JohnC

I don't want to come off as a tiresome scold but again I severely disagree with your Hall take and the possible repercussions that followed that acquisition. In my view the Hall acquisition has/had little to do with how it impacted Skinner and where it placed him. I say that because I believe, as you do, that Skinner should be placed on the second line regardless who ended up centering for him and played on the opposite wing. I was open to the erudite coach placing Reinhart on the second line but my first preference was keeping him on the first line with Jack and Hall. That is a golden first line that should have been assembled right from the start. To the coach's credit he quickly restored Reinhart to the Jack line where although it hasn't converted its chances it has dominated play when it was on the ice. If you have a Rolex watch you get your return on your investment by wearing it, not by burying it in the drawer where it does you no good. There were plenty of fantasy goalie upgrades that were promoted this offseason by the fans. But the reality is all along this new front office was invested in Ullmark as our #1 goalie. So the issue was who was going to be a replacement for Hutton? I believe the GM considered the options out there; and it's apparent that he and Krueger didn't believe that they were worth jettisoning Hutton for. I have repeatedly stated that the biggest factor determining success or failure for this team is the play of Ullmark. I still believe that even though the majority of the audience is focused on Hutton, the backup. So going back to your Hall question and the options that could have been taken without signing him I unequivocally contend that acquiring Hall was a bonanza acquisition that trumps all other options.

Let me start off with where I severely disagree with you. From what I have seen from Hall it is apparent to me that he has regained his elite form. Even with this small sample I will go so far as to say that he is an upper tier player in the league. When you have a gift horse opportunity you seize it. Was the salary cost high? Of course it was! When you want top tier talent you pay for talent. I'm not going to criticize the coaching staff for not immediately playing Cozens at the center position. As I have stated before the model to follow is the Blackhawk method that was used last year for their precocious rookie, Kirby Dach. The staff started him at wing and as the season advanced and he got acclimated to the league he was elevated to a center role. I wouldn't be surprised if Cozens ends up playing center sometime this year. In my opinion the manner in which Arttu is being handled is proper and smart. He played in Europe on a bigger surface. Just as the AHL orientation worked out well for Olofsson I'm hoping that same type of handling will work out for R-2. With Mitts the onus is on him. My preference is to have him play heavy minutes in Rochester instead of throwing him into the big league mix when he hasn't earned a spot. I haven't given up on him but he is not entitled to playing time until he earns it. I'm aware that this is a shortened and compressed schedule against tougher teams. So there is a greater urgency than with a standard season. But it's too soon to panic. With the exception of the first game in general the Sabres have played well against good teams. So let's wait a little longer to see how this plays out before acting out of desperation that in the long term usually causes more problems than solves.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your take on the Johansson for Staal trade. The clamor after last year's season was that the 2C position needed to be addressed. And the necessity of a deal for a 2C was indisputable. Staal is an end of the line veteran who may or may not have a year or two left in his hockey lifespan. (That factor and risk was considered when the deal was made.) The rational for his procurement was that he was a reasonable short term (year or so) placeholder for Cozens. Considering what was given up for him it was a deal in foresight and hindsight that was worth making. The Staal for Johansson trade calculation went beyond talent for talent. There was another layer to it. It revolved around the necessity of addressing a major need and better balancing the roster. Staal has not played well. Few people would say otherwise. It's not so much that he has been bad as much he has not been good. In order to be competitive you need both of your top two centers to play above mediocre levels to be competitive. Staal currently falls under the standard. But let's not just yet jump to a conclusion about him. It's still early in the season. And it has to be acknowledged that he is playing for a new team with unfamiliar and changing line mates. Not having a normal training camp and preseason certainly has to be factored in when evaluating him at this point.(Marty Biron brought this point up in a WGR appearance.) What I basically saying here is let's give it more time before the lamenting is unleashed.

The offense was shut out but the offense was able to generate 40 shots that included somewhere around 10-12 high quality chances. The opportunities were there but the shooters missed them. Skinner had multiple golden opportunities and Oloffson also had a couple of those same enticing openings to shoot at. Overall, this was another loss but the team for the most part played well.

