PerreaultForever

It was interesting to me that the Winnipeg announcers kept referring to the Jost line as "Buffalo's 4th line" Since they have broken up the kid line I would move Kyle up with Cozens. Asplund on the line with Girgs. Cozens needs to be paired with someone capable of scoring in the right situations.

I don't get this "strategy". Why not send him down, let him actually play a game or two there and then call him up and send someone else down and repeat. What harm is there in letting them actually play a few games in the minors now and again?

Of course you do, but you do realize you can just click an emoji for that right? No need to quote it if you have no actual rebuttal.

Build the culture first. The team has dogged determination and a very strong work ethic. They don't quit and they play as a team. In the Boston game they were fast but also very disciplined and positionally sound. Solid structured play. Secondly a more mixed and balanced approach. They might not be the best at any one thing but they have a little of everything and can adapt to different styles with scoring spread out and on any given night facing a different type of team a different line will lead them. So to compare with the Sabres, they signed veterans to fill the holes they had. They chose the right FA goalie to fill that hole. maybe lucky, but they got the right guy at the moment. Their D doesn't have the puck movers we have but they are big and solid and play better D - especially in front of their own net. They don't have a kid line, they placed their rookie phenom between veterans to maximize his success. You can argue the Sabres are much better in terms of offensive talent. Younger and better. But the Sabres also have glaring weaknesses that can be exploited. Seattle doesn't have those. It's harder to figure out how to attack them. Long term which team will be better is hard to say. Depends on who is drafting better. But they have staggered their veteran contracts to come off the books a few at a time, which is the way I would have done the Sabres rather than this cap floor dead contract nonsense (holding room for the future). They are more win now than win later. We are the reverse.

He would definitely fit in with the Sabres style but I suppose the argument for not picking him up was he's like a lot of guys we already have. Strong skating, goal scoring potential, but rather suspect defensively.

He will, but I see this slightly differently. A lot of rookie D men shoot the puck and shoot it into traffic and at inopportune times and it just results in lost possession. Power it seems to me knows this and is making smart, but overly careful choices. As he gains confidence and experience he will start to unload and when he does, they will be good quality shots more often than not. Power will develop differently than Dahlin, but when he gets there he will be dominant imo.

Some people questioned (or scoffed) at my comment that Seattle didn't play their A game against us. If you saw the Bruins Kraken game tonight, THAT was their A game.

Motion and movement on the PP is a lot better this year but we still lack enough solid net front presence. Need more screens.

He's definitely a good fit and a definite upgrade over what Bjork was. Long term idk where he fits in but I'd keep him for the foreseeable future if possible.

This has been a common thing for young teams as long as I've been watching hockey (a long time). At home they tend to try too hard, try to be too pretty, try to show off even (at times) and also sometimes crack under pressure. On the road they tend to stick to the coach's game plan and usually play better structured and disciplined (and simpler) hockey. Sabres aren't alone in this.

In hindsight, I'd say yes, the speed gave them some difficulties. They beat us with net front presence and one good breakaway, but the speed threw them off their game.

How they doing this year? Dominating the league with Reinhart right? You can't pick your facts like hand bags.

That was a pretty entertaining hockey game. Much better effort. They were skating and using their speed, which is their identity and is the way they have to play to win. Ultimately came down to the breakaway goal as the difference but good goaltending on both sides and some exciting hockey. Winnipeg announcers (for my broadcast) kept saying it was a "weird game for the Jets" and the jets were "not playing Jet hockey" but I don't really know what they meant. I think (just a guess) that they usually play a more structured and disciplined control game and this was a little haphazard but I think they just had trouble with the speed and pace that the Sabres brought to the game. Not sure since I rarely watch Jet hockey. Asplund was okay but I really don't see what Hinostroza brings over Peterka or Quinn. Decent hockey game. Pity we couldn't tie it. Game of inches.

I was going to ask about this. Pretty much the key factor as he's been having a very good year. Will be tough to beat. I haven't really seen them much this year but if they play as heavy as they are capable of we will be in trouble. Going to have to be stronger on the wall and pay the price to screen Hellebuyck on some of those Dahlin/Thompson/Tuch/etc shots from outside the slot. Front of our own goal will be a problem as always, but they will exploit it.

Maybe just a blocked shot soreness thing. We are asking a lot from him though so minor injuries are going to occur. We need much more D depth than we have.

His name gave him extra cache. His lack of leadership has been clearly demonstrated in the NHL. The team around him doesn't get better, it gets worse. Argue with it all you want but the results show the truth, Kulich and Levi (assuming he signs here) will be seen as a steal in Sabres history 10 years from now.

Maybe you're right but I don't ever remember this as the criteria. Shot on goal has always been any situation where the puck would have crossed the goal line (and scored a goal) had a goalie (or player in the crease area) not stopped it.

That's why Vinnie should have been the one waived.

Kind of makes sense. Florida's D was predicted to be their possible weakness prior to the season starting as they put too much money in their forwards and Bobrovsky. I mean Montour gets big minutes so what does that tell you? He gets a shot there but I wouldn't be surprised if they waive him themselves down the road a ways. The life of a journeyman.

Oh come on. He just got sick of losing. He didn't see a future and wanted out. Went to a team where his skill set fit perfectly and went on a good run. Now the team's declining and so I imagine he will want to land on some other contender next year. No more no less.

I believe if the puck is possessed by a team mate (even if only momentarily) it is categorized as a won face off. A direct shot by the participant also counts but that's rare.

First off don't bold at me. Facts: (lmfao "facts") - they are rookies, they are flawed, they have defensive weaknesses. Yes. Not kidding. What a revelation. But that was the plan and the plan was working. The team had energy and enthusiasm. What exactly did your 2 more experienced players bring? Nothing. - I said why start hitting with 30 seconds left? Bring it in the FIRST PERIOD. Understand the difference? - Seattle was way off their usual game. I've been watching them all year. Many times after Sabres games (I'm on the west coast remember), If you think they were playing well your bar is Sabres level low. They looked tired and road worn in this one. They are normally faster, tougher, and far more energetic. They beat the Sabres with their B or at times C game, not their A game. You thinking it was bounces is laughable. - Lastly, no I don't watch any games. I'm a moron. I know nothing. Sabres are awesome man. We're number one. We're number one. USA! USA! Damn Punch, all those years in the grave have cost you.............................

I'm not trying to say they have been all that, but they weren't responsible for the loss to Philly either. I was never in favour of an all kid plan but that was pretty much what the Sabres went with. The team had team chemistry though. There was a youthful energy all over. Sure there were flaws, but it was working. Why dismantle it for 2 guys who are marginal NHLers at best? You make a plan you stick to it. That's why it's a plan. I think this has lost them their mojo and it'll be hard to get back on track for a while.

I wouldn't call it "good". It was a bottom end over pay to marginally fill a gaping wide hole. So it wasn't a BAD idea, but it wasn't anything spectacular either. Much the same as Comrie as goalie. All the weak spots from before the season are still the weak spots.

Next 3 games are all against heavy styled teams that will make life difficult (assuming they are on their game). If we lose them all it's definitely over.