Holy Mackerel! Sabres Win Dahlin Lottery!

[That Aud Smell]

I am just very excited about him as a prospect. 

 

Same.

 

And it's helpful for me to hear a sober dude like Pronman say he sees his projecting as a future NHL star, but not some sort of generational stud (a la Potvin). I'm perfectly fine with the former.

 

I think this all comes down to Power Play time.  How much will he get in Buffalo?  Frolunda had an excellent power play (something like close to 25% success rate).  He was not on the number one unit.  Therefore all but 3 of his points came via 5 on 5.  If Dahlin sees decent power play time (maybe as a way to scale back Risto's TOI) I could see setting the bar at 40 points.

 

Good info and points.

[LGR4GM]

I think this all comes down to Power Play time.  How much will he get in Buffalo?  Frolunda had an excellent power play (something like close to 25% success rate).  He was not on the number one unit.  Therefore all but 3 of his points came via 5 on 5.  If Dahlin sees decent power play time (maybe as a way to scale back Risto's TOI) I could see setting the bar at 40 points.

You could potentially leave Risto on 1 and put Dahlin on pp2. If Olofsson makes the team that gives you your creator and your triggerman. I feel like pp2 this past season was basically useless. 

[Derrico]

You could potentially leave Risto on 1 and put Dahlin on pp2. If Olofsson makes the team that gives you your creator and your triggerman. I feel like pp2 this past season was basically useless. 

Potentially.  But Olofsson is no lock to make the Sabres from Day 1.  If he doesn't I could see the PP2 being as useless as this past year.  You take out Eichel, ROR and Reinhart from that group and it doesn't leave much.  Maybe adding Mittelstadt and Dahlin will give them enough to go on.  Pretty tough when your trigger man is likely Pommers.....

[nfreeman]

Speaking of the Buffalo Star:  https://www.thebuffalostar.com/2018/05/player-profile-rasmus-dahlin/

 

The ability to score that many goals as a defender at that age at even strength implies something the Sabres have been missing from the blue line for so long: the ability to create. It took the Sabres defense core 1848 minutes to score their first goal of the 2017-18 season. There are a number of factors to consider for why that was the case, but the most important one that everyone seemed to agree on was that the defense simply couldn’t create. There was no rushing ability, zone exits took three or four players and in zone passes and shots from the point in the offensive zone were so bad that apology letters were being written to Alexei Zhitnik.

 

[PASabreFan]

Why wouldn’t you have an opinion? You have an opinion on Ligers opinion, seemingly without reviewing the information he’s reviewed.

You’ve shared all kinds of opinions on the upper echelons of the Sabres with far less information than is available about Dahlin.

 

“Two YouTube” clips is disengenuous. There is tons of video available and tons of scouting reports from actual experts.

Willfully dismissing copious evidence that the kid is clearly good and may be special seems the opposite of “realistic” to me. It’s the type of thing more typically seen in politicized debate than honest discourse.

I have a lot more information about how Terry and Kim have run the Sabres than I have about what kind of NHL player Dahlin is going to be. Come on. Jebus.

 

I know there's plenty of evidence that Dahlin in the Swedish League was good. I care about him as a Sabre, and there's no evidence yet as to how he'll be. I guess I want to be patient and cautious for once.

 

In the meantime, maybe we should talk about whether the last generational player the Sabres drafted has been generational.

[Wyldnwoody44]

Eichel has been anything but generational, he's been hurt a bit, but he's not a game changer

 

Here's hoping Dahlin is

[That Aud Smell]

I know there's plenty of evidence that Dahlin in the Swedish League was good. I care about him as a Sabre, and there's no evidence yet as to how he'll be. 

 

:blink:

 

Also: With Pronman's nerdy words of caution in mind, I am OH-ficially off the "generational" hype train. I'll instead accept the projection of a clear #1 d-man on a Cup-contending team.