What's remarkable and even admirable is that even though the organization and even some members of the press know what the issue is for Ullmark it hasn't so far to my knowledge been leaked.

Old time video. Keith Magnuson TKO's Carol Vadnais - Round 1-3 - YouTube

The best message he can send to Aube and the Flyers is to contribute to a win by scoring, assisting and good play. The Sabres have a history of being one of the worst penalty killers in the league. Why put your team a man short with a pay back hit that in the end is more likely to hurt your team? Play hard, clean and win. That's the best form of justice. I didn't see the hit so I can't say if it was a dirty or intentional hit. The league reviewed and did not find it to be problematic.

I'm really excited about him. I'm hoping he follows the Chicago Kirby Dach model where the more he plays the better he gets and the more responsibility he is given. Their styles of play are certainly different but both youngsters are so much more advanced beyond their peer group. I'm also optimistic about Tage. It's not so much that he is shining on the ice as it is that he doesn't look out of place. As he has gained physical maturity its obvious that he is not in over his head. From what I have seen so far I'm more positive that his potential is likely to be realized. The moral of the story is that it takes time to develop.

The attached link is a five minute recap of the game. The link came from NHL.com. Recap: BUF 6, PHI 1 | NHL.com

In last night's game it would be an exaggeration to say that Thompson and/or Cozens stood out. On the other hand it is fair to say that both players played at a level that showed that they belonged. So the hope is that there is plenty of room for growth without subjecting the team to damaging lapses while undergoing the expected uneven growth process.

You are right. In the first game he didn't look sharp. The best one can say that he was adequate and couldn't rise to the occasion. But the team in front of him was grossly sloppy and disjointed. That shouldn't have been surprising for a team that hadn't played in almost a year. Although the Sabres lost the second game to the Capitals they played much better, and in my opinion at worst matched the Capitals or at best outplayed them in a losing effort. I don't want to get carried away from the first game in Philly because that dominating game against them might not translate into meaning anything other than beating an opponent that wasn't ready to play when the puck was dropped. As you well know those clunker games happen to all teams. I thought Hutton played well yesterday. He was solid in a very non-challenging game. I'm not as down on him as most are. As I have stated before if he is used judiciously he will be more than adequate as a #2 goalie. If he is used as a heavy duty goalie, even as a #2 backup, then the organization has something to worry about. Needless to say it is still very early in the season, a very unique season with a challenging compressed schedule in a newly created tough conference. Although we have only won one game out of three the Sabres did play well in two of those games. What's my takeaway? I don't know!

The Sabres have played three games and have come away with one win. That's disappointing. But its still too early in the season to come away with such a dire assessment that many are making. In the three games Buffalo has played they played well in two of them. Hockey can be such a fluky game where unintended deflections off a stick or skate can result in a score and a loss. The Sabres dominated this game. What does it mean? Not much, especially in this unusual season with a compressed schedule and altered conference. Let's just be a little more patient and see how things develop.

It's amazing how time flies by. In your example you are looking back more than a quarter century ago.

The attached article is from the Olean Times Herald by Chuck Pollock. I can't think of a bigger play at a critical moment in a game. What makes this play even more unique is that it was made by one of the lesser prominent players on the team. The Houston playoff comeback game with Reich as the qb is etched in my mind but that game included a series of outstanding plays. If anyone can think of a bigger play in the Bills history I would like to know what it is. Johnson takes his place in Bills’ lore | Olean | oleantimesherald.com

As I stated in the original post I agreed with your description of the qbs. It is accurate. The reason why people are infatuated with his athletic ability is that it is the essence of how he plays the position. His athleticism is a factor when he runs and even when he passes. And as unconventional as it is you can't deny that he has been successful as a starting qb leading his team to good regular season records and playoff participations in his short tenure. My basic point in my original post is that it shouldn't be surprising that what most distinguishes him as a qb and how he plays the position from almost every other qb in the game is that which is highlighted.

