PASabreFan Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 I mean, we have to have one playoff drought going, don't we? I'm just not sure the Sabres are in a drought, per se. Is seven seasons enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Yes. In a league where more than half the teams make the postseason, 7 seasons is a drought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Is it a drought if you chose not to drink? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Yes. In a league where more than half the teams make the postseason, 7 seasons is a drought. Fair enough. I think the number of teams that qualify is a factor. An NHL drought kicks in before an NFL drought. But how come we haven't heard anything about a Sabres drought? (Maybe the answer is obvious.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Fair enough. I think the number of teams that qualify is a factor. An NHL drought kicks in before an NFL drought. But how come we haven't heard anything about a Sabres drought? (Maybe the answer is obvious.) Maybe because we weren’t actually trying for 4 of those years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Maybe because we weren’t actually trying for 4 of those years. Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of the Bills' drought sucking all the oxygen out of our drought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 With respect to franchise history, we hit drought status as soon as we tied the previous longest stretch without playoffs, which was what, 3 years?As far as hockey goes, for me, 5 years is an official no BS drought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 I would say anything three years or over counts as a drought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Come on, do we really have to label something else a drought so soon after we finally break one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Come on, do we really have to label something else a drought so soon after we finally break one? So maybe the Sabres are just parched... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Come on, do we really have to label something else a drought so soon after we finally break one? It was already labeled as such long before this past Sunday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Perhaps the tank=milk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRobertEichel Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Longest ever by an NHL franchise is 10. We are currently at 6. Will be officially 7 in a few months. Previous record for our franchise was 3. Carolina has current longest streak at 8, but they could easily break it this season, which would make us the joke of the NHL once again. Thank you, Terry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Longest ever by an NHL franchise is 10. We are currently at 6. Will be officially 7 in a few months. Previous record for our franchise was 3. Carolina has current longest streak at 8, but they could easily break it this season, which would make us the joke of the NHL once again. Thank you, Terry. If you clamored for the tank, thank you, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) I mean, we have to have one playoff drought going, don't we? I'm just not sure the Sabres are in a drought, per se. Is seven seasons enough? When the record is 10 seasons without playoffs, and we'll soon be sitting at 7, it's a drought. To add to that, they haven't won a playoff series in over a decade. Maybe because we weren’t actually trying for 4 of those years. They were trying to win in the seasons that ended in '12, '13, '16, 17, and now '18. With two tank seasons sandwiched in between. Edited January 4, 2018 by Bjorn Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 When the record is 10 seasons without playoffs, and we'll soon be sitting at 7, it's a drought. To add to that, they haven't won a playoff series in over a decade. They were trying to win in the seasons that ended in '12, '13, '16, 17, and now '18. With two tank seasons sandwiched in between. 2012 started the tank. Rolston coaching, Pominville traded. There were no playoff expectations in 16 and likely 17. And that is what we are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 2012 started the tank. Rolston coaching, Pominville traded. There were no playoff expectations in 16 and likely 17. And that is what we are talking about. Why would expectations factor in to whether or not there was a drought? Are we going to start picking apart the Bills drought by eliminating seasons where playoffs weren't a realistic expectation? It simply refers to seasons without playoffs. There were also playoff expectations in the 16/17 season anyways, as everyone was feeling optimistic after a 27 point improvement the season previous. When you mention Rolston, that's 2013. And they didn't come into the 2013 season not trying to win. Ruff was fired mid season. That's not a tank year. I'll give you 15/16. Still, it's not like they were tanking at that point. The only seasons I'd potentially remove, for the sake of argument, were the ones they were actively trying to lose: the seasons ending in 14 and 15. 11/12 - After big spending in the offseason (Leino, Ehrhoff) they finished with a very disappointing season. 12/13 - Lockout shortened year, came in with expectations to win, Ruff fired during the year. 13/14 - Tank 14/15 - Tank 15/16 - Eichel here, ROR and Kane brought it, expectation to win. Though no one really expecting playoffs. 16/17 - After a 27 point improvement, many hoping for at least a bubble team 17/18 - Everyone is/was hoping for playoffs Edited January 4, 2018 by Bjorn Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Yeah, that was meant to be 13, not 12. As far as I am concerned, the tank was full on with the promotion of Rolston. Mid season change of plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 4, 2018 Report Share Posted January 4, 2018 Yeah, that was meant to be 13, not 12. As far as I am concerned, the tank was full on with the promotion of Rolston. Mid season change of plans. Fair enough. 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.