PerreaultForever

Well that was a display of some pretty horrific goaltending, both sides actually, but especially Tokharski obviously. Seemed like his glove had lead in it. Columbus wasn't particularly good, contrary to Rob Ray etc. there was very little to like in this game. I suppose you could say they didn't quit, and that's good I guess, but the 5 on 3 was just a joke. You don't let that sort of late period gift get away from you that easily if you want to win. I see some people are coming around to the realization that this is a tank and has always been a tank, it's just a little smarter this time (so far). Don't like Granato's line decisions. Best line to start the year was Olofsson Thompson Asplund and I would have put that back together. Skinner and Olofsson on the same line is redundant and flawed. I personally would have put Skinner with Zemgus and Kyle . But whatever, it's a tank.

Indeed, should coaching not be called into question on this? Granato thinking we should try to score late when we're already back on our heels for the period? idk. Skinner should not be on the ice in any tied game with less than a minute to go.

Calgary pretty much dominated Boston same way they did us so that was kind of nice to see. Sutter has them playing really good. So much for old school coaches being out to lunch and having no place in today's game.

Has anyone seen Columbus play this year? I know what Tort's team played like but have no idea what, if anything, this version of Columbus is, so have no way to meaningfully comment on this game. Find out tonight i guess.

Total stud? I'd agree it was one of his better games this year but to me a stud would imply a bigger physical presence. I didn't see that.

It's a one dimensional hockey team and can only play one way and thus when the other team either plays hard D or takes it up a notch in the 3rd they crumble.

I thought that was a weird game. Lots of sloppy plays on both sides. They didn't look as good as I thought they were so either I was wrong abut them, or they didn't come in prepared, taking us lightly. Some bad goalies and mediocre goaltending both ways. I just didn't like that game, and the ending obviously capped it.

Just a random thought. Bad goaltending in Rochester might ruin their season, but maybe it helps with the development of the other players who will have to work harder, play better team D and not get to coast to easy victories where they rely on a hot goalie? Might actually be good for their overall learning.

idk exactly what's being implied by "selection bias" aside from the idea that if there are two similar guys with similar skills you might take the bigger one, but another factor teams consider that isn't being discussed really is durability. Teams often shy away from smaller guys figuring they won't hold up to the physical side of the game and for the most part it's not wrong. The game has of course changed and their are more places for small talented players, but there's never going to be a situation where you have two otherwise equal guys and teams take the little guy.

idk much about their prospect pool so that might be true, but I don't think I agree with the rest. Their goaltending is definitely better than ours, they have better depth, they have better high end talent, and they are more balanced and can play a more physical game if needed although they are primarily a speed first team. As much as I think Granato is okay and a fine teacher for young players, their coach is also better. I think their rebuild is substantially ahead of ours. Lastly "gm is meh" lol. Memories lingering? 🙂 I do not think this will go well, but better than the Calgary game.

I don't want to actually dump on them or give them any crap right now. I pretty much reached my breaking point after last season and said the only think that'd keep me around is if they blew it up, got rid of the old so called core and rebuilt properly this time. So they did it. They blew it up. If they get this rebuild right, all is forgiven.

Hayden isn't very skilled, this is obvious, but I personally don't want him out of the line up. We're a super soft team and a little grit on the 4th line works for me. I personally don't think much of Bjork and would sit him for a bunch of games and try Murray. Give that line a different look. Or, I think Hayden's played some center before but him in the middle for a bit with Murray on his wing. Or stick R2 between Zemgus and Kyle for a bit and bump Eakin down between \Murray and Hayden. idk, but imo there's nothing to be lost giving Murray a proper chance at this point. He might surprise.

Yup. Not addressing this to you, but often when people compare the players and the game from different eras they just look at how the game is played today and say those guys weren't as good but they fail to consider the necessity of certain different skills and physical elements from that era. For example you had to be much bigger and stronger to be a forward in front of the net as you'd get hacked and whacked and cross checked continually. Defensemen would get pasted into the boards if they went into the corners with their back turned the way they do today. Face planting a guy was pretty much legal in those days. You had to have strength against the boards for freezing pucks. Lots of rules were different and D men generally had to be bigger and stronger and the smaller puck moving guys had trouble and generally never made it out of the AHL. It was just a different game.

They should give Murray a proper shot in Buffalo on the 4th line. Let him play there for 5 or 6 games straight to see if he can bring his game to the NHL level. The 4th line isn't good right now anyway and I'd like to see him get a proper stable evaluation.

Is that clip full speed or slowed down? Cause there's some good moves there, but it looks slow.

