JohnC

When you have an insufficient amount of talent and compete against more talented teams you are more likely to lose than win. That's been the problem for the Sabres for the past decade. The era of gladiator and goon hockey is long gone. Speed, skill and even toughness are attributes that contribute to winning games. This looking back to the era of Flyer thuggery as a model to follow is a fantasy laid on top of a delusion. Hooliganism is not a solution to anything but more time in the penalty box. The recipe for success is basic: adding more talent.

Your comment reflects a view that is more than a decade outdated. It's a fantasy that has little application to today's NHL. The idea that the Sabres are a deficient team because they lack the ability to fight and adequately respond to assaults makes little sense. The Sabres are where they are in the standings because their roster is not good enough and deep enough to withstand the rigors of a long season against superior teams. This macho gladiator attitude has little to do with making this team more competitive. It's a simplistic solution that isn't really a solution because the on ice struggles this team is encountering is because this team isn't good enough. That's clearly evident to anyone who watches the games with their eyes open. This team needs to add better players. Advocating for more thuggery as a solution to anything is childishly simplistic and utterly stupid.

What happens if either Dahlin or Power get hurt? Both of these players are playing unsustainable minutes.

Pittsburgh was simply the better team. They have a more complete and mature roster, top to bottom. Skinner not playing had an affect on two lines and the PP. This team isn't deep enough to absorb such a setback. It's not an issue of toughness, and it's not an issue of willingness to fight. Our roster is evolving and developing. We just are not there yet.

The Sabres simply don't have enough margin of error to absorb the loss of a critical player like Skinner. The roster is still in the building and developing stage. As it stands the roster simply isn't good enough and mature enough to handle teams that are better and more mature. It's better than what it was but it hasn't reached the tipping point where it can make up for most setbacks.

"Seattle Kraken defenseman Jamie Oleksiak was suspended by the NHL for three games for an illegal check to the head of Washington Capitals defenseman Alexander Alexeyev." Wash Post Skinner got what he deserved.

He didn't disrespect the fan base. You keep saying that is if it is a mantra. After a game in which he was incessantly booed he expressed his displeasure at the fans who booed him. He was candid about how he felt. And that bothers you. The paying customers pay for their seats and are entitled to boo. However, the whining crybabies who booed acted as if they were personally insulted when he expressed exactly how he felt. If you throw shiiit then don't complain when shiiit gets thrown back at you. I don't recall one former teammate who publicly or anonymously disparaged him after he left. While you and others are constantly smearing his character as if it is an established fact, it is not. I'm not saying that he wasn't happy with the situation he was in because he wasn't. I'm not even saying that he was a perfect teammate because he wasn't. But your characterization of him is not fair. He's gone. Get over it.

I thought that the mixture of fans of both teams created a great atmosphere. It created a unique dynamic of the partisans going back and forth. The Buffalo market is a unique market in that it is close to Canada but also Pennsylvania. There is much more to tap into. The best marketing tool is to put out not only a good but also an entertaining team. That's happening now. This franchise is striding forward. The front office needs to be a little more aggressive in searching for accelerants to make the fire hotter.

There is a smart way to stand up for your goalie and a self-defeating way to do it. There are no assurances that we would have won if this incident played out differently. But that's what's disappointing about Skinner losing control. We lost the opportunity to find out on the ice.

This is a general observation about this game. The arena was close to being filled and the fans were into the game. The hockey was played at a high level and the intensity was close to (not quite) playoff level. The team is regaining credibility with a hockey market that was battered and abused. The Sabres are entertaining and they are capable of competing with the elite teams in this league. Considering what has transpired over the past decade or so ,what is happening now is uplifting to what once was downtrodden.

I have been touting Skinner's contributions for quite a while. So my bias is toward him and not against him. But it was Skinner who failed his team. You are right in pointing out that it was Guentzel who slashed Skinner first. And it was Skinner who responded by aggressively slashing him back. (Good for him!) But considering the situation he needed to regain his composure. He lost it and crossed checked him in the neck and head area. It was clear-cut that he crossed the line not only at this critical juncture in the game but also very likely will result in the league disciplining him with a game suspension. Skinner hurt and failed the team.

You present some interesting questions to consider. The main question you propose is: Are the Sabres a good team? As you indicate that is debatable. But there is another way of looking at that issue of being good or not. Another aspect of that issue isn't that they are a good or not so good team as it is that they are an incomplete team. In a rebuilding endeavor you are not realistically going to address all your weaknesses at the same time. What is evident is that this regime has put together two top lines and are close to assembling two top defensive pairs. There are still major voids in the lower pairing corps and in net. How quickly will those voids be adequately filled? I don't see it happening this season. If those vulnerabilities are not mostly addressed this offseason I will be very disappointed.

Whenever the topic of Jack comes up there is a reflexive response by many Sabre fans that color their ability to acknowledge his talent and actual play. He is now the best player on a serious cup contending team. The Jack and organization story/relationship is more complicated than the simplified version that many want to cling to. Could the relationship have been salvaged? Maybe not. But as you point out the thought of a Thompson-Eichel-Cozens center spine would have been an exciting idea to consider. Jack is one of the best players in the league. And many fans are bothered by that reality because they believe they were unfairly jilted. Resentments are difficult to let go.

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.