JohnRobertEichel Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 Yeah, nobody is likely to hit 100. The only way it happens is if they re-enforce the rules the way they did post lock out in 2005. Only 10 players in the league are currently averaging 1.00+ points per game (one of them being Jack Eichel), and you need to be averaging 1.20+ to hit 100. The only way I see the Sabres accomplishing this during the Eichel Era would be if Reinhart seriously steps up his game. Eichel with 40 goals and 60 assists, Reinhart with 30 goals and 70 assists, a left winger like Kane popping in 35+ goals....eh, not likely.... Regarding the topic of era naming, I prefer to define an "era" as a period marked by a rise and then a fall. And looking at the franchise's history, I see roughly 6 of them divided between these years: 1970, 1979, 1987, 1995, 2003, 2014. The first was the Punch Imlach Era defined mostly by the French Connection. The second was the Scotty Bowman Era defined mostly by an aging roster that could just never hit elite level. The third was Gerry Meehan's rebuild that was highlighted with an offensive juggernaut line of future Hall of Famers, but it wasn't enough to get beyond the Montreals and Bostons. The fourth was characterized by Hasek and then a bunch of hard working types to fill out the rest of the roster, but was ultimately crippled by a corrupt and cheap owner who didn't care about winning a Stanley Cup. The fifth was the post-bankruptcy/post-lockout group that had the same GM, the same head coach, a similarly cheap owner, and a similar philosophy as the previous era of building around a great goaltender...but this time with smaller, faster, and ultimately mentally soft skill players. This brings me to the sixth era which I'd say began with the "tank" for Eichel. The blueprint is bigger, tougher, younger, and elite at the center position. In my opinion, this era is merely a top-2 defenseman, a change in coaching philosophy, and a couple more years of experience away from being the best chance our beloved franchise has ever had at winning a Stanley Cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 Great post, Fury! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) I think I'd separate the tank era from the abylsma era. Edited March 28, 2017 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) Great post, Fury! I agree a great take on the history of the Sabres. The Bowman era was also defined as a tearing down of the Punch core for draft pics after a two year desperation try with the French Connection still in tact. All those first round pics never got us there. I can't remember if it was posted in this thread, but I agree with the point made that the 1993 team was poised for greatness and if Hasek dominated that season's playoff like Patrick Roy did the Sabres would have had a great run at it. Roy was the difference in that second round series ... all 4 loses were 4 - 3 with 3 going to OT. Roy was the difference for the Canadiens all through that playoff. Edited March 28, 2017 by Sabres Fan In NS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 I agree a great take on the history of the Sabres. The Bowman era was also defined as a tearing down of the Punch core for draft pics after a two year desperation try with the French Connection still in tact. All those first round pics never got us there. I can't remember if it was posted in this thread, but I agree with the point made that the 1993 team was poised for greatness and if Hasek dominated that season's playoff like Patrick Roy did the Sabres would have had a great run at it. Roy was the difference in that second round series ... all 4 loses were 4 - 3 with 3 going to OT. Roy was the difference for the Canadiens all through that playoff. Muckler was the difference. He was dead set on playing an injured Fuhr rather than a healthy Hasek. Muckler had traded for Hasek; giving up Puppa, Andreychuk, & a pick. What sort of a skater could that hual have brought back? (A guy who ended the season in the 50's (1st time ever a mid-season trade did that), a former Vezina runner-up, & a mid-round 1st.) Injuries & Muckler did them in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 Muckler was the difference. He was dead set on playing an injured Fuhr rather than a healthy Hasek. Muckler had traded for Hasek; giving up Puppa, Andreychuk, & a pick. What sort of a skater could that hual have brought back? (A guy who ended the season in the 50's (1st time ever a mid-season trade did that), a former Vezina runner-up, & a mid-round 1st.) Injuries & Muckler did them in. Yep. The Mukster was way to loyal to his aged former Oilers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 Muckler was the difference. He was dead set on playing an injured Fuhr rather than a healthy Hasek. Muckler had traded for Hasek; giving