GASabresIUFAN Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Yes, I think their terrible play and inability to stay healthy was a major issue in the first 1/2 of the season. The failure of our second pair has been the root cause of our D problems this year. The drafting issue is huge. For example in 2014 GMTM drafted Reinhart (2), Lemieux (31), Cornel (44) and then Karabacek (49). Montour went 55th, McKeown 50th and Dougherty 51st. Van's Tryamkin when 66th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 I do agree that the biggest issue is that we need two top four d-men. Bogosian has been a failure in that spot. Tyler Myers is a better player, but he has also failed, partly for the same reasons. Kulikov has failed in that spot. We acquired him because Pysyk also failed, and has not shone in that role in FLA either. And I don't blame Murray for a freak bench door incident that has hampered what has been a pretty good player. Zadorov and McNabb are no better than Bogosian and Kulikov. Anyone who says McNabb is better than Franson needs glasses. If Hudson Fasching becomes the Mike Grier he projects to be, then I do every one of those trades over again. Murray didn't cause the mess, he just hasn't fixed it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 There isn't one single team with four solid top four defensemen. Either because people overvalue what a top four should be, or there just aren't enough to go around. How does anybody plan to afford to be the only team with four top notch top 4 D-men while fielding what should be a top 5 scoring team in the near future? It's not going to happen. Eventually fans are going to have to accept the fact that they highly overvalue the position because they put way too much emphasis on what should be expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Minn, Ana, ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Minn, Ana, ...... Bring them all here and this group will find something wrong with them, just like every other team's fans. And Anaheim will soon be splitting that up because they won't be able too afford them..... Like I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Bring them all here and this group will find something wrong with them, just like every other team's fans. And Anaheim will soon be splitting that up because they won't be able too afford them..... Like I said. That's what the cap does. It makes every team in the league have to make decisions about how to spread its cap money to maximize wins. Every GM is looking for that magic formula: Is it better to have 4 effective scoring lines, or do you put a lot of money into 3 lines to the point that your 4th line is hardly worth playing? Do you put all your money into stud defensemen, or do you try to win with top scorers. Really, that's the whole point of the cap: To force certain big market teams from hogging all the best players. It forces redistribution of talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 That's what the cap does. It makes every team in the league have to make decisions about how to spread its cap money to maximize wins. Every GM is looking for that magic formula: Is it better to have 4 effective scoring lines, or do you put a lot of money into 3 lines to the point that your 4th line is hardly worth playing? Do you put all your money into stud defensemen, or do you try to win with top scorers. Really, that's the whole point of the cap: To force certain big market teams from hogging all the best players. It forces redistribution of talent. Exactly. And this team isn't setting up to be one of those teams to be stacked defensively. So why force the issue when some of the most successful teams aren't defensively stacked either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Exactly. And this team isn't setting up to be one of those teams to be stacked defensively. So why force the issue when some of the most successful teams aren't defensively stacked either? Can I take that question? Because in the first couple years after the 2004 lockout, they called interference/hooking/tripping/holding with impunity and the Sabres excelled. Then after a season or two they returned to the old ways where all that stuff is tolerated. The Sabres went from a successful, high scoring team to a mediocre team that had trouble scoring. The Buffalo fan base is convinced we'll never be a high scoring team again, and if you take that as a given, having the best defense seems to make logical sense. I think it's hogwash, and the last couple games supports that view. Even with scoring a 2-0 win against the Avs, the Sabres won with offense. The offensive pressure won the game, even without scoring that many goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) You can't play with only 1 good D group no matter how many great forwards you have. We have only 1 D pair worth a crap. Why is this so hard to understand? Ana can afford to lose a player like Fowler because they have a