 

And I'm asking: How many d-men like that have the Sabres had in their history? Damn few, if any.

[nfreeman]

I have a lot more information about how Terry and Kim have run the Sabres than I have about what kind of NHL player Dahlin is going to be. Come on. Jebus.

 

I know there's plenty of evidence that Dahlin in the Swedish League was good. I care about him as a Sabre, and there's no evidence yet as to how he'll be. I guess I want to be patient and cautious for once.

 

In the meantime, maybe we should talk about whether the last generational player the Sabres drafted has been generational.

 

Actually, you have zero information about this.  You (and all of us) have a ton of speculation, but zero knowledge as to any action whatsoever that they've taken, other than retaining Darcy, firing GMTM and DDB and hiring JBott. 

 

OTOH, there is video showing Dahlin's abilities, as well as the informed opinions of literally dozens of knowledgeable hockey observers who have witnessed him in person, both on and off the ice, all of which is highly probative as to how Dahlin will do in the NHL.

 

While I agree that the logical move is not to assume that Dahlin will be an NHL star, it's a bit silly to draw a line in the sand and insist that there is no reason to think that he will be.

[Derrico]

Man I hate the 'generational' label altogether.  There's no real definition of it and the word is thrown around way more than it should.  Seems to mean different things to different people. 

 

All I know is I'm really looking forward to watching the Sabres come October and I'm not sure I would have said that had we not won the lottery and be drafting this player.

[LGR4GM]

I know there's plenty of evidence that Dahlin in the Swedish League was good. I care about him as a Sabre, and there's no evidence yet as to how he'll be. I guess I want to be patient and cautious for once.

There is evidence, in the SHL. He played 41 games and was a top defender in probably the 2nd best defensive league in the world. The KHL doesn't strike me as a defense first place. If you are saying there is no evidence that he will be any good as a Sabre then that seems like an odd standard to hold a draft prospect too. 3 years ago I could have applied that standard to McDavid. I could apply that standard to Jack Hughes next year. I could apply that standard to Casey Mittelstadt. It doesn't make sense when using the context of what Dahlin did as a 17 year old prospect. It is if you refuse to extrapolate out even though in the last 10 years the league has gotten consistently better at doing that at the top of the draft. 

 

If I take a more natural reading of your sentences back to back then you are implying that being good in the SHL does not provide evidence of being good in the NHL. This would be a flawed premise. If Rasmus Dahlin was 27 instead of 17 you might have a point. The player's development curve would have peaked. However when examining young players you have to put things in context such as age and league. We have other players who played year 17 or 18 in the SHL and then came to the NHL. When you compare these players you notice that Dahlin was producing more and playing better at a younger age then basically anyone in the modern era to come from that league. You seem to want to indicate that making this comparison is foolish. You preference your first 2 sentences by suggesting you want to be patient and cautious for once because there is "no evidence yet".  There is evidence, scouting reviews that evidence and makes a determination. The determination based on Dahlin's play and that of other comparable players is that he is amazing. 

 

These 3 sentences seem at odds to me. They do because they lack any context. Age, production, league difficulty are all ignored because "no evidence yet as to how he'll be" in the NHL. I am finishing your sentence because that is what you are saying. I think these sentences are at odds because you want to disregard all the prior evidence, his WJC, his SHL year, and his youth, to imply that because he hasn't played a minute in the NHL we can not predict if he will be any good. Because I reject that premise I cannot agree with you and will continue to evaluate him using my own standard. As a fan that is not only my right but my joy, to believe he what I see on tape. An outstanding defender with a rare set of talents. 

[Wyldnwoody44]

Housley was a damn good O minded Dman, but I'm not so sure he's getting much from our D, I don't wanna waste the development of Dahlin with a rookie coach, one who played turnover machine Bowl you over other options, that is the one thing that is tempering my excitement a bit.

