping us to the perimeter when we're in the offensive zone, and forcing us to take low-percentage shots, and shots from the point that get blocked. We win puck battles in the corners by sending 2 or all 3 of our forwards in to win the puck, then have no one in front of the net to pass to. Often, we still throw it in front, basically giving it back to the other team and allowing them and easy break-out, often leading to odd-man rushes unless our forwards haul ass. These are just a couple things. Why does Housley keep having them do the same things, when the entire league has obviously caught on to how to limit our scoring? Is this a coaching failure? There seems to be no creativity. One possible conclusion: our players are not strong enough on the puck to win puck battles in the corner or to get a stick on the puck when they park themselves in front of the net. Other teams seem to have much more success getting point-blank scoring chances, we we don't seem to be able to get a handle (possession/clean shot) from the same spots when we're in the offensive zone. Could this be chalked up to a basic lack of skill? here's the graph I referenced, posted by Randall Flagg:

I hope so, and that it's something to be somewhat excited about... because I feel he has been contributing a lot more to our on-ice efforts than ERod. Playing ERod over Pouliot makes me (again) question Housley

I think the Housley experiment needs to be seen through- but if he doesn't work out, I'd welcome Ruff back. I'm sure many people here, like me, didn't want him fired... just Darcy

Chris Drury, Danny Briere, and Thomas Vanek disagree :P

WILSON WHAT A SHOT!

Pouliot much more effective than ERod And I wish Risto would have gotten a suspension. He's playing like a moron

Laphroaig 10 for me Watching this game tonight and last night's game leads me to think last night's show had a lot to do with ineffective coaching

Yes, and I'm curious to see more of O'Reilly with Reinhart, like 3P last night. I don't want to see ERod at center, anymore, though. I think he should be a 3rd/4th line winger. I think Josefson has earned at least a trial at 3C, and Larsson should be 4C. Just because the ship's going down doesn't mean we can't do it in style...

I think we had less talent at many points throughout '13-'15, yet this current team isn't performing any better. I agree with all of this, particularly the bolded

If Brady just sabotaged the future of the Pats, that would be the most beautiful story of NFL justice...

Look at him with pads in the early 90's :P

I don't know how I feel about that. I don't think it's right

I've seen twice so far when Samson tried to get the puck to Jack (one direct pass attempted, other off-the-boards pass attempt), and both were so weak they were taken away easily by the defending player. Maybe just a coincidence, or maybe Reinhart needs to actually play at NHL pace/strength level

+1 And, at the beginning of the season, it seems like they were so excited with Housley's talk of playing a "fast, aggressive, attacking" style, that they subconsciously concluded they didn't have to play defense anymore.

I don't think those are bad ideas, but I also have the pheeling that Phil is going to stick to these lines for a while. He finally has something that looks like a team with chemistry, and I don't think he wants the perfect to be the enemy of the good (or the "not that bad"), at this point...

It cuts both ways. Skewed internal analytics would be a detriment to a team's scouting department.