PerreaultForever

How on earth is a discussion about size related to a discussion of point production??????????????????????? Where are the Sabres on here? https://www.statmuse.com/nhl/ask?q=nhl+hits+leaders+2022-2023 I see some Seattle though. and looking at league wide........ https://www.statmuse.com/nhl/ask?q=nhl+hits+leaders+by+team+2022-2023 Oh there's the Sabres, dead last. AND before you say hits don't matter, no, they are not the be all and end all and there's far more to everything and that is obvious, but it's a real and telling stat and it's far more relevant than points production in a discussion about size.

Oh ya definitely. I wouldn't argue against that at all. Nolan's team was kind of similar to what the Flyers are now (and they will be bad). Tons of toughness but very little skill. You need both, or the luxury of having guys that are both (which is rarer). This is why my problem with the Sabres build isn't with Thompson or Cozens or Dahlin or any of the higher end talent (except maybe Skinner who I think I will always have some issues with but that's an aside). It's with the bottom end of the line up. I'm not sure what our 3rd line is and our 4th line is just guys who aren't good enough to play higher up the line up. I think we will have problems when the "talent" goes up against the toughness. We shall see, but on paper I don't see it going well. As I've said, I hope I'm wrong.

why's that?

Not saying they would, but they might. This is after all silly summer speculative screed. ssssssssssssssssssssssssssso, none of it matters. The Quinn-less idea I threw up there was looking at ways to create lines with players that complement each other's skills (an weaknesses). So roughly, playmaker, sniper, power forward/net front presence. It also makes a projection of even more improvement from Cozens and Mitts. Cozens, effectively becomes our #1 center and Skinner becomes a 2nd liner, not a first. Skinner-Thompson-Tuch is fine, but Mitts-Cozens doesn't make sense to me and if Mitts is 3rd line, Cozens line is too weak.

Oleksiak isn't there to score goals so why you'd quote scoring stats on this is very self serving for your point isn't it. I only said "how many have those" because he said (about Dahlin) how many have one of those, and the discussion was about size. Lastly, have I said anywhere that the Sabres are small? NO. I said they do not play big. They are not small. As a team they are average, with some big guys averaging out with the smaller ones.

Depends when Quinn comes back, if anyone else is injured obviously, and how game ready Quinn is. Depends how well Rousek plays. Maybe you start him on line 4 in Girgs spot to work him back into game shape. If he's good, strong, ready, he plays higher up the line up. I'm not guaranteeing him (or anyone) any spot. He has to earn it. As an additional comment I heard a Granato thing from a few days ago and he said we have 3 left shots so adding right shots was important so I'm wondering if maybe they do plan to switch Dahlin back to left and thus try: Dahlin-Johnson Power-Clifton Samuelsson-Lybushkin The last pairing being your PK pairing and more shutdown oriented.

I'm not responding indirectly but rather trying to focus in on what "big" means. How does "big" translate to wins. It doesn't matter how "big" you are if you don';t play "big". One example to illustrate my point. Owen Power 6'6 Connor Clifton 5'10. Which guy hits more and plays a heavier game that opponents have to respect/fear? Big is only big if you play big and use the big. I am not arguing that we have gotten bigger (as stated, we are NHL average now as a whole, 6'1" overall) but so far, we do not play big .

Thompson-Cozens-Peterka/Greenway Skinner-Mitts-Tuch Rousek-Jost-Greenway/Peterka Girgs-Krebs-Okposo Samuelsson-Dahlin Power-Johnson Clifton-Lybushkin Levi UPL

? Played fine for me. Commodore was hilarious.

Well the stats online vary a little based on how updated they are. So NHL average is 6'1" Sabres under that include: Jost, Skinner, Olofsson, Rousek, Okposo, Peterka, Bryson, Clague, Clifton, Jokiharju, Levi. I'm not saying the team is short in height, they are NHL average, but they don't play heavy. How many teams have a Dahlin? In terms of size, don't most of them? eg. Boston, Carlo's 6'5 Forbert's 6'4 Lindholm's 6'3 McAvoy's only 6' but are you really going to suggest Dahlin plays a heavier game than McAvoy? Or since I was talking about Seattle earlier, Borgen 6'3 Dumolin 6'4 Larrsen 6'3 Megna 6'6 and Oleksiak at 6'7 and 257 lbs. How many teams have one of him? I could go on. Dahlin's great, but to suggest we have a big D is inaccurate. and again, they don't play heavy although little Clifton will help change that. Tuch's a good big forward, but lots of teams have them. Thompson is huge and he's our main guy partly because of it, no argument, but he's hardly "unstoppable". Difficult to stop, but there were games where he got shut down and/or limited. Have to use the size for it to be an advantage as well. He's a gentle giant most nights. I will be ecstatic for this simple fact to finally have changed this year but up to now regardless of the team's height and weight, they do not (can not?) play a heavy game and they struggle when a heavy game is used against them. They have been, and probably still are, a soft team. In general, (and this is the main reason why I think success in the standings last season does not necessarily mean more points this year) teams did not play heavy against us. They came in still fairly confident and loose and often didn't bring their A game or their A goalie. We totally caught some teams napping, but regardless, almost no one felt the need to play heavy against us (most nights). This will change if we win early next season. I think it's something the team needs to be ready for this year more than other years and this is also why I don't like how Adams decided to construct the bottom of the roster. If Lucic runs Levi this board will go insane, but the Sabres, what will they do????