 

 

This isn't the most appropriate thread, but would gallant have gotten better results out of this team? Not that we'll be able to ever know

[Eleven]

Man I hate the 'generational' label altogether.  There's no real definition of it and the word is thrown around way more than it should.  Seems to mean different things to different people. 

 

All I know is I'm really looking forward to watching the Sabres come October and I'm not sure I would have said that had we not won the lottery and be drafting this player.

 

I agree with you.  4 times in 4 years means the players aren't "generational."

[CallawaySabres]

Eichel has been anything but generational, he's been hurt a bit, but he's not a game changer

 

Here's hoping Dahlin is

 

I have to agree with this and as good as Eichel "can be" he is nothing like what I had expected (so far).....even knowing he was always 2nd fiddle to McDavid.

[dudacek]

“Generational” is a term that certainly has been misappropriated.

 

In my half-century, I’ve seen three: Orr Gretzky and Lemieux.

I would add Hasek, but since most of the hockey world seems to disagree, I can’t.

I suspect McDavid will prove to be.

 

Increasingly, people are applying “generational” to what I would call “franchise” players: Perreault, Lafontaine, Forsberg, Yzerman, Ovechkin...

 

That is what most expected Eichel to be. It’s about time he started meeting that expectation.

[Randall Flagg]

McDavid is the only generational prospect since Crosby, and he still has a decent chance at being a generational player, the first since Crosby. League MVP during his 19/20 year old season, and outscoring the next highest-scoring player by 10% during his second and third seasons is unreal, especially bringing in the context of how incompetent the rest of his team and GM are. 

And for people like me who salivate over players that produce a lot at even strength, McD had EIGHTEEN more even strength points (and 3 more even strength goals) than any other player in the league.

[That Aud Smell]

Eichel has been anything but generational, he's been hurt a bit, but he's not a game changer

 

 

 

I agree with you.  4 times in 4 years means the players aren't "generational."

 

Whodat?

 

I reckon that a talent that comes along once every 10-15 years (or so) is all that should qualify. OTOH, Gretzky and Lemieux were born just 4 years apart.

 

I have to agree with this and as good as Eichel "can be" he is nothing like what I had expected (so far).....even knowing he was always 2nd fiddle to McDavid.

 

 

McDavid is the only generational prospect since Crosby, and he still has a decent chance at being a generational player, the first since Crosby. League MVP during his 19/20 year old season, and outscoring the next highest-scoring player by 10% during his second and third seasons is unreal, especially bringing in the context of how incompetent the rest of his team and GM are. 

 

Interesting that these two were born 10 years apart.

[dudacek]

Is Crosby generational? He just hasn’t elevated himself over his peers as much as Orr and Gretzky.

 

Two Art Ross trophies, two Harts, two Smythes, four 1st-team all-star selections.

Jagr had 5, 1, 0 and 7.

 

Mario had 6 Art Ross, three Hart’s, 2 Smythes, five first-team all-stars - pretty comparable, I guess.

But Mario was competing against Wayne.

[Derrico]

“Generational” is a term that certainly has been misappropriated.

 

In my half-century, I’ve seen three: Orr Gretzky and Lemieux.

I would add Hasek, but since most of the hockey world seems to disagree, I can’t.

I suspect McDavid will prove to be.

 

Increasingly, people are applying “generational” to what I would call “franchise” players: Perreault, Lafontaine, Forsberg, Yzerman, Ovechkin...

 

That is what most expected Eichel to be. It’s about time he started meeting that expectation.

I'm surprised you don't have Crosby in that list.  Which just goes to show how the term means something different to everyone.

 

Edit - Missed it by that much.  I think Crosby is but I see what you are saying.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Derrico

[That Aud Smell]

Is Crosby generational?

I’d say “yes.”

 

And the only player/prospect since has been McDavid (?).

[dudacek]

Crosby is the best player of his generation.

Im not sure if that’s enough to meet my personal definition of generational.

 

He’s certainly a step higher than most ever expected from Eichel.

I’d say “yes.”

