JohnC

I strenuously disagree with this view. What DG is attempting to do is mask his deficiencies. Without question our lower defensive pairings are weak links. To compensate our top two pairings are getting a lot of minutes that will in time deplete them. (@GASabresIUFANand @Taro Thave pointed this out in a couple of their astute posts.) Our coaching staff knows what our team strengths are, and what are our vulnerabilities. And so does the opposition. Against good teams it catches up to you. The mistake that was made by the front office was that it didn't satisfactorily address the lower blue line deficiencies. It is catching up with us.

This line certainly didn't have excessive minutes. But even with the limited minutes this line played as a very responsible line. There was never a time where I thought this unit was a liability in this highly contested game.

This is a game that he deserved credit for his play. When he plays poorly then he deserves criticism. When he plays well he should be given his due. I thought in this game that he was one of our better forwards. Nothing flashy about his play other than it wasn't consistently solid throughout the game.

If Olofsson would have scored a goal instead of hitting the pipe this line would have been considered the top line in this game. I have been pleased with the play of Jost.

There were many games where it was warranted to criticize this particular player. This is not one of them. I thought he played a very tight and focused game. This is how he needs to play on a more regular basis.

Mitts had a good game. He had three assists and was a plus 2. It seems that some people are reluctant to give him credit when it is due.

It doesn't matter what Genzel did. Skinner lost control at a critical juncture. If Skinner would have sticked him a few times that would have been more than enough retaliation. He and the other combatant would then have been directed to the penalty box. Skinner is a very intense player but you have to have a better presence of mind to understand the situation. Skinner lost his composure and the Sabres ended up losing the game. This was a good game. As someone else mentioned when Tage was covered on the PP Cozens has to shoot the puck. There were good enough shooting lanes to get the puck to the net.

You are missing my point. What is the option? He has little value on the trade market. Can he be salvageable? So far, the organization has not made a conclusive decision to move on from him. Maybe it is close to reaching the point of no return for him but the organization, at this time, has decided to make do with what they got.

Mitts is on the team right now. He has little value on the market. It's in his and the organization's interest for him to elevate his game. Will he do so? Is he capable of doing so? Right now, it doesn't seem likely. I'm pretty close to concluding that for his benefit he needs to be moved with the hope that a change of scenery will give him a fresh start and possibly invigorate his career. It's more likely than not that his future is not here. But all the coach can do is work with what he's got and do his best to get the most out of him. Sometimes a premature conclusion can be made out of frustration and exasperation with a player. It wasn't that long that the commentary about Skinner was dramatically different than it is now. Sometimes you have to ride the horse that is in your stable and see how far you can go with it before you send it to the glue factory. I'm still hanging in there. It might be by a thread but I'm grasping what I have to grasp with.

Would you be kind enough to notify me when your head is ready to explode? I want to witness that.

The recent play of Mitts hasn't been very productive. But on the positive side he is displaying effort and battling for the puck. His marquis play last night was getting back on defense to prevent a breakaway. That was a terrific effort. All you can ask of Mitts is to keep grinding. From my vantage point that's what he is doing.

Your response makes no sense. I was commenting about this game and how the team played. And I noted that the commentators on the broadcast prior to the game, and during the periods accentuated the same point about the delicate balancing of the offense and defense for the Sabres. Those observations are the same observations that are frequently made on this site i.e. that the Sabres are leading the league in giving up high danger shots. What does it mean to score 9 goals against a team whose goalie play was atrocious? (Our goalie play was far from elite.) You are making a mistake if you give too much credence to a shootout win against a team that is deliberately tanking. And how will that loose defensive play translate when we play Boston or Tampa? A win is a win. I'm not complaining. But when it gets to the point that an overseer is disturbed by an accurate observation made by everyone in the broadcast room, then it's time for the overseer to take a chill pill.

