JohnC

No question that the end of the season spiral has been disappointing. But this game was in my opinion one of the best Sabre played game all seasons, including many of our victories. What have most of us railed against about this team? It was the play of our defensemen, the goalies and the team defense in general. This game demonstrated a high level of goalie play, good blue line play throughout the pairings and responsible forward play throughout the game. Rangers got a goal on a deflection off of Power. It was a fluke play but also a play that happens in this sport. I'm not speaking on your behalf. But for me this was one of the best played games we had all season. The intensity for both teams was on exhibition throughout the game. We lost in overtime. That's disappointing but how this team played was encouraging, at least for me.

I thought that this was one of Buffalo's best all-around games this season. They played a tight two-way game throughout. No lapses in play with energy throughout. The goal by Kane was a fluke. That's hockey. The defensive structure was on exhibit throughout the game. UPL looked like one of the better goalies in the league playing behind that defensive foundation. Just some quick thoughts about this game: I would give UPL the first star. This was Peterka's best game. If someone wanted to give him the first star, I wouldn't argue against that judgment. This was the tightest two-way game that the Sabres played this season. Greenway is a big fellow. He also has some skill. Granato knew what he was doing when he strongly argued to deal for him. No one should complain about Mitts any longer. His play has been consistently good. He has also turned out to be one of our noticeable effort players. I thought Lyubushkin played well. His recent play has been more than solid. I thought all our defense pairings played well. I don't like to complain about the officiating but on balance it worked against us. The chances of making the playoffs are fading. But despite that reality the manner in which the Sabres played this game gave me more optimism for the near future than discouragement. If you look at the play of Krebs, Quinn, JJ, Power, Joki you can see even more upside to their game. I enjoyed this game. It was played at a playoff pace and intensity level.

One doesn't have to be highly knowledgeable about hockey to recognize that Power is going to be a top tier defenseman in this league. In his rookie year, he already plays at a high level and does it with unnatural confidence for such a young player. The big surprise, a pleasant one, is that he has demonstrated more offensive ability than I thought he had. While Dahlin is a dazzler Power is a less ostentatious player. This tall rookie is on his way to being an elite defender like his Swedish teammate.

You and I are on the same track. Nothing I said contradicted the good points that you added to my response. This is still a developing team and an incomplete team. The addition of Greenway and Stillman is an indication that the GM is aware of the weaknesses that still need to be addressed. You want the team to play a more rugged brand of hockey. As this team is currently constructed it simply isn't capable of playing that style of hockey. This team is built more to play a fast-paced north/south style of game. The addition of Greenway and Stillman is an acknowledgement that this roster needed changes in personnel to better play the style of hockey that you favor. I don't believe that Pegula is constraining the GM in any fashion, including the budget. I do believe that the GM has been smart in acknowledging where this team was at, is at and where it needs to be. The semi-reconstruction of the roster he inherited was not going to be reworked in one offseason or two. To his credit the GM has made a number of solid smaller deals such as Jost, Lyubushkin, Stillman and Greenway that has added some bulk to the roster, and he did it without giving up much in assets. I believe because of our favorable cap situation and where this team is in its development (more advanced) that he needs to make a couple of more aggressive moves (wisely giving up assets) to address our noted deficiencies. Just a sidenote: I'm not worried about players not wanting to play here. If a player is reluctant to come here then I don't want that player here. There are other options to choose from. I'm not worried about that issue.

I'm excited about having Levi in the system. (I'm aware I'm making an assumption.) But I'm not counting on him being ready in his first or maybe even in his second year, at least not as a primary goalie for us. The Sabres are at a point where the roster and the system is built up enough to where the present/winning now has to be more of a priority even if it is at the expense to the future. This offseason it's imperative that a few consequential additions be made to accelerate the rebuilding process. The fans and the players deserve that commitment to winning sooner rather than later. I think you and I are in accord that this team is not too far away from being a serious team. The organization needs to demonstrate more urgency in this offseason. We shall soon see if the organization feels the same way.

The goalie position and blue line unit each need to be upgraded. Patching one hole without addressing the other hole is self-defeating. If you add another 4-5 blueliner to the mx and bring in a #1 goalie (suggested names have been made in other threads), then the roster will certainly be strengthened. Would it be better to bring in another top four defenseman to pair with Power, resulting in Joki dropped down to the third pairing? Yes, but is that option available on the trade market or even free agent market at a reasonable price? I'm not sure that it is. Without question, the priority is the goalie position. And without question the Sabres have more assets than most to deal with.

What high end goalie would be on the market that our GM could make a surprising deal for? I believe it was @dudacekwho suggested that maybe Nashville would be willing to trade Saros if their franchise decided to go through some sort of rebuild. I'm ambivalent about giving up a high-end prospect such as Savoie to get a deal done . But the reality is that adding a high caliber of goalie to this roster would be transformative.