deep pipeline of quality D. The NHL is short on quality D. That is why every team is out looking for it with a few exceptions, and those exceptions have drafted D properly and consistently. We haven't. That is why our team, despite nearly every forward having improved numbers year over year, still isn't worth a crap. We are playing with 2 statues (Gorges, Franson) two AHLers (Falk and Fedun), two injury riddled under-performing overpaid veterans in their "prime" (Kulikov & Bogo) and we are asking two kids (Risto and McCabe) to pick up all the slack. We have only one high end D prospect (Guhle) because GMTM didn't see fit to draft any others and he is 19. Great! And this is somehow DD's fault because he isn't playing uptempo hockey. By the way, speaking of forward performance. I compared our returning forwards numbers (g/p, a/p and pts/g) year over year and all, except Ennis, Folgino and ROR all our forwards are having more productive years (pts/g) year over year. Foligno is about the same and ROR has slipped from .85 pts/game to .77 pts/g. What an awful system where everyone improves upfront despite having a terrible D group supporting them. Edited February 17, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Can I take that question? Because in the first couple years after the 2004 lockout, they called interference/hooking/tripping/holding with impunity and the Sabres excelled. Then after a season or two they returned to the old ways where all that stuff is tolerated. The Sabres went from a successful, high scoring team to a mediocre team that had trouble scoring. The Buffalo fan base is convinced we'll never be a high scoring team again, and if you take that as a given, having the best defense seems to make logical sense. I think it's hogwash, and the last couple games supports that view. Even with scoring a 2-0 win against the Avs, the Sabres won with offense. The offensive pressure won the game, even without scoring that many goals. That's a fair explanation. Not too long ago the Sabres were in the bottom of theeague in scoring (two months the ago). They've moved up considerably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) Also why did the Edm and now Col rebuilds fail? Anyone... Bueller?... Anyone? Lack of D! Edm drafted "great" forward after "great" forward. Hall, RNH, Gagner, Yakupov etc In fact from 2007-2016, they have used their 1st pick on a forward every time but 1 and that was Darnell Nurse in 2013, Their D got so bad, they finally got rid of a star forward for a D last year in the Hall for Larsson trade. They are still an O juggernaut (having McJesus will do that), but with the signing of Sekera & Russell, development of Klefbom, the trade for Larsson and getting good play from college FA Matt Benning, the Oilers now have a competent D group and are in a playoff spot. Colorado has 3 hugely talented forward in Duchene, MacKinnon and Landeskog and their team is 2013-14 Sabres awful. Why? No D. Other then the injured Eric Johnson, and the defensively challenged Barrie, I'm not sure anyone of the team is worth a darn. I don't care how great your O is, if you aren't at least decent on D, you aren't winning a thing in the NHL. I do agree that the Cap helps move talent around the NHL and helps parity. However, that makes drafting and developing cheap young talent so important. It's why Regier ulimately failed, (for some reason he hated drafting centers) and ultimately if GMTM doesn't fix the D in the NHL and in our pipeline, he'll fail as well. Edited February 17, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) In his three drafts, Murray has drafted one defenceman in the first two rounds. During the same time, so has Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Florida, NJ, Phoenix, St Louis, Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. Anaheim drafted two. So did Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa, Philadelphia,San Jose and Washington Edmonton none. Same with Minnesota, NYI, NYR, and Pittsburgh. That's 24 teams that added two or less "top" prospect defenceman in the past three years. Looks like GMTM isn't the only boss man asleep at the switch. Edited February 17, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 In his three drafts, Murray has drafted one defenceman in the first two rounds. During the same time, so has Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Florida, NJ, Phoenix, St Louis, Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. Anaheim drafted two. So did Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa, Philadelphia,San Jose and Washington Edmonton none. Same with Minnesota, NYI, NYR, and Pittsburgh. That's 24 teams that added two or less "top" prospect defenceman in the past three years. Looks like GMTM isn't the only boss man asleep at the switch. Interesting stat. Thanks for posting that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) In his three drafts, Murray has drafted one defenceman in the first