PerreaultForever

Ottawa has been a failure for sure and I guess that can make us point and feel good but we aren't any better. Columbus has also failed. Philly (and maybe even Montreal) bugs me though as there is no way that roster should be better than us but it shows you what coaching and proper hockey can do for a team.

I definitely don't think Adams is doing nearly enough for sure. For example, given the Samuelsson injury I really don't get why we didn't snap this guy up when Vegas waived him? https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/flames-claim-defenceman-brayden-pachal-off-waivers-from-golden-knights-1.6755989 Imperfect player for sure, but also definitely would fill a need on this roster with the injury. Definitely better for what we need on the roster than Bryson. They really don't seem to have any interest in winning now. They are fine with some long long term vision of letting their own picks develop and it's a really dumb plan.

This "young" excuse has carrried on for far too long. Skinner isn't young. Okposo is old. Thompson's been in the league for several years, that's your "top" line right now. Cozens has been in the league several years. It holds for Benson and maybe Peterka but Mitts, Greenway and Tuch have all been in the league for many years now. Girgs is old. Writing all this off as "they're young" is just BS. It's on the coaching and the way they are teaching the team to play. Proper hockey should have been driven into them in training camp and it should be a standard they are held to. Age has nothing to do with it. Dallas has young guys too, but they make them play the right way. But yes, easy shots from low danger areas has been an issue for years and still is.

Your counter logic makes no sense. You do realize that most marriages end in divorce right? Why would you expect greater loyalty to a sports team?

They all kind of blur over this last era but the Taylor Hall year was probably the worst. Big names and supposed stars and all the wheels pretty much fell off the bus at the same time on that one.

I've told this story here twice but quickly, I grew up in Hamilton Ontario. My first sports team were the CFL Hamilton Tiger Cats (black and gold). That made me choose the Steelers as my NFL team (at the time they were also both defensive tough teams, steel cities, very similar). First hockey game I ever watched was the Bobby Orr flying cup winner. So I said that's my team (as a kid, and also black and gold). Buffalo local tv games I saw the Sabres and fell for the French Connection and Gare and Dudley and that whole era won me over and Boston became a distant second. The Sabres/Bruins playoff years I favoured the Sabres but would cheer for the winner in the next round. Buffalo was #1 always but I have a soft spot for the Bruins as my first team and for #4. The Chicago argument is double sided as you are agreeing with me that it's a balanced team and that's what the Sabres aren't and need to be. Pretty much every cup winner had to become tougher to get there. Look at Tampa. They got blown out when they were all skill. Toronto loses every year. It's simply not how you construct a roster.

"dandy" lol, that made me laugh. Some decent hockey in that game but not enough. Clifton penalty was pretty weak imo but that probably didn't change the outcome. The thing I really want to know though is what was with Dahlin's stick over the shoulders after the shot in the middle of the game? That just boggled my mind. I do not think I've ever seen that in a game, ever. Before a game or in practice sure, but wtf was he thinking there? Just really weird. But "dandy" lmfao @SwampD made me think of this:

I'm going to reply to a few things here that are way off and a spin on what I said. First, I didn't say trade Dahlin, I didn't say he was garbage. What I said was he's very gifted offensively and he's valuable. Makar has Toews. Dahlin has ? Jokiharju? (Samuelsson's made of glass). As for Dahlin growing, he's at prime age now. He is what he is. Now, to my "biggest problem", lol, it's hardly a problem at all. Having them as TEAM B or second team or whatever you want to label them as is the only thing that keeps me sane with the Sabres being as bad as they have been. They have given me joy in watching hockey, unlike the Sabres. It's not a "problem". So, I've never said we have to be Boston, or reach their "levels" but they are an example of a thriving hockey culture that I am familiar with. They do a lot of things the right way and emulating that wouldn't be a terrible idea. No on to Chicago, I think you need to take a closer look at the actual make up of those cup winning teams. Those are not offensive juggernauts, they are well balanced teams. Remember when Chicago pissed off the super skilled Vancouver referring to the Sedins as "the sisters"? The sisters never won a cup. Chicago had more than enough grit and was a well balanced team that could play good defense to go along with Kane and other's offensive skills. Their Toews was one of the best 2 way centers in the league. If we were modelled on those Chicago teams I'd have no problem with that. There's no issue with being fast. I often think the Bruins are too slow and that's part of their playoff woes over the years. Fast is good. But playing defense and having a solid team structure with defensive layers is also good. Our fast exit system is total b***s**t. We also need to use our speed and size and forecheck heavy, finish our checks rush their D and knock people off pucks. All too often we just float and play fair weather hockey. You can defend it all you like, and I've seen you often saying this Sabre is really good or that one just needs more time and so on but LOOK AT THE RESULTS. It's garbage. It doesn't work and it won't work. It's just not how you play winning hockey. We need a new coach, and we need a GM who knows how to construct a proper roster that can play 2 way hockey. Until we get that, you will be stuck with your "problem" in the Sabres bubble of maybe next year. Adams/Pegula is like Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown. Next time, it won't get pulled away. Sorry Charlie. Fooled again.