Before the season started, I predicted that the Sabres could have a 90 point season and stay in the playoff hunt up to the end of the season. I believe we are on pace for those goals. As @Thornystated an increase from a 79 to 90 point season is a step in the right direction. The organization couldn't get a deal done with Ullmark. At this point it is a waste of time to argue why that didn't happen. (I lay the most blame on the GM for his inflexibility.) But factoring in that setback at the most important position on the ice, if the team does get to the 90 benchmark and does have a winning or even a break-even season, then when taking a wider perspective this season has been at the minimum a modest success.

There isn't anyone who contributes on this board who has a speck of hockey knowledge isn't aware of this team's glaring needs. Of course, it is the defense, mostly lower pairing, and goaltending. And everyone here who is knowledgeable about makeup of the roster is aware that it needed to add size and toughness. That's why Greenway was brought in. Look where this team was two years ago and look at where it is now. It takes time to fix the numerous deficiencies that were evident to all of us. If you had a little more perspective, you would realize that the team is trending in the right direction. The younger players are getting better. Clearly, we are not there yet. That's part of the frustrating and at times exasperating process. That's the reality most of us are aware of.

The reviewing officials didn't interpret the player's action as being deliberate. You have every right to disagree with the call. But the reviewing officials didn't come away with the same conclusion you had. The game's over. There will be no redo of the play or game. The Sabres lost and the Islanders won. We earned zero points and they earned two points in the standing. That won't change. Buffalo plays Dallas tonight. That's what needs to be focused on.

I'm wrong all the time. I can handle having deficiencies.

On WGR Tuesday, Granato said that he was going to start off playing Greenway with a variety of players. It's very likely that he will soon be playing on a dedicated line.

I said that as per the rule, Toronto got the call right, because they did. I respectfully disagree with you and the majority of people here. I'm looking forward to the Dallas game.

The play stands. Islanders earned two points in the win and the Sabres got zero points in the loss. I have no issue with people having a different view on the legitimacy of the goal. That's hockey, that's sports and that is part of life. In my estimation there is too much looking back instead of moving on. I'm looking forward to the Dallas game.

I was impressed with the play of Stillman until he got hurt. He got in a fight and was injured. In my view, he's a third pairing caliber of player but his addition was a plus for the unit. And as others have noted our GM did make a legitimate offer, maybe the best offer to Ottawa for Chycrun, but they declined to deal with us. What's clear is that the organization recognizes more needs to be done to upgrade this unit. I'm anticipating another defenseman added to the mix this offseason. And I expect Johnson to sign with Buffalo. He's not likely to play right away but he should be in our pipeline and available within a year or so.

I apologize. It was @SwampD. Every game has a number of twists and turns such as failures to capitalize on opportunities and damaging sloppy play. No one play determines the outcome. Teams overcome bad calls and take advantage of calls that are in their favor when they shouldn't have been. It's a 60 minute game.

Your last sentence is exactly the basis on which the Toronto review officials made their determination that it was a goal. You can disagree with how they saw the play and interpreted the play. I agree with the conclusion, and you don't. I'm okay with the different views. Interpretation of the rules and plays is what reviewing officials do. That's hockey and that's sports in general. As I stated in a response to @Weaveone can have whatever stance one wants. In the end the call stands. And is usually the case the outcome was not determined by one call (good or bad). It should be noted that on NHL Network the play was showed. All 3 panelists agreed with the goal call.

You can have whatever view you want on this issue. That's your prerogative. The league officials reviewed the play and came to a different conclusion. Their ruling stood. It's as simple as that. Sometimes rulings are called in your favor, and sometimes not. Official calls (in this case league review system) are part of hockey and sports in general. I didn't watch this game because of who was covering the game. But it is unlikely that this one call was the reason why the Sabres lost this game.

Whether his leg was up or his skate was on the ice is not the issue. He did not direct the puck with his leg. That's what the reviewers determined.

I recommend that you go for an eye exam.

His leg was raised. But it wasn't done to direct the puck. The puck hit his leg and it went in. There is nothing complicated or disputable about the play.

The commentators were not the evidence. The film clip they showed was. Trust your eyes and you will come away with the right conclusion.

I'm not broadening this discussion because it is pointless to do so. Trust your eyes and don't let your bias obscure what actually happened. There is nothing unusual about a fluke goal. Deflections off sticks, off of offensive and defensive players, happen all the time. Good calls, bad calls inexplicable calls. Sometimes they work in your favor and sometimes they don't. That's simply hockey!

The puck deflected off him. That's not in dispute. There was no kicking motion; he didn't direct it. That's the decisive issue that wasn't even difficult to determine. The commentators on the Hockey Network show said that the reversal was proper and obvious. This is a case where fans should trust their eyes and not let their bias over-rule what was visible.

I didn't watch the game because of availability. So I won't comment on the game. I saw the goal on NHL Network. It was, without question, a good goal. The reversal of the call was proper. Even the commentators on the show said that it was clear that the reversal was the right call. Reviews are part of the game. It worked as it was intended to do.