JohnC
-
Posts
6,005 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
Tic-tack-goal. Pretty play. (clip taken from nhl.com)
https://www.nhl.com/video/nosek-scores-on-odd-man-rush/t-277350912/c-5415391
-
17 minutes ago, Shootica said:
I think that group is missing a center, but I agree that it is the framework for a productive third line. Put a Copp-esque center between two of them and move the other to a different line, and it's a stark improvement from our past 3rd lines.
Big caveat there is that it all falls apart without finding a proper 2C and 3C.
As you indicate, and everyone else does, finding a genuine 2C is the priority for the front office. And there is an assumption that Cozens will either be the second or third center in another year or so.
-
17 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Can someone send out a search party for our new GM. Apparently only other teams can improve themselves for next season during the playoffs
Why prematurely make deals when trade options are limited compared to when the playoffs are concluded and when there will be more options? Just because Buffalo hasn't made any deals right now doesn't mean that our GM isn't communicating with teams out of the playoffs and even with teams in the playoffs to work on proposed deals. I would rather have a full menu of options than a partial menu of options.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Thorny said:
It's not a second line, or even close to one, imo.
I agree that it is more of a third line than a second line. But I think it could be a good third line that gets more production and minutes than our third lines usually get. That's why I inched it up in my evaluation of the unit. My point is with this line there will be less chasm between the lines instead of having the big drops in production from the first line to the lower lines.
-
5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Stop trying to attack me for *****, I am one of the few posters on this board who openly admits when they are wrong [/b]so back off. [/b]
You are being ridiculous. Go spend your research time on someone else.
-
37 minutes ago, freester said:
There is no Center on that line. Johansson is a 3LW. Moving him to a position he’s not suited for does him a disservice.
If we ever hope to contend we need to play players at their correct positions and slot them appropriately.I agree with you that Johansson is more of a winger than center. But in the short period of time the line played together last year and with the skating ability of Kahun the line meshed well. Both Kahun and Johansson have good instincts where to an extent they both could be interchangeable at the center position. If this line was assembled again I wouldn't consider it to be a second line so much as a very good third line or even a second tier second line playing behind the established second line.
-
1 hour ago, Curt said:
I don’t get this. I think Liger had it right. You didn’t fully understand what I was saying. I clarified, it’s all good. When Liger clarified, saying the same thing, you respond like this???
My problem is not with you. As I stated before with our exchanges you and I are basically in accord. My issue is with another poster who keeps twisting my position when it is clear that it is not what I am saying. This repeated distortion by him irritated me to the point that I responded with needless vigor.
-
1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:
I don't think analytics had anything to do with Botterill being fired. If that was what you are arguing about then we can end that now. Botterill was fired for the singular reason he refused to go along with the Pegula's plans to downsize the hockey department. Analytics might have played a role in the new order if Botterill had agreed but he was fired for refusing or fighting the downsize.
Analytics were a peripheral under Botterill as evidence by the fact decisions were made and then stats were asked to be provided to backed already decided upon things. In a sense then Analytics was part of the process but again, Adams has at least in appearance elevated it to be a primary part of the process.
I have said all along that Botterill was fired for not going along with the downsizing. What more can I say. And I have repeatedly stated that the peripheral analytical issue as it pertained to Botterill was not a consequential factor. You keep portraying my position as if it was otherwise. It is not!
-
4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
You are agreeing with me actually.
Botterill was fired because he wouldn't can a bunch of ppl.
Adams is different then Botterill because he wants to integrate analytics into the decision making process more. Staffing results in hockey decisions so those 2 things go together. You don't make your analytics guy expressly part of the scouting department for shits and giggles.
With respect to the highlighted segment about why Botterill was fired the reason you gave why he was fired is exactly what I have been saying in the dozens of my posts on this subject. So there is no disagreement on that issue.
You didn't respond to what I stated. You distorted it. That's fine. There is no need to continue with this wasteful and foolish duet. Your need to always be right is tiresome. And forcing your self-declared brilliance on to others doesn't work with people who are not receptive to it.
-
2 minutes ago, Curt said:
I would honestly downgrade Oloffson from top 6 to middle 6
A middle six line of Olofsson/Johansson/Kahun is a high quality middle line. It wouldn't be outlandish to consider this line as a second-tier second line type line.
-
28 minutes ago, Radar said:
John C I agree with you to a large degree. I agreed with the Sabres overhaul of a bloated and inefficient organization. My only misgivings are it's been replaced by a lot of inexperience. That doesn't necessarily mean they will fail but it's still , in my mind , a misgiving. I believe Adams is a pretty sharp guy but I question ownership and it's hiring rationale at this point. Hopefully between Krueger and Adams they can assemble a team rather than just a bunch of individual pieces. I think bolstering our goaltending and upgrading our forwards is an obvious need.