This is possible, but hard to say and it depends on how you measure "better". What makes a D man "better" varies by definition. I will give you an example, on this site most fans would say Dahlin is better than McAvoy and they would never trade Dahlin for McAvoy. On a Bruins site they'd laugh at that and would want 3 firsts along with Dahlin to even consider it. Just one example but if you think about it I think it makes the point. I really liked Jiricek at that draft moment and unless he is a head case (as some suggest) I think he will be a stud D man in time. But we wouldn't know what to do with him and would ruin him too. I'm pretty certain of that. What needs to change on this team imo is the make up and identity of the team itself. Pegula hockey is NOT winning hockey. Fast skating shooty passy possession hockey with no defense and no grit is just never going to win enough games to get us anywhere. We need a Tochet type coach and a GM to change gears on the team structure and composition. Until we get that, it'll just keep floating along the same feeble way no matter which pieces we change.

I'm curious but to the 3 bolded sentences, why? What's so special about Ryan Johnson that makes him untradeable? Or Levi? Peterka's been very good this year and is progressing forward so his price would be high, but he's not indispensable either. I don't give up on D men at Power's age, but there's no question we do not know how to develop D men properly so for the right price........ and what's so special about the "top line"? Who is the "top line" anyway? Mitts Tuch and Greenway now? Tage is inconsistent, Skinner's a liability, and.....it's Okposo right now so idk who you were thinking as the other wing. It's hardly a "top line" Dahlin can be a valuable player, no question, but he's not defensively good enough to build a team around. If that's your number one guy you'll have the same problem Ottawa and then San Jose and now Pittsburgh has with Karlsson. Lots of points, but gets you nowhere. Really I just dont' see how ANYBODY on this team is "untradeable".

One of the reasons for that is that we keep a guy like VO on the roster all season but he can't crack the line up ever so why is he here??? It's as ridiculous as the 3 goalie situation was. Where's the half dozen fringe NHL vets that can be called up when needed and/or waived and sent back down when not needed? Other teams have them. If the kids aren't ready for call ups the organization HAS to have those guys. We don't have any more injuries than any other team (at times) so for the roster to look this bad with a few guys out is just ridiculous and the GM didn't do his job.

Showcasing Kyle and EJ for the trade deadline? Seriously idk, it's not a very impressive looking line up. I'd expect Benson is reaching rookie burn out at this point too. It's a swiss cheese line up unlikely to win more than about 40% of the remaining schedule.

Sort of but not really. I hate all star/break time and have no use for it so I miss hockey in general during this period but the Sabres, not really. There's only been about a half dozen or so Sabres games this year that I found to be truly entertaining or "good" hockey. They generally bore and/or disappoint. Like @Pimlach I wish they would be better and they would give us good hockey but it just doesn't happen and I see no reason to think it will happen this year or even next (unless changes happen).

Don't kid yourself, we're stuck with this line up even if we miss the playoffs (which we will, not sure why anyone would even think that's a possibility at this stage).

Made of glass. I really wish they'd give better details on what it actually is though. "Upper body" is just such bs.

Salt Lake City Sabres actually has a good ring to it. Just saying 🙂

I agree with this. If your core isn't successful, as a GM, your first thought has to be how do I change this core or what do I change to get results and not this is my core and I will wait for them to become successful. The word "core" is a fairly new term for hockey in general. I never remember it being used back in the day. Veterans was used, leadership was used, but never "core". The entire team was seen more as a collective group led by some veterans. I think free agency and the salary cap especially has created this new scenario where teams feel they need a small group (the highly paid) to be the "core" of the team and then they cobble the rest together with lower salaries and entry level deals. So as you say, it's kind of pointless to rally around any "core" if they are not successful. Personally I don't see any indispensable parts to this team right now. There is no star goalie. There is just a couple young prospects in UPL and Levi but no core stud. Dahlin is an offensively gifted defenseman and these are a big deal in the modern NHL so he's important since you have him but not indispensable. His defensive game is lacking for that status. He's nowhere near Hedman level imo. None of our forwards have played to core status either imo. Tage can be very good. Cozens was looking good last year but not so much this year. Mitts has actually been our best forward this year and at times Tuch shows me solid leadership (at times) but not one of them is top level core imo. Not right now anyway. Leadership, work ethic, and consistency is also part of what makes a good core. We really lack that as a whole.

imo that's too many names to be a "core" (whatever a core actually is, just a buzz word really). The team has no VETERAN core. A bunch of young guys with talent doesn't come together into anything unless it has leadership.

He lives in British Columbia, where the reaction to this is basically "aren't you?"

Your bottom sentence is exactly my point. This process/development thing is BS. We should have already been aggressive. They're blowing it and if they blow it for too long we will just end up with another wave of exits like Reinhart/Eichel and yet another round of "development". If the Canucks had chosen to do it our way they'd be right down with us.

He's got a free time year earning $5 million so he's not coming to Buffalo next season unless we gave him $ and term. Pegula will not do that, no way.

You're making excuses. Boston was a "freak". Vancouver is a "strange case". It's just not true. What they are doing is making good moves and being successful. Sabres are not. It's just that simple.

It's not just that though. Your strength matters. How you play the game matters. Your on ice awareness matters. It's too early to say Quinn is injury prone, but imo we are rushing most of these guys and at the same time I do not think we put enough into strength and conditioning, physical development. He's a bit of a light weight. Injuries like this can happen to anybody though. The faster you play the more open you are to bad outcomes should you lose your balance for any reason.

So with the Kings hiring Hiller on an interim basis, https://www.nhl.com/news/todd-mclellan-fired-by-los-angeles That likely means one less good coaching candidate available for next season. Get ready for another year of Granato.

Skinner yaps and whines a lot. If we, as a team, were more relevant I'd bet he'd rank higher on the list. Much higher. We, as a team, are easily dismissed though.