PerreaultForever

In other words, a complete lack of veterans. The question becomes will the "prime" players coalesce into a solid unit/core with leadership or will it be a rudderless ship again. Remains to be seen. Optimists and pessimists and all that sort of thing.

Nobody would say to do that either. False argument. The argument has always been how Adams chose to construct the roster. He said several times his plan was for them to grow together as a group and become leaders. The problem is that takes a long time and there is no guarantee that they will become "leaders". A balanced roster has always been the model of success around the league. Always. Next season's roster is slightly more balanced, and the young guys are a year older, but it remains to be seen if it will finally come together or not.

That's the difference, or one of the key differences, between a veteran team and a bunch of green kids. I've said it before and will continue to say it, youngest team in the league is not an accomplishment.

When all we had was Anderson.

It's not about big=tough any more though (overall). The advantage for the big guys is reach and strength on stick. Larry Playfair types can still play in a Matt Rempe type role, but the real thing about size advantage is reach and puck control, not that old school toughness thing. Toughness helps obviously, but if people just think big means hitting people they are missing it.

Loser points are key for any team. I also think this team is built fairly well for gaining extra points in OT with shootout skills and open ice speed. It's an area we should technically do very well in. The trick is getting to OT, getting that late tying goal or hanging on to a lead or tie. Net front will be the key there. That has to be Lindy's #1 concern both ends of the rink.

and here I thought the plan was to add grit and a "guy who could chuck 'em" .

It's not a "rule" it's just the way it is. Mostly goalies aren't drafted early because they are too unpredictable and their development paths are longer. Only the exceptional ones break from that pattern. That's just the way it's been for all of the 50 plus years I've watched hockey. Okay this is going nowhere so even for summer bs it's time to end it. You think Adams had it all planned out and didn't just get lucky with UPL. Okay, that's your view. Good for you.

Just looked it up for you, 20 teams drafted goalies in 2024. None in round 1, 5 in round 2, 3 in round 3, the rest all later throw a dart at a board and see picks. Of the round 2 and 3 teams, all being teams with goaltending issues or no clear #1 starter. All of which helps prove my point.

That's not actually true. It's an idea I definitely believe in, but it's not a real thing. Look over the draft picks and show me how every GM drafted a goalie. You most definitely do not use top end picks on goalies unless you are truly in need or the player is exceptional. That's not opinion, that's fact.

That's not it. I posted the jersey sales stats. They are not that popular. They are I guess, as suggested by some, less disliked more than actually liked.

Yes, because he had given himself no other option. But the question is did he ever have any faith in him? Evidence says he did not. We did not. I remember Adams saying glowing things about Levi from the minute he traded for him but I do not recall him ever gushing over UPL the same way prior to UPL's unexpected solid play materializing.

Absolutely early and goalies are weird and he can still develop. No disagreement. Nope. Not at all. My point is Adams drafted a goalie high in the draft because he did not believe he already had one. Drafting goalies every year is fine. I'm a firm believer in drafting one every year in late rounds because they have different development paths (Levi 7th round as an example). Drafting one high up means you think you need one. The discussion was about whether or not Adams believed in UPL or just got lucky.

No I don't think Adams was right at all. Maybe JBot was right, but not Adams. Adams went on to draft Leinonen.

I'm sure you do realize it's "easy to make the playoffs" for those teams because of the ineptitude of this team and a few others. Everything is relative. So to that point, which team(s) do you think we got better than they got better this off season? Who do you think we can pass now?

Well I did realize it back in 2021 and I was told I was a fake Sabres fan and I should go to Boston etc. etc. I was generally too pessimistic for most around here. I'm also 100% with you that I want long term perennial success but you have to take steps and making the playoffs is the first step. The players on the team need that taste. It's very rare for a perennial loser to become a perennial winner right away. More likely you make it and have a few years of up and down in and out before it all comes together. These players really NEED to make the playoffs, just to get that taste and see what things can be. Normalize winning and start caring about losing.

Oh I agree 100%. I've said it many times, as have others, it's Pegula. There are other owners who meddle, but for the most part they hire people to make the decisions and then after time if they are unhappy they fire them and hire new ones. Jacobs is one of the most powerful owners in hockey but he doesn't sit in on meetings with Sweeney and Montgomery. Once in a while he might call Neely out to the golf course and give him a few thoughts, but like most owners he isn't taking notes and meddling in day to day affairs. Hiring yes men is not the way to success. Well I really don't know. I can speculate since it's the summer I guess but hopefully we finally have success and never find out. Purely speculating, I suppose it depends on who hired Ruff? Did Pegula tell Adams to hire Ruff or did Adams finally convince Terry that they needed to stop hiring rookie and green coaches and hire a solid veteran coach? Who reconstructed the make up of the roster? Is this Adams idea or did Ruff ask for (or demand as a condition of taking the job) that changes be made in that regard? Did Terry finally give up on his idea and sigh and say, okay, we will do it Lindy's way and see? If Terry hired Lindy then Adams might get fired and Lindy might get even more power. If Adams hired Ruff against terry's opinion then they'll both be gone maybe. Could they stay the course for yet another year if it fails? I have literally no idea. Of course they could, but it'll be depressing as F...