I agree with most of what you stated. As you noted bigger is not always better. That is not to say that it is always not better. But by culling the staff you hopefully will make it more nimble and creative. With smaller staffs the hockey departments are more likely to be better at interacting/communicating with one another. With respect to the issue of inexperience although Adams has made a lot of new hires that doesn't mean that they are less accomplished than the people they replaced. The bottom line determining success revolves around the hockey decisions that will be made this offseason. Only time will tell. Entering this offseason I'm more encouraged than discouraged.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I don't think that was what he was saying at all. In fact your are mixing 2 conversations together, why Botterill was fired and why Adams has appeared to be different.
I disagree with you. It's clear that Botterill was fired because he was not willing to go along with the austerity program. It's easy for us to agree on that point because the reason was stated by the Pegulas. As far as the analytical issue being a significant factor for the firing that is a diversion and a manufactured rationale because analytics were already part of the evaluation system not only for the Sabres under Botts but for all teams.
As far as Adams approach appearing to be different I don't know how you can say that because he hasn't made many hockey decisions yet other than staffing decisions. What we do know for sure is that he will be working with a thinned out staff because because he has no other choice. The Pegulas made the determination as to the more austere way of doing business.
As I have said on numerous posts the Pegulas have a right to structure the organization any way they want. Ultimately, what is going to matter is the quality of hockey decisions made by the hockey people. It's not unreasonable to believe that a more austere operation can be more nimble and creative and make better hockey decisions than a bulkier run operation. That's what I'm hoping for.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Curt said:
Well, the apparent fact that Adams wants to run a slimmed down, more analytics focused organization, and Botterill apparently really really didn’t, is a difference in itself.
Additionally, Adams speaks about integrating analytics into the decision making processes in a way that Botterill never did. Furthermore, that restructuring has resulted in the Director of Analytics be named an Assistant Director of Scouting, so there actual follow through on that integration.
In the end I guess it’s possible that Adams is just going to do whatever the Pegulas tell him every day, but I’m going to assume that he was hired because his vision aligned with the PegIslas’ vision, and that he actually believes in the things he is doing and saying, not that he is a mindless Pegula puppet.
I agree with almost all your responses with a slight difference about Botterill. The issue is as I see it is not that Botterill was adverse to an analytical approach because it is already a factor with all hockey operations. I'm sure that he was willing to cut staff but not to the extent that the Pegulas' were demanding. It certainly was going to be uncomfortable for the former GM to be forced to cut so many people that he hired.
Because of the financial hemorrhaging the organization was already faced and with the gloomy future economic climate that their hockey business would have to contend with this austerity program was going to be installed no matter who was going to be the GM. It should be noted that no one outside the organization was considered for the job so it is clear that the owners had the person in hand who was going to implement what they wanted to do.
I am not criticizing the owners. From a business standpoint what they did made sense. And they had a good argument that even when they were copiously spending money the results didn't come close to matching the invested resources. So altering their course of action in such a maelstrom made sense.
Where I slightly deviate from your take is that I don't believe the issue of analytics was much of a factor for the GM departure. And I'm not getting caught up on how the slimmed down operation will change how things are done. The bottom line is: are Adams and his smaller staff able to make better hockey decisions that can turn the fortunes of this sputtering team? This offseason we should get a better sense of what the answer will be. As I, and others have stated, the organization is in a good situation this offseason to make some important hockey decisions. Will they sufficiently seize the opportunity? I am hopeful that they will.
(I want to emphasize that for the most part our views coincide except for a difference on the emphasis on the analytical factor.)
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
Maybe my point was lost in the overall paragraphs. My point is we add a piece we lose a different piece we don't get better. We added Kane as that goal scorer and ROR as 2C then we ditched Kane and added Skinner (both flawed but in hindsight I think I'd rather have kept the cheaper option who doesn't score all that much less) so we still need a 2C.
For some reason we can't seem to put the pieces together in Buffalo even when we bring people in they seem to drop off and disappoint or lose their love........maybe after multiple failures you have to look back and think maybe they weren't cancers on the team, maybe there's mold in the walls.
Identifying the mistakes of the past is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I'm not going to get weighed down by the glaring mistakes of the past that can't be changed. This offseason the team is in a position to make some deals that upgrade the team and better balance out the roster. Will it be done? I hope so. The opportunities should be there.
When you are driving and constantly have your eyes on the rear-view mirror looking to see what is behind you instead of keeping your eyes on the road to see what is in front of you what inevitably happens is you crash. My advice to people who are so sour because of the frustrations of the past is to put your energies into the possibilities of the future. I guarantee that you will be much happier.