Well, we have some bigger guys and we have some smaller guys but who plays big and who plays small is another matter. The average NHL player height is 6'1" The Buffalo Sabres average height is 6'1" So in terms of height we are just fine. Probably okay in weight too even if we do have a few skinny kids that still need to add muscle. But who plays a heavy game? That's the real question. (as for Detroit, no, they are not a "big" team in terms of how they play, but they are slightly "bigger" than us in terms of height at 6'2" average, although that stat might be pre DeBrincat)

Panarin's still standing.

I partially agree but I also see how we could go back and forth on the details of this for ages. The main thing I'd add is this is where team culture and leadership comes in. If you come onto a team that prides itself on it's D and the leadership are 2 way players learning D and improving your D becomes a thing of pride and you gain confidence. In that culture a blocked shot can have more value than a missed breakaway. So it really depends on the team and the player's personality. If the culture is firmly in place though, the rookie's personality bends to it (or he is gone). This was a missing aspect for the Sabres that imo is only now showing signs of forming.

Bruins rolled lines and rotated D so there's really not much difference and these stats don't tell you much. I've seen a lot of Bruins games and I know how Clifton was used and why. Rest easy, that's why I said we should sign him in free agency a long long time ago.

This is possible. Not sure what will happen with Tampa. Their time may be done but they still have a lot of high end talent so with good goaltending they might still be there. Florida is a question mark. A few moves. A few differences. They can't play that playoff style all year, it's too physically demanding. I guess their fate is also in their off and on goalie's hands.

No, Gryzlek was 4. Clifton was bottom pairing when everybody was healthy before Orlov got there. I will say this though. Bruins always viewed Clifton as too small, but he got his chance a few years back when they had like 5 D injured at the same time (maybe more) and Clifton got in and impressed and he's a real competitor. He made himself hard to take out of the line up and he was capable of filling in with the top 4 when needed. Where he played in the line up became more about pairings/style than his relative ability to the other defenders. That's my biggest fear with Clifton actually, that he will compete too hard and try to do too much and in our (lack of a good) defensive system he might get caught out of position and lose a bit of his game. Hopefully not. Johnson's fine, it's just a question of age and what's left.

I've said this before but will repeat it. You, me, nobody here would have traded the entire Buffalo roster for the entire Seattle expansion draft roster so the idea of saying they were ahead is, imo, ridiculous. We already had the so called 'core" we are excited about. They also had no pipeline, no prospects, and had to build a farm team from scratch (which they also did quite successfully as they almost won the AHL title). As it looks now, they will not be rebuilding through the draft in a few years as they are building a pipeline and are balancing their roster with veterans and younger guys. It will be interesting to see if they can sustain things and keep improving this way.

I stumbled into this video where Mike Commodore gives his rather open and candid comments on Babcock. It's hilarious imo. Well worth the viewing.

Yes, but lots of good D over 30. Pietrangelo is 31 I think and he was vital for the Vegas cup win. Gudas was even older for Florida. Heck Johnson's 35 so why'd they sign him if you want spring chickens? If Pesce was signed for 8 years, sure, end of that deal he's falling off the roster maybe and you might even buy him out but 6 good years as a top 4 would be fine with me.

This statement, isolated and out of context becomes completely incorrect. It is hard to "teach" offense to a player who doesn't have it. Skill is skill and you can't turn a work horse into a race horse. That's obvious. BUT at the NHL, these offensively skilled guys come in and they have rarely had to be defenders or worry about the high skill levels of the opposition. Offense first has always been their way. Teaching them the discipline and structure and their assigned role is a much harder thing to do. Point(s) being?

On the team we had last year, yes, he's #4 on the depth chart. On a good team no, he's #6 or even #7. I said earlier "we are better" and the "D is better" BUT I don't think it's enough.

So you're trading 2 first we already made and a 2nd but not 2 future firsts when presumably we pick lower? Seems to imply you think Adams made some bad picks? Your version offers more than mine. I agree prospect depth must keep going, but a luxury of multiple prospects also gives you options.

You really like to pick and choose don't you? Almost a year ago now I said target Clifton in free agency and you said no, he sucks. Too small and not very good. But whatever, the fact I said we should get him first here means nothing to you so as usual, you are easily dismissed. read what I said about Clifton when we signed him.

Hopefully that is correct, but I don't think so.

I admit when I'm wrong. Pity you never do. Last year I said Detroit and Ottawa might be better than us because of their moves. We did better than expected (mostly because of Cozens), Detroit did worse, and Ottawa had goalie problems that sunk them. In the end Ottawa was close to us and Detroit did a pivot for the future and after dismantling they went on a losing streak. Both teams are still competition for next season and I doubt there's more than a 10 pt. difference between the 3 of us come season's end. Ottawa next year worries me more than Detroit.