Easier I guess but where do you draw the line? Will you want Adams fired? Players changed? Will you just write off another year on if only this guy or that guy wasn't injured or we just need this kid to step up or............ there's always something. To me, missing the playoffs again has to be viewed as failure. What you do with that failure is open to discussion I suppose.

I don't disagree but that's you and me not them (Pegula). He's never put an experienced hockey guy in charge. He's never followed the model most teams follow. Ruff is the first senior hire and that's mostly for legacy I'd think. If this team fails this year one would think Adams has to be fired, and the new guy might want "subtractions" and who knows what. I have no idea what happens if Ruff fails. I'd hope Pegula would get out and turn it over to someone who gets it, but I doubt that would happen. He might just think Adams was to blame and do it all over again.

idk, I guess, but that's a weird way of looking at it. My second fave thing might be unusual as it does come from childhood but the idea that you only like 1 team and then everything else is about least hated just seems weird to me. I watch a lot of hockey so every year I "like" about half the league. I generally just "like" teams that play the way I think the game should be played and if I am watching them I want them to win unless they are playing Buffalo or Boston. When Buffalo plays Boston my preferred outcome is Buffalo winning in OT (unless Buffalo is already out of it as it has been some years) but generally Buffalo needs the points more and they are choice 1. Now I'm obviously not very invested in those other teams and the ones I hate I hate all the time (Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton). Pittsburgh was in that group but I no longer care as they are done. So I guess if I had to look at it as least disliked I guess it would be Utah. But if I start to like them this year then do they fall off the list and my new least disliked is the one I care least about? That just seems weird.

No, it's called objectively looking back and not viewing it through fan glasses. Show me one person who said 2 years ago UPL was our future star goalie. Do you really think Adams was any different?

We often disagree so I want to focus on this so maybe you understand me better. I passed the point of paper evaluations and fandom quite a while ago. The team has just underachieved and disappointed too many times. They have to show it on the ice, not in some hypothetical terms for me. When they do that, if they do that, then I give them the credit but not before. Not any benefit of a doubt. They just haven't earned that. Show me, plain and simple. Carolina players have proved it on the ice. There is some question on their ability to win in the playoffs and get to the next level, but the level they are at is most definitely proven. So yes, the Brind'Amour factor is a thing. Coaching matters. If you've noticed, I was high on the Ruff signing and I do think this could signal a shift. One can hope, but they still have to show it. I know Ruff can coach, but he faltered in New Jersey didn't he? Yes, injuries on D and bad goaltending to blame, but that could happen here too. How these forwards buy in and/or come together remains to be seen. We certainly have to hope Ruff can turn things around, because if he fails what then? Full tear down again and restart again? It will be dire at that point if it gets there. So no, no benefit of a doubt. 13 years has sucked all those benefits away. Show me.

Here's a list of "popularity" of NHL teams that seems more accurate. Buffalo comes in 19th. https://www.stadium-maps.com/facts/nhl_facebook_table.html#fbtable ebay merch sales create a fairly similar ranking https://o-wai-sa.com/which-nhl-teams-move-the-most-least-sales-on-ebay/

Obviously it's more about playing large than being large, but size, like speed, is an advantage that cannot be overlooked. You want size on your D, more for reach these days but also for strength. Sticks in lanes is a big part of team D these days and reach helps a lot with that as does tying up guys in front. You want size in front of the net for your forwards as big screens better but tenaciousness (like Benson) is also effective there. Size in the corners and along the boards helps a lot, but doesn't really matter in open ice. Ideally you want size and speed. If you are fast but small you will get "bullied" in the playoffs. If you are big and slow you might be forechecked into disarray and your size won't help you. You want a team with balance, both elements, and complementary pieces on lines that work together with everyone doing their job.

I'm not going over all of it but your player comparables are not even close in numerous cases. I mean Koktaniemi - Krebs as equal? That's some serious crack. That's just one example. Oddly, I look at your list and when laid out that way I think man, the Sabres aren't even close. (only a few exceptions like Dahlin is better than Slavin and some of the bottom guys don't measure up for them either).