-
18 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
and if he does this we can spend the season talking about how Olofsson's having an off year and how badly him and Johanson get pushed around and dominated in tough games. Krueger recognized that a one line hockey team cannot succeed. Is it his fault we don't have enough talent to be a two line team? We didn't win with Skinner on the top line either.
Not having enough talent to staff two top lines is the obvious issue. Who is arguing otherwise? Who is not stressing the desperate need to bring in second line talent from the outside? Your point that the Sabres didn't win with Skinner on the top line doesn't resonate with me. What we got the previous year with Skinner on the top line is goal production. The team's floundering in his first year certainly wasn't his fault because he was fulfilling the role that he was initialing brought in for i.e. scoring goals.
-
15 hours ago, dudacek said:
Personally, if the Sabres change nothing this year, I expect them to be better on the backs of Dahlin taking a big step forward and Skinner rebounding to his 30-goal self.
But the Sabres will be changing plenty this year: Kahun was only with us for 2 weeks and is an upgrade on Sheary, no question in my mind; there will be 2 new D in place of Bogosian/Scandella/Pilut. And at least four players stepping in to the holes created by the likely departures of Sobotka/Frolik/Simmonds/Girgensons/Larsson/Vesey.
Some of those spots will be filled by players already in the system but the mix is going to be a new one. It’s up to Adams to make sure that it’s a better one.
And that’s happening even without any trades.
The sample size was small but I was impressed with the Kahun/Johansson/Olofsson line. They seemed to mesh well highlighted by their up-tempo skating. This newly constituted line seemed to enliven Johansson and put him in a more comfortable setting. I don't consider this an A second line but it wouldn't be unreasonable to label them a 2B second line.
What is evident when watching the playoffs is that most, if not all, of the successful teams have good lines beyond the top two lines. If the organization can bring in some genuine second line talent and construct that line then this team will have more secondary scoring, something it has lacked for a long time.
As you noted Bott's deal for Kahun was a terrific deal as was the Joki for Nylander deal.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
I'm not questioning Skinner's ability, but I'm not sure about his motivation. I don't think it's any accident that his best ever season came in his contract year and now he has a sealed deal for the rest of his career so does he care? He strikes me as a guy who plays how he wants to and when he wants to. I'm not sure what we're going to get here on in. I suspect we'll get 20+ from him mostly but 30+ not so sure.
If you put Skinner on the Jack line it is likely that he will be in the 30-40 range. If Krueger doesn't play him with the right supporting cast he will be wasting his talent (again) to score. Skinner can skate and in tight quarters he is as nifty a skater as any player in the league. Skinner is a premier sniper and not a defensive stalwart. When you have an asset you utilize that asset; and when you have a liability you minimize it. I hope Krueger better manages this season compared to last season the abundant package that Skinner brings to the table, including his liabilities.
-
4
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, dudacek said:
That’s an interesting discussion.
Players whose track record indicates we should expect similar results from:
Eichel, Reinhart, Johansson, McCabe, Ristolainen, Lazar, Okposo
Players who may or may not have played above their heads last year:
Olofsson, Jokiharju
Players who had a down year based their track record:
Skinner, Montour, Miller, Hutton
Players who are inexperienced enough to be better next year:
Olofsson, Mittelstadt, Asplund, Thompson, Cozens, Kahun, Dahlin,Jokiharju, Ullmark
Free agents who may be difficult to replace
Larsson, Scandella
Free agents who should be fairly easy to replace or upgrade:
Sobotka, Sheary, Vesey, Girgensons, Simmonds, Frolik, Bogosian
If you consider how you rated the players on this roster and project the addition of two second line players such as Ehlers and Danault then it is not unfair to believe that this is an upgraded and competitive roster. Of course you would have to make some subtractions and probably deal your first round pick in order to make those second line acquisitions but it is very doable.
What could accelerate the positive projection are some young players making a faster than expected leap forward. What if Ullmark demonstrates that he is a solid to good #1 goalie? What if Skinner gets back to the 30 to 35 goal range? What if Joki and Kahun leap forward? These are a lot of "ifs" but all of the "if players" have already shown that they have the capacity to become established players.
-
14 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
I would be reluctant to give up first round picks in any deal because I am far from convinced there is a deal that will guarantee a turn around and there is a much greater chance we will be even worse than this season.
There is no one deal that will turn around this team. That degree of expectation is unrealistic. But a couple to three smart deals that address some obvious needs and better balance this roster can make a big difference. If I can get a legitimate second line winger or center in a deal that requires our first round pick in the package I would take it in a nanosecond.
-
1 hour ago, dudacek said:
I think there is some overlap in Miller and Montour. I think Colin is a bit better on the point, Brandon in the D zone and in transition, but they both like having the puck on their stick and lean to the offence.