And the only player/prospect since has been McDavid (?).

How does a generational player only get voted the league MVP twice in a 13-year career?

Messier won it twice, Hasek twice, Ovechkin three times, Lafluer twice, Bobby Clarke three times, Stan Mikita twice, Phil Esposito twice.

Are they all generational? If not, why is Crosby?

Edited May 22, 2018 by dudacek

[Eleven]

 

 

Whodat?

 

 

 

I have heard McDavid, Eichel, Matthews, and Dahlin referred to as "generational."  In 2014-15, all we heard was that there were "two generational players" available in the following draft.

 

Is Crosby generational? He just hasn’t elevated himself over his peers as much as Orr and Gretzky.

 

Two Art Ross trophies, two Harts, two Smythes, four 1st-team all-star selections.

Jagr had 5, 1, 0 and 7.

 

Mario had 6 Art Ross, three Hart’s, 2 Smythes, five first-team all-stars - pretty comparable, I guess.

But Mario was competing against Wayne.

 

Crosby is arguable.

 

Also:  Regarding Hasek, he is more than generational.  He is the greatest of all time at his position in the NHL, and possibly in the history of the game.  Tretiak is the only argument against him.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Eleven

[Randall Flagg]

Is Crosby generational? He just hasn’t elevated himself over his peers as much as Orr and Gretzky.

 

Two Art Ross trophies, two Harts, two Smythes, four 1st-team all-star selections.

Jagr had 5, 1, 0 and 7.

 

Mario had 6 Art Ross, three Hart’s, 2 Smythes, five first-team all-stars - pretty comparable, I guess.

But Mario was competing against Wayne.

I'd be interested to see an analysis of "the field" when both of these guys were playing. what the top 20 or 30 players looked like for each time period, and more importantly, what the defense, goaltending, and bottom 6's looked like, and how that might affect what a "generational" talent needs to do to earn the label. 

 

How realistic is it that in today's game somebody could have a substantially larger impact than McDavid, whose counting numbers actually don't do justice to how much better he is than everyone else? I think it would be so rare that reserving the term "generational" for that type of player is not in line with the word's definition. 

I have heard McDavid, Eichel, Matthews, and Dahlin referred to as "generational."  In 2014-15, all we heard was that there were "two generational players" available in the following draft.

 

I've also heard the word used for those exact players by notable voices and many fans. McD was the only one that deserved the "generational prospect" label. 

[That Aud Smell]

How does a generational player only get voted the league MVP twice in a 13-year career?

 

Messier won it twice, Hasek twice, Ovechkin three times, Lafluer twice, Bobby Clarke three times, Stan Mikita twice, Phil Esposito twice.

Are they all generational? If not, why is Crosby?

 

I dunno. Crosby seems to fit the bill. I'm not sure it's a matter of tallying up MVPs.

 

I have heard McDavid, Eichel, Matthews, and Dahlin referred to as "generational."  In 2014-15, all we heard was that there were "two generational players" available in the following draft.

 

I once heard you could get a girl pregnant by french kissing with her when she's wearing only a bathing suit.

 

Of those players/prospects, I think only McDavid gets to wear the label.

[Radar]

“Generational” is a term that certainly has been misappropriated.

In my half-century, I’ve seen three: Orr Gretzky and Lemieux.

I would add Hasek, but since most of the hockey world seems to disagree, I can’t.

I suspect McDavid will prove to be.

Increasingly, people are applying “generational” to what I would call “franchise” players: Perreault, Lafontaine, Forsberg, Yzerman, Ovechkin...

That is what most expected Eichel to be. It’s about time he started meeting that expectation.

I certainly agree on Orr,Gretzky and Lemieux. Crosby has to be in that discussion and I tend to include him.

[That Aud Smell]

Also:  Regarding Hasek, he is more than generational.  He is the greatest of all time at his position in the NHL, and possibly in the history of the game.  

 

Yessir.