I don't recall these announcers ever saying that Jackson is better than Josh. Why is it surprising that when these announcers, or any announcers, talk about Lamar and his style of play it revolves around his outstanding athleticism and ability to run, especially at the qb position? The reason why it is stressed is because it is true. Most of the plays he makes are associated with his running, and that includes his passing game. Lamar simply plays the position differently than most qbs. That's evident. Especially this year after Allen's stunning leap forward in his development from a raw and unbridled style of play to one of the most accurate and smarter qbs I have heard few announcers and analysts, if any, say that the Baltimore qb is better than the Buffalo qb. I'm not disagreeing with your descriptions of the players. It is spot on. What I am to an extent disagreeing with is that either of the announcers inaccurately portrayed or more favorably portrayed one of the qbs over the other.

He did. He might have even played some on the first line when Hall was getting stitched. What I'm and others are advocating for is him to be an established member of the second line and at times the first line to change things up. As I said in a prior post I thought that Skinner had a very good game. The out of town TV announcers even made the observation that he was the most prominent player on the ice during a few of his ice time interludes. In conjunction with Skinner moved to the second line I thought when Reinhart was assigned to the first line and Tage was off of it the first line played exceptionally well. They didn't convert but they created quality chances.

Washington is a cup contender. They are not favored but they certainly are in consideration. Dahlin is playing in his third game after not playing NHL games for almost a year. This is like jumping to a conclusion about a book after reading the first couple of pages. That makes little sense.

The coach did change his strategy this game. He put Reinhart on the Jack line and it resulted in that line dominating the play although with no conversions. The coach needs to move Skinner up and put him on the second line. I thought Skinner played very well and when he was on the ice he was the dominant player. The coach has to yield and alter on how he handles Skinner. If you have an asset you have to maximize that asset.

The Sabres have played two games after not having played for a year. The first game the whole team played raggedly. That was to be expected. The second game against a cup contending team the Sabres tightened up and played much better with more structure and less sloppiness. My point is that we are only into our third game in the season where we had a brief training camp with no preseason games. Making judgments right now as to how players are playing is a tad premature. Don't you think? In general, I liked the play of Ullmark and I thought that Skinner looked a lot better in this game.

How much a player gets paid and the length of his contract shouldn't be the determining considerations as to how he gets used. The coach makes the decisions on how to utilize players, and ultimately he will be held accountable on the results of his decisions.

The owner dictating to the coach who to play and how to use players is a recipe for disaster. The coach is going to be held accountable for his decisions. If there is interference in how to coach the team he will lose his authority and respect from the players. There is nothing wrong in keeping the owner informed about what and why the coach is doing. But forcing him to follow what the owner is recommending is an awful way to run a hockey operation.

I disagree with your dire assessments of our lower lines. The irony about the complaints of Kreuger relegating Skinner to a lower line is that he assumingly improves the lower line he is on. So on the one hand there are criticisms that the lower lines are deficient while on the other hand the lower line assignment for Skinner to an extent addresses that valid issue. With respect to goaltending I'm not concluding that this tandem is adequate because I'm simply unsure about them. While most people direct their ire towards Hutton the more important issue for me is Ullmark. If he can play solidly as a #1 goalie (little better than middle of the pack) then I will feel more confident about this team and its prospects for the playoffs. I like your observation about Montour and his pairing with Dahlin. If Montour can play at the level of his talent he will be a bonus player for us. My prediction is that the Sabres will make the playoffs. And I strongly believe that Ullmark will be the most critical player for us determining a successful season or not.

Rob Ray on WGR's Instigator Show directly said that in the scrimmages he witnessed Skinner was not very impressive. There simply was a lack of urgency in his play. This is a guy who struggled last year so he should have come into camp motivated to show that he was worthy of being a more prominent player. Many people blame the coach for the way he handled the player as the cause of his deterioration in play. Based on what people have observed in this training camp it's more clear to me that the onus is on the player for his demotion.

Paul Hamilton was on WGR for a 15 minute segment with Howard Simon and Jeremy White talking about the Sabres. Some of the topics dealt with Cozens and Quinn. When asked about the team's playoff chances he brought up the issue of whether any teams will be dropping off. Howard And Jeremy | RADIO.COM