I think Colin is ideally placed on your 3rd pair with significant PP minutes. I think Brandon needs to be used as the puck-mover on your second pair with a reliable defence-first type, with lots of even strength ice time, with a bit of PP and PK sprinkled in.
So they can both operate successfully on the same defence. The issue is they aren’t going to get the PP minutes on a team that also has the two Rasmi. Ralph effectively used Dahlin the way Miller is best used, and Montour‘s best role had significant overlap with Risto and Joki that forced to him to play with other guys who want the puck, and often on his off-side.
I like Montour and think he would be a fine long-term signing if he is used to his strengths.
Moving any one of Montour, Risto, Miller or Joki will benefit the other three. But we also need another McCabe/Scandella to play with the ones who stay behind.
Our issue isn’t the individuals so much as it is the mix.
Excellent analysis and very illuminating. Thank you. After reading your response it seems to me that by changing the mix with a departure or maybe two within the grouping it can enhance the roles of the remaining players. And if handled smartly you can trade an asset to upgrade a deficiency somewhere else and better balance the roster.
Just as I felt that Krueger mishandled Skinner I thought he didn't handle Colin Miller very well either. There was a period of time where he was watching the games from upstairs in the team box. I just think that dealing either Miller or Montour will place the remaining player in a better position to succeed.
-
3 hours ago, dudacek said:
The Sabres paid a significant price for Montour — a late first and Brendan Guhle — who missed the start of the season with injury and never seemed to carve a defined role last year.
His $3.4 million bridge contract is over. At 26, he is arbitration-eligible and one year away from unrestricted free agency. The team needs to decide if it is going to try for a long-term deal, risk arbitration, or flip him.
Some you-should-knows:
- Offensively, Montour has been a poor 1st-pairing/great 2nd-pairing, ranking 57th in the NHL over the past 3 years with 85 points in 215 games. He is 54th in even-strength points.
- He has been a good 2nd-pair in terms of ice time, ranking 79th in the NHL at 20:59 a game.
- His Corsi was outstanding in his 20 games under Housley, and poor under Krueger, with 52-54 per cent offensive zone starts under both coaches.
- He ranked 2nd in ice time among Sabre defencemen last year and his +13 was easily the best total posted by a Sabre in a decade.
- His even-strength production (16 in 54 games) was slightly behind Dahlin (21 in 59) and Risto (23 in 69)
- Capfriendly lists these players as comparables: Josh Morrissey 8/$6.2, Ryan Murray 2/$4.6, Cody Ceci 1/$4.5, Leddy 7/$5.5, DeKeyser 6/$5
- More wide-ranging comparables here: https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/active/2020/caphit/all/defense/ufa?limits=points-19-41
What should Adams do with him?
How would you compare Montour's game with Collin Miller's? Is there an overlap in style of play?
I like Montour as a 2nd pairing defenseman and not as a first pairing. As you noted in one of your bullet points it seems that under Krueger his production declined. The coach needs to reassess and adjust to the player. I make the same judgment as to how the coach handled Skinner. There should be more accentuating the talent/asset and less fretting about the deficiency.
-
1
-
2 hours ago, Shootica said:
I can't shake the feeling that if Winnipeg was really interested in Risto, that trade would've happened last year.
Each year the situation is different for most teams. In addition, contract and cap considerations and roster roles constantly change. When one discusses trades it usually is more than a one for one deal. Many deals have multi-layers to it where the basic deal becomes a much more complicated and expanded deal.
-
Attached is a 10 min interview with David Pagnotta from the Fourth Period on WGR with Howard Simon talking about potential trades for Buffalo and players available on the market. He brought up Laine from Winnipeg and noted that Ehlers would probably be a better fit for the Sabres because he is a more well rounded player. He talked about Domi and some other players and their availability. He brought up the Risto trade value and that Winnipeg would be interested in him. This is some good hockey trade talk.
https://www.radio.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy
-
3
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Wasn't commenting on Larsson's desire or our ability to control. Was simply pointing out that you can't actually replace Larsson with Lazar and get similar results.
I was just pointing out that ultimately he has the last say on this issue. I didn't suggest that you were saying otherwise.
-
1
-
2019-20 Sabres Prospects
in The Aud Club
Posted
If it turns out that Mitts doesn't become a capable player in the league or even becomes a player in the league he will be surpassed and replaced by other players. He not developing into what was hoped for when he was drafted will be replaced by a player like Cozens who is more likely to become a consequential player for us. That's how it works. Nylander was a disappointment and was exchanged for Joki. The young defenseman seems to be on a high trajectory. That would be a plus. Sheary and Rodriques were inconsequential players for us. The player who we got for him was Kahun. If he turns out to be a good third liner at worst and a second liner at best then roster would be upgraded. That would be a plus. In this league there is always a lot of player shuffling. What you hope for is when the plusses and minuses are added up it ends up with a positive number.