One of the most interesting things about watching this game was the commentary during the periods. Each of the commentators basically made the same comment/observation that it is clear that this team has mastered the art of offense. But in order to make the leap from an interesting and entertaining team to being a serious team, they have to sacrifice some of their offensive style of play to a more responsible defensive game. In this game, the Sabres didn't show that they can do it just yet. (My opinion.) Clearly, the goaltending is not good enough. Also, this team gives up too many quality chances to the opposition. Once there is a better balance between the offense and defense, this team will be a factor. We're not there yet.

Skinner has also demonstrated that he does have an all-around game beyond shooting. He can pass and play a responsible defensive game. Thankfully, the Sabres have a coach who knows how to get value out of his players. As you point out Skinner is playing up to the value of his contract.

That is one of the few facts of life.

Thanks for pointing that out. That's to our credit. But we haven't fared too well against the upper echelon teams in our division, teams that we have to surpass. You take it step by step. The team is making progress and moving forward. However, that doesn't mean that it won't be a major challenge to get over the hump this season.

Have we beaten any of the upper tier teams such as Colorado, Tampa, Boston, Carolina, Vegas etc? I can't recall that we did. Although we did play well in most of those matches but still lost. I think that this team can get back in the race but merely as a fringe team trying to stay in the hunt.

I believe the organization has reached (or is close to) the point where it doesn't have to make any blockbuster deals requiring giving up significant assets to acquire top two line or top two pairing players. I would rather add another couple of Lyubushkin caliber players, who I consider to be a third pairing player. That mid-tier type of additions would add depth and more properly align where players should be slotted, especially on the blue line. I have not given up on Mitts and Olofsson. No question they are struggling. But it wasn't too long ago when DG said that Mitts was one of the better players in his training camp a couple of years ago. If Mitts can regain his form and confidence, I think he will be slotted as a credible third line player and a contributor on the second PP. That would be fine with me. Just a reminder: How many people gave up on Skinner and felt that he was a financial albatross around this roster? Now he is considered a primary player and worth his heavy salary.

Either this guy's suit is too big or he is too small for the suit. However, he should be complimented for the Elvis wiggle. 🤡

You are treading on dangerous territory when you bring up the Ullmark issue. 🤡 This is a hypothetical question: How many more points do you believe the Sabres would have this season if it got Ullmark caliber goaltending on a consistent basis?

What Krueger didn't understand is that the NHL of today is a different game that he envisioned. This is now an era of fast pace north/south hockey where the modern rules promote movement. It isn't about retrenching back as it is pushing forward. His background was coaching a Swiss team that played against superior teams. His approach made sense because talent-wise he couldn't match the talent of the opposition. So everything he did was to stifle the opposition and hope to capitalize on their mistakes. He was simply a fish out of the water floundering around and drowning himself.

No.

I, like you, have heard DG talk on WGR about the sequencing of principles, and which of them are a priority. He has on a number of occasions stated (as you noted) that the first priority is to concentrate on getting an offensive flow, and once that approach has been mastered/installed go on to building a defensive system. Contrast his offensive, north/south attacking approach to Krueger's more defensive posture to the game! One coach believed in suppressing talent while the current coach believes in the expression of talent.

The encouraging thing about playing Krebs with the two grizzly vets is that it forced him to play a more disciplined and tighter style of game. What the insertion of Krebs into that more defensive line demonstrated is that Krebs can adjust his free floating and loose passing brand of hockey and make him concentrate more on puck retrieval and possession. Especially in the third period of the San Jose, Krebs worked hard, along with his linemates, to keep the puck in his own zone. Or another way to describe it is to value the puck and the possession. Something he had problems with. Don Granato showed that good coaching includes experimenting to put his players in the best position to succeed. The next challenge for the coach is to find the right strategies to get Mitts and Olofsson back on track. I know that @LGR4GM doesn't agree with me (expecting a barrage of assaults) but I do believe that these two players are salvageable.

Is that why you have your orthopedic doctor in your contact list? 🤡