PerreaultForever

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

True but the goalies and a couple of the temps we currently have age this roster considerably.

okay but that's pretty much a strawman argument. Don't think anybody argues that bigger guys are generally scoring more points than smaller guys, the question is do they help you win hockey games? A balanced team is required to win the Stanley Cup. I don't understand how anyone can still argue against that. Tampa got rocked by Columbus when they were all speed and skill because of people like Nick Foligno banging them around relentlessly. Tampa added big bodies and toughness and went on to win after that. Is that not convincing enough? Virtually every team that wins in the playoffs can play hard minutes and physical hockey and teams that do not have that become "choke" teams and disappoint (eg. Toronto or Edmonton). It's not all that complicated. 2 scoring lines, 1 checking line and 1 line of grit and toughness, preferably big. That's still the formula for success. As much as he's an overpaid big dummy, does anyone want to argue that we wouldn't be better off with Lucic on our side ramming one of their players into the boards rather than him destroying Miller? Somebody probably will, but they'd be wrong. Balance.

Bjork and Hayden were not our worst players tonight. The Cozens line with those wingers you hate was imo our best line (although no line was good). A guy like Tuch would help against a team like Calgary for sure, but I'm not counting him yet as he hasn't played a game. I'm also reserving an opinion on Joker. Him and Dahlin in preseason were awful.

So you're blaming the goaltending rather than the fact that Calgary owned the slot and pretty much the entire offensive zone? Really?

You're joking right? You really think adding Mitts and Joker to this line up would have changed anything?

Sorry but you are so incredibly wrong. It's not the talent, it's the style. We cannot handle tough defense first hockey simple as that. We can skate with the Edmontons and Torontos and with decent goaltending beat them, but Calgary, Boston, Washington, anyone who plays hard physical dominant D fuggedaboudit.

Ya went pretty much the way I was afraid it would. We can't play that type of hockey. This should squash the nonsense about this team making the playoffs. We are not going to have a good second half, when lots of better teams will play this way. We were never in this game.

Oh I agree fully, they can, they should, but I also see some things in Dahlin's game that just seem the same. As I've said, I truly believe he might be a slow thinker and thus he needs more coaching and less pressure situations for his development. He needs to learn to react more instinctively (the right way) . We rushed him without assessing his limitations properly. Obviously that was partly because our D was so crap he was still a better option than what we had, but ultimately it was bad for his development and I expect him to take longer than average to be great or he might always have big flaws.

lol, Even in a full team scrum good old Rob Ray never could leave his jersey on could he? Say what you want about the neanderthal era, but that team stood up as a team.