PerreaultForever

They do have to get off the treadmill but do you see anything that makes you think they get this? I still see a team where Terry Pegula thinks he knows best. Thinks he knows hockey. Has an idea and is sticking with it. When it inevitably goes wrong he simply thinks my idea was right, they just drafted the wrong guys so we will get rid of them and get new guys to work with/under me and we will get the right guys this time. Constant circular process. I still believe they do it backwards every time. Maybe eventually it'll work for them but so far not even close. My belief is the opposite of theirs. It's (in simplest terms) 1. tear it all down and subtract everybody that gets you value or is a problem. 2. build the culture with vets and hard workers. Instill this into the team first. 3. Get goaltending and build a hard to play against D and team structure. 4. Add scoring talent (some of which you will have drafted during the first part). You end up with a strong culture and a balanced roster from the back end out. That's my belief anyway and it should take about 5 years to become a solid competitive playoff team. You can argue nuance and details on that and winning lotteries and other luck factors in but overall, that's the rebuild model I believe in. Pegula does not. He knows better. But he doesn't "micromanage" 🙂

That's it right? We had to do MORE than they did because we were behind them. We didn't.

Tage could be better, but okay, let's not say "bad". Some of the others are worse. Team as a whole plays open ice hockey, doesn't win puck battles, and breaks down structurally often. Absolutely on Crosby. Bergeron and Kopitar were the perfect players for me. Excellent offensively but total shut down defensively. Currently, this is Barkov, who quietly leads Florida with a perfect 2 way game while Bennett and Tkachuk etc get all the press.

Yes, that's part of why I said it's a complicated argument. Benson shouldn't be the best defensive forward. He is in part because they are so bad. He has been well coached and he does think the game through properly at a high speed. There is nothing about Benson's game I dislike. It still remains to be seen how effective he can end up being due to his size (as in a high end player or a mid level player) but despite his size I'd bet he's already stronger than Quinn (and some others) and he's still growing. We need to focus on his development though and not just go "oh he's fine, let him grow on his own". We both have issues with their coaching, no question.

I like Kesselring. I like him as a partner for Power. I just don't think he moves the needle for the team as a whole. It will be interesting to see if McLeod continues or if last year was a one off. I have no issues with him though at this time. We just haven't done enough compared to other teams around us, that's it.

I don't see Cozens going the Peca or Gaustad route but if I was Ottawa (and I said a few years ago this was needed here) I'd have him in the weight room constantly. Beef up and get stronger. He's a big guy but really lanky and thin not strong. (Quinn needs the same treatment). I have no idea what Cozens will or won't be but we definitely overpaid him early and had too much faith in him.

Who is Gilbert's replacement? Gilbert was a 7/8 D man, but also the guy who stood up after the Tage fiasco. I could care less about Lafferty, but my expectation of him was never high to begin with. Arguing about our 4th line guys is of little consequence. We will see how it shakes out this time. It was supposed to be better last year and wasn't.

Benson isn't but that's a long argument so let's leave it as agree to disagree. Thompson is bad defensively but you forgive that a little. Most teams have an offensive star or two who is bad defensively. Boston's a highly structured team but Pasternak can make huge defensive gaffs and that's forgiven with offensive production. Same can hold for a few guys here like Thompson, but the rest of the team has to pick up the slack. Now look at the rest of the better defensive players you listed. Tuch, Zucker, McLeod, all developed outside the Sabres system and methods. Their defensive game was imported, which argues to my point about too much internal development and not enough veterans brought in. Our internal defensive development is not good.

Well yes, good coaching early on does help for sure and what happens all the way along matters. I don't think the Sabres do it right once they draft these kids. I'll go back to Granato's BS comment that defense was the easy part and they want the offense to develop first. It's the exact opposite of what most teams do with young prospects. Now he's gone, but Appert's still here and we do Rochester the same way. imo what we should have is a Rochester team employing a tough and rigid defensive first philosophy and then when kids graduate from that they can then go back to opening it up with the big club. The D first will be ingrained. We do everything backwards.