two rounds. During the same time, so has Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Florida, NJ, Phoenix, St Louis, Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. Anaheim drafted two. So did Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa, Philadelphia,San Jose and Washington Edmonton none. Same with Minnesota, NYI, NYR, and Pittsburgh. That's 24 teams that added two or less "top" prospect defenceman in the past three years. Looks like GMTM isn't the only boss man asleep at the switch. That stat is meaningless and in the case of Ana wrong. How many 1 & 2 rd picks did they have? What is the condition of their D pipeline? How good is their NHL D? How high were the picks? For example Ana has been drafting D for years. They drafted fowler 1st in 2010, Linholm 1st in 2012 and Theodore 1st in 2013. In the last 3 years they have had 7 picks in the 1st 2 rounds; 3 have been D, including Larsson 1st in 2015 and Petterson and Montour with 2nd rd picks in 2014. So that's 3/7 with an already stacked pipeline compared to GMTM's 1/8 with an empty pipeline. Philly is 2/8, but their 2 were both first rd picks and that comes despite already having the Ghost, Morin (1st in 2013 and Hagg 2nd in 2013) already in the system. Obviously when you look just a little deeper on your GM list, it looks like Ana and Philly aren't sleeping at the switch after all. I haven't looked at all the teams you mentioned, but so far you are 0 for 2. Edited February 18, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 You can't play with only 1 good D group no matter how many great forwards you have. We have only 1 D pair worth a crap. Why is this so hard to understand? Ana can afford to lose a player like Fowler because they have a deep pipeline of quality D. The NHL is short on quality D. That is why every team is out looking for it with a few exceptions, and those exceptions have drafted D properly and consistently. We haven't. That is why our team, despite nearly every forward having improved numbers year over year, still isn't worth a crap. We are playing with 2 statues (Gorges, Franson) two AHLers (Falk and Fedun), two injury riddled under-performing overpaid veterans in their "prime" (Kulikov & Bogo) and we are asking two kids (Risto and McCabe) to pick up all the slack. We have only one high end D prospect (Guhle) because GMTM didn't see fit to draft any others and he is 19. Great! And this is somehow DD's fault because he isn't playing uptempo hockey. By the way, speaking of forward performance. I compared our returning forwards numbers (g/p, a/p and pts/g) year over year and all, except Ennis, Folgino and ROR all our forwards are having more productive years (pts/g) year over year. Foligno is about the same and ROR has slipped from .85 pts/game to .77 pts/g. What an awful system where everyone improves upfront despite having a terrible D group supporting them. Anaheim isn't trading away their best player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Anaheim isn't trading away their best player. What? The point was Ana has the ability to move any of their young D. Fowler is just an example. It can just as easily be Lindholm, Vatanen, Theodore etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 What? The point was Ana has the ability to move any of their young D. Fowler is just an example. It can just as easily be Lindholm, Vatanen, Theodore etc... I think it can much more easily be any of the other players you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Also why did the Edm and now Col rebuilds fail? Anyone... Bueller?... Anyone? Lack of D! Edm drafted "great" forward after "great" forward. Hall, RNH, Gagner, Yakupov etc In fact from 2007-2016, they have used their 1st pick on a forward every time but 1 and that was Darnell Nurse in 2013, Their D got so bad, they finally got rid of a star forward for a D last year in the Hall for Larsson trade. They are still an O juggernaut (having McJesus will do that), but with the signing of Sekera & Russell, development of Klefbom, the trade for Larsson and getting good play from college FA Matt Benning, the Oilers now have a competent D group and are in a playoff spot. Colorado has 3 hugely talented forward in Duchene, MacKinnon and Landeskog and their team is 2013-14 Sabres awful. Why? No D. Other then the injured Eric Johnson, and the defensively challenged Barrie, I'm not sure anyone of the team is worth It was part of the issue. Oilers were unlucky, as they kept picking what seemed to be the best available player and all the high end talent was all one-dimensional. All those players Oilers drafted were fast, small, not physical, not overly good in their own end... there was no Ekblad or someone like Monahan or Barkov at the top. As for Colorado, their defense is a major issue for sure, but also team management and the type of players they drafted should also be looked at. Matt Duchene is a ultra-selfish player (http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/patrick-roy-unhappy-with-matt-duchene-for-celebrating-30th-goal-in-losing-effort) and they had constantly battles with ROR. On the overall point though, i do agree with you on improving the defense, i just think the Oilers and Aves rebuilds are much different stories and many factors go into them for their failures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) That stat is meaningless and in the case of Ana wrong. How many 1 & 2 rd picks did they have? What is the condition of their D pipeline? How good is their NHL D? How high were the picks? For example Ana has been drafting D for years. They drafted fowler 1st in 2010, Linholm 1st in 2012 and Theodore 1st in 2013. In the last 3 years they have had 7 picks in the 1st 2 rounds; 3 have been D, including Larsson 1st in 2015 and Petterson and Montour with 2nd rd picks in 2014. So that's 3/7 with an already stacked pipeline compared to GMTM's 1/8 with an empty pipeline. Philly is 2/8, but their 2 were both first rd picks and that comes despite already having the Ghost, Morin (1st in 2013 and Hagg 2nd in 2013) already in the system. Obviously when you look just a little deeper on your GM list, it looks like Ana and Philly aren't sleeping at the switch after all. I haven't looked at all the teams you mentioned, but so far you are 0 for 2. I did miss Petterson. I did not miss on Philly. They've picked 2. I guess it's 23 of 30 teams, then. Backing things up doesn't really help your argument. The Sabres drafted Ristolainen and Zadorov (2 1st rounders) in 2013, McCabe in 2012 and Pysyk in 2010. And Murray traded Pysyk for another 2010 1st rounder in Kulikov. I guess the Sabres weren't sleeping at the switch after all. And you are choosing to compare Murray to Anaheim, the team with the best set of defensive prospects in the league. Shall we compare the forwards the Sabres picked in that span to Anaheim's? Simple mathematics would say an average team would have six picks in the first two rounds over three years and to stock your team with balance, one would conclude three would be forwards, two defencemen and one a goalie. Look, I wish we had more young defencemen in the system too. You could argue Murray should have picked Sergachev over Nylander last year, and that one of the second rounders in 2014 should have been a defenceman and youd have an argument. Instead they took the highest-ranked player on their board. Would you have taken Hanifan over Eichel? Fleury over Reinhart? Hajek or Peeke over Asplund? Other than Montour, the 2014 second round looks terrible. More than 20 other teams besides us passed on him. Murray has tried to get lucky by stocking up on defence in the later rounds. If you look a little deeper, maybe Murray's done alright with the hand he was dealt in the draft. Edited February 18, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 What? The point was Ana has the ability to move any of their young D. Fowler is just an example. It can just as easily be Lindholm, Vatanen, Theodore etc... But, why would they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) If you are defining "pipeline" as the number of 1st or 2nd round defenceman 23 and under in your organization, here's what the league looks like: Anaheim: Lindholm, Theodore, Montour, Petterson, Larsson Boston: Arnesson, Zboril, Carlo, Lauzon, McAvoy, Lingren Buffalo: McCabe, Ristolainen, Guhle Calgary: Seiloff, Anderson, Kylington, Carolina: Fleury, Hanifan, Bean Chicago: Pokka, Fournier, Dahlstrom, Gilbert, Krys Colorado: Zadorov, Bigras, Meloche Columbus: Murray, Hetherington, Jones, Collins, Carlsson, Werenski, Peeke Dallas: Bystrom, Honka Detroit: Cholowski, Hronek Edmonton: Reinhart, Nurse Florida: Matheson, McCoshen, Ekblad LA: McKeown, Lintuniemi, Cernak, Clague Minnesota: Dumba, Olofsson Montreal: Thrower, Juulsen, Sergachev Nashville: Dougherty, Girard, Fabbro New Jersey: Severson, Santini, Jacobs NY Islanders: Pulock NY Rangers: Skjei Ottawa: Ceci, Englund, Chabot Philadelphia: Morin, Hagg, Sanheim, Provorov Phoenix: DeAngelo, Chychrun Pittsburgh: Pouliot, Maatta San Jose: Mueller, Bergman, Roy St. Louis: Schmaltz, Vannelli, Dunn Tampa: Koekkoek, Blujus, Masin, McLeod, Spencer, Hajek Toronto: Reilly, Finn, Dermott Vancouver: Juolevi Washington: Bowey, Seigenthaler, Johansen Winnipeg: Trouba, Morrisey, Stanley How many would you pick over the Sabres? Has Murray really made a mess of our pipeline? Edited February 18, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) I did miss Petterson. I did not miss on Philly. They've picked 2. I guess it's 23 of 30 teams, then. Backing things up doesn't really help your argument. The Sabres drafted Ristolainen and Zadorov (2 1st rounders) in 2013, McCabe in 2012 and Pysyk in 2010. And Murray traded Pysyk for another 2010 1st rounder in Kulikov. I guess the Sabres weren't sleeping at the switch after all. And you are choosing to compare Murray to Anaheim, the team with the best set of defensive prospects in the