up Puppa, Andreychuk, & a pick. What sort of a skater could that hual have brought back? (A guy who ended the season in the 50's (1st time ever a mid-season trade did that), a former Vezina runner-up, & a mid-round 1st.) Injuries & Muckler did them in. You mean Muckler had traded for Fuhr. The thing is, Dom wasn't the Dominator yet that regular season. His GAA was above 3 and his SV% was below .900. IIRC when LaFontaine went out in the playoffs and didn't return for the regular season in 93-94 (edit: he started the season but then went back out soon after), Muckler reined things in pretty good and played a much more defensive style, which helped Dom's numbers. Still, I absolutely agree one of the great tragedies of Sabres history is that Fuhr trade. Which reminds me, how's your Sabres book coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 You mean Muckler had traded for Fuhr. The thing is, Dom wasn't the Dominator yet that regular season. His GAA was above 3 and his SV% was below .900. IIRC when LaFontaine went out in the playoffs and didn't return for the regular season in 93-94 (edit: he started the season but then went back out soon after), Muckler reined things in pretty good and played a much more defensive style, which helped Dom's numbers. Still, I absolutely agree one of the great tragedies of Sabres history is that Fuhr trade. Which reminds me, how's your Sabres book coming? He was 6th in the league in GAA, & ahead of St. Patrick. (Only 2 regulars were below 3.00 that year.) He was significantly better than Fuhr was in Buffalo, but it didn't matter. The book is still on hold, but a lot of volunteer work is coming off my plate, so maybe when the kids are out of school (which will be here before I realize). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 I seem to recall that we lost both LaFontaine and Mogilny to injury that postseason. Losing your top 2 forwards, especially two elite level forwards, would kill any team, regardless of goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) I agree a great take on the history of the Sabres. The Bowman era was also defined as a tearing down of the Punch core for draft pics after a two year desperation try with the French Connection still in tact. All those first round pics never got us there. I can't remember if it was posted in this thread, but I agree with the point made that the 1993 team was poised for greatness and if Hasek dominated that season's playoff like Patrick Roy did the Sabres would have had a great run at it. Roy was the difference in that second round series ... all 4 loses were 4 - 3 with 3 going to OT. Roy was the difference for the Canadiens all through that playoff. I agree, Roy was the difference maker for the Canadiens that year. Another thing I remember from 1993 was the Sabres finally beat the Bruins and advanced past the first round of the playoffs, plus the Sabres swept them 4-0. I think it was their first series win in over a decade at that point. I always hated losing to the Bruins in the playoffs so it was great to not only beat them, but to sweep them in the process (it would be great if the Bills could do that to the Patriots (go 2-0 in the divisional regular season matchups)). Edited March 28, 2017 by Jerry Jabber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 I agree, Roy was the difference maker for the Canadiens that year. Another thing I remember from 1993 was the Sabres finally beat the Bruins and advanced past the first round of the playoffs, plus the Sabres swept them 4-0. I think it was their first series win in over a decade at that point. I always hated losing to the Bruins in the playoffs so it was great to not only beat them, but to sweep them in the process (it would be great if the Bills could do that to the Patriots (go 2-0 in the divisional regular season matchups)). By 15 days. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 You should post more. That avatar is something else, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 That avatar is something else, eh? No, I really do read his posts just for the articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 That avatar is something else, eh? That's my favorite picture of Leryn Franco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 I think I'd separate the tank era from the abylsma era. I'm really hoping it's the Abylsma (2-year) Experiment and not long enough to be an era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 I'm really hoping it's the Abylsma (2-year) Experiment and not long enough to be an era. Yep. Lump him in with Nolan and the tank and be done with all the bad stuff before the 2017-2018 season starts. A 4-5 year period of before a decade or more of prosperity (hopefully) and a Cup or two to go along with many cusps. 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.