Call Adams quick. This is a game changer. Climate change is here to save the Sabres!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't agree with the depiction of these players as anchors. Lafferty and Gilbert were exactly what they were. Bottom players and extras. Expecting more was stupid. Clifton lost his game playing in an unstructured system. I said this might happen when we signed him. He always had the tendency to run around and try to over step and then get caught out of position. In this chaotic system he ended up floundering. We broke him. Cozens? An anchor? Let's see how Ottawa goes. Quinn's still an anchor until he isn't. Same for Samuelsson.

I don't agree. The forwards on this team by and large suck defensively. Positional play is poor, structure is weak, assignments are blown, and back checking at times is non existent. They lose puck battles (if they even enter into them) and they leave the D exposed and overwhelmed. Part of this is bad coaching but it's also inexperience. Team defense is a concept the Sabres are generally unfamiliar with.

Well, idk enough about Danforth to say he's better or worse than Lafferty but I don't think Timmins is better than Clifton. Maybe he is, we shall see, but I don't think so. Norris to Cozens??? That is an interesting one. Don't think Norris is known for his defense but we all felt let down by Cozens so again, we shall see. Kesselring and Doan better defensively but not offensively so how does that shake out? again, idk. The goalie. Now I find it interesting that one of our main competitors, Detroit, made a deal for a goalie (who is suspect in many ways) because they weren't happy with the goalie they had who we are lauding as some sort of improvement/answer. Does that not make you pause and wonder? It certainly doesn't give me optimism.

I agree. While I like the idea of a top line with Tage on the wing not having him at center puts too much onto Kulich at this stage. If Norris isn't healthy and contributing, I'm not sure this team will even match last year's numbers. Any drop off (or injury) to any of the top 5 or 6 makes this team fall apart fast. There's no one in Rochester ready to fill a hole either.

and to do that they what? Added Kesselring? A lot on those shoulders then.

Well, you could say it's both, and the goaltending too. It's the entire plan and the entire roster.

There's simply too much youth and inexperience in the top 6. The odds of it working are minimal at best.

Well, their strategy for making up for Peterka's goals is clearly 3 things. 1) Norris is healthy and contributes more than Cozens did. 2) Quinn regains a scoring touch instead of Peterka goals we get Quinn goals. 3) Benson keeps rising and starts finishing his plays and putting the puck in the net. You go +10 on each of those 3 and there's your 30 goals. That's their plan. Personally, as things stand, I'd throw some money at Roslevic, but maybe he doesn't want to be here either.

I don't know about that. I think most owners do prioritize winning but money does matter. Most believe you spend to win and then you make more with playoff revenue and merchandise (and season tickets the next year). If an owner doesn't spend to the cap he saves a few million. If he makes the playoffs he earns a whole bunch of millions more. It's never about spending anyway, it's about roster construction. To get a balanced and properly mixed roster you do need to spend and when you don't, you have a problem.

Well some of these stats argue against them being decisive then right? Who picks up the most loser points might be more significant.

Okay but if that stats explains it why'd they not make the playoffs in 2023-24?

Okay in all seriousness, to the stats people, we all see the periodic stats about goals in first periods and 5v5 this and that and above expected here and there and all the rest BUT, what is the stat or stats that explains analytically, why Sabres always lose on the season and miss the playoffs? What's the strictly analytical explanation?

As a whole. But there's always little analytical tidbits people get excited about (eg. Benson was above high danger chances expected 5v5 or some stuff similar) and there's this expected and that expected and this zone time and all kinds of things some people obsess over.

If you live in the world of stats and analytics, the Sabres are almost always exciting. If you watch hockey, they are not.

Biggest problem I have with their plan and the pace they operate on is that they forever get caught in a cycle of people wanting out as they reach their limit with the most recent plateau. I firmly believe Dahlin is at his breaking point and if this season goes badly (which it most likely will with what they did and didn't do) he's the next one who will want out. and so it will repeat yet again.