Oh come on, I mentioned Marchand earlier as a perfect example of a little guy who was "pound for pound as strong as anyone". Briere was really strong for his size too, but these guys are outliers and exceptions to the general rule.

I gotcha, and I was alluding to that in the last part. I would think you need a better breakdown of the stats by taking out the goons and big bodies brought in just for that reason. Little guys never make the NHL as tough guys, they are only fast and skilled but big guys can be there as tough guys as well as skill guys. So if you take a half dozen small guys and a half dozen big guys the stats will tell you the small guys put up more points on average even if a few of those big guys are bigger producers. I doubt it's anything more complicated than that. As I was saying, small guys have to be fast and skilled or they never get in the NHL. Big guys excel if they are skilled but can also make the league as tough guys with less skill. Does that not explain the math? I think it does but am open to being proved wrong.

Ya, back then Schoeny was considered pretty skilled and an all around player. If I remember correctly Korab played forward for a while with Chicago before we got him. He could move the puck.

Well, firstly, keep in mind I'm not talking about producing, I'm talking about winning, and a winning team needs to be a balanced team. Second, "bigger" isn't really the thing, rather stronger. Already had to argue past the semantic points and want to stress it's never just about size or height. It's strength. Now as for producing, there are big strong producers. Ovechkin is a beast. Crosby isn't big, but pound for pound he is strong and quite powerful. Getzlaf in his prime was maybe the perfect combination of size, strength, grit and skill. Marchand is a little guy, but I'd bet pound for pound he's about the toughest in the league and he positions himself and leverages his body perfectly driving right past and through bigger defenders. There's no real point in listing more names but there are lots. As for the smaller guys being producers, yes, they are, in the fair weather, but they disappear in the playoffs if they aren't in the tough strong group. Mitch Marner for example. In the tough games, Draisaitl usually is bigger impact than McDavid . That is a size and strength issue. Why are smaller guys often more skillful? Probably because they have to be or they never make it to the NHL.

You just don't get it. That comment that was made asking if you thought the games took place in your computer had me in stitches cause that's it. You just don't understand the game on the ice. This has absolutely nothing to do with 80s hockey, that's a convenient trope you keep using to imply out of touch with the modern game and it means nothing. Everyone knows the game is different now but it's still physical and it's still played with the body and it always will be. It ain't figure skating and until the league decides to start calling every little touch McDavid whines for it'll be the same on that level. You need to go watch the Calgary game again slowly and carefully. There's no fights, there's a handful of hits but aside from Lucic pasting Miller they didn't really lay into us because they didn't need to. But now pay attention and go watch this carefully.............. Watch how the Calgary players drive the play and maintain possession by using their bodies and shielding the puck keeping their own body between the defender and the puck time and time again. It's a strength and leverage thing. It's not 80s hockey, in the 80s you be hooked or checked out of the play but in today's game with today's rules it's how bigger and stronger players dominate. You stick handle and you can be checked, you place your body into the opposition and maybe Tage can reach around you but otherwise defenders have to get in closer and it becomes a strength issue. The only guy on our team who can play that is Cozens (and he's not fully there yet, but he will get there). Tuch as well but he's not here yet. So is it clear now??? Go watch it again. Watch the body positioning, watch the strength on the puck and the sticks, watch the leg drive. As a team we just can't play like that and when the other team starts to play us hard it's like men against boys. We are just too damn soft that's it.

I see your thinking, but although Cozens needs better wingers for sure, that move sort of stunts him as he plays the game faster than them. I think Granato keeps that line together because they're all a step slower and they'll all be gone in a year or two.

Which is why McAvoy is and will always be a much better player than Dahlin. (This one will eat at me forever because I wanted McAvoy that year and idiot Murray took Nylander)

This illustrates how you keep twisting the argument to make your point, which is a non issue and a non point. Sure, I'd rather have Brad Marchand on the team than Pat Maroon (an example that comes to me quickly not sure if their actual heights and weights match so feel free to tell me I'm off by 10 lbs. or something because that will be so meaningful) but I'd rather have a 235 lb guy with skill and toughness than a 5'10" guy with skill. The real point of the argument, which for your agenda you want to dance around, is are the Sabres big enough and tough enough to play that sort of hockey, and they are not. and now you can go big isn't tough and carry on around the issue ad in infinitum if you want...................

Oh sorry, the talk is since they suck they are going to move Giordano at or before the deadline and then Borgen is being retained to take that spot.

I think it unlikely Seattle isn't keeping Borgen . https://www.nhl.com/kraken/news/will-borgen-agrees-to-terms-with-kraken/c-325918414