league. Shall we compare the forwards the Sabres picked in that span to Anaheim's? Simple mathematics would say an average team would have six picks in the first two rounds over three years and to stock your team with balance, one would conclude three would be forwards, two defencemen and one a goalie. Look, I wish we had more young defencemen in the system too. You could argue Murray should have picked Sergachev over Nylander last year, and that one of the second rounders in 2014 should have been a defenceman and youd have an argument. Instead they took the highest-ranked player on their board. Would you have taken Hanifan over Eichel? Fleury over Reinhart? Hajek or Peeke over Asplund?' Other than Montour, the 2014 second round looks terrible. More than 20 other teams besides us passed on him. Murray has tried to get lucky by stocking up on defence in the later rounds. If you look a little deeper, maybe Murray's done alright with the hand he was dealt in the draft. Now this is a post I can agree with. Where I think he went wrong was as he emptied the D pipeline he didn't replace them with similar quality draftees. No question we take Reinhart and Eichel. No choice, but after that D should have come into play. Drafting forward after forward in the first two rounds has given us great depth at forward but it has left the organization with no D prospects in the pros. Not one in Rochester. To make matters worse he also acquired forward prospects Carrier and Fasching. Seriously, how many 2-3 line wingers does one organization need? Also solid D prospects are harder to develop, but are a much more tradeable asset. How many teams would love to get their hands on just one of Ana's or Philly's prospects? I also agree we should have drafted Sergachev (I liked Chychrun over Sergachev) Nylander. I like Nylander and think he'll ultimately be a top 6 forward for us, someday, but how much better would we feel about our D group going forward if we had Sergachev and Guhle fighting for jobs next year? Kane certainly wouldn't be going anywhere. Trying to get lucky with later rd picks isn't a smart strategy. According to Tsn's Scott Cullen after the 2nd round the odds of finding a player that lasts 100 games in the NHL falls to about 25% for early 3rd and decreases from there down to 11% in later rounds and even if they do make it the majority are bottom pairing or 4th line players. Those are long odds. Will Borgen and Fitzgerald buck that trend? Maybe, but if they do that's a bonus. Edited February 18, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Now this is a post I can agree with. Where I think he went wrong was as he emptied the D pipeline he didn't replace them with similar quality draftees. No question we take Reinhart and Eichel. No choice, but after that D should have come into play. Drafting forward after forward in the first two rounds has given us great depth at forward but it has left the organization with no D prospects in the pros. Not one in Rochester. To make matters worse he also acquired forward prospects Carrier and Fasching. Seriously, how many 2-3 line wingers does one organization need? Also solid D prospects are harder to develop, but are a much more tradeable asset. How many teams would love to get their hands on just one of Ana's or Philly's prospects? I also agree we should have drafted Sergachev (I liked Chychrun over Sergachev) Nylander. I like Nylander and think he'll ultimately be a top 6 forward for us, someday, but how much better would we feel about our D group going forward if we had Sergachev and Guhle fighting for jobs next year? Kane certainly wouldn't be going anywhere. Trying to get lucky with later rd picks isn't a smart strategy. According to Tsn's Scott Cullen after the 2nd round the odds of finding a player that lasts 100 games in the NHL falls to about 25% for early 3rd and decreases from there down to 11% in later rounds and even if they do make it the majority are bottom pairing or 4th line players. Those are long odds. Will Borgen and Fitzgerald buck that trend? Maybe, but if they do that's a bonus. You're right, he replaced them with NHL ready top 4 D-men in Kulikov and Bogosian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 You're right, he replaced them with NHL ready top 4 D-men in Kulikov and Bogosian. That's not correct. He swapped Myers for Bogo. He did swap Pysyk for Kulikov, but that hasn't exactly helped. However, he moved out McNabb and Zadarov, and didn't replace them. It would have been wise to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 That's not correct. He swapped Myers for Bogo. He did swap Pysyk for Kulikov, but that hasn't exactly helped. However, he moved out McNabb and Zadarov, and didn't replace them. It would have been wise to do so. Fair enough. But what exactly are you trying to prove here? And it seems like we got the better of the deal there, Bogosian has been the healthier of the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.