Evander Kane or Jeff Skinner

[WildCard]

Last year our #1 LW was Kane, this year it's Skinner. They're two entirely different players, my question is, which one would you rather have?

[Weave]

I think we'll miss Kane's game (pre- lead up to the deadline).  I'd rather have that game.  The physicality.  The relentless forecheck.  The potential violence.  But I'm not gonna quibble about Skinner.

[Radar]

I hesitated but went Skinner because I was always on pins and needles about Evander messing up off ice. 

[darksabre]

I think Skinner is a more creative player and maybe has the potential to be a Briere type for us. I prefer that to Kane's style, frankly. 

[Randall Flagg]

I think they'll have the same net impact - 20+ ES goals, hanging onto the puck too long (Kane learned to curb this, we'll see if Jeff does), increase in speed, a bit of a liability defensively (Kane less so based on what I've read), and we'll probably get sick of him being on the ice the same time as Jack. 

People who liked Kane's physical game will like Jeff a little less, people who love skating wizards and stick-handling will like Jeff a little more. 

They both will comprise 75% of all Sabres breakaways. 

[That Aud Smell]

I voted Skinner.

I could have done so based on the fact that I was/am totally done with Kane.

I recognize that Kane was 110 mph and a physical force. I am also adamant that he was also dumb as a box of rocks out there -- just no real hockey IQ. (Shoutout to that guy in the section over from us who, exasperated, screamed at Kane last season when he was yet again gumming up Eichel's zone entry: "GET OUTTA THE WAY, KANE!")

I hear that Skinner, like Kane, likes to carry the puck. But I'm banking on Skinner being a smarter player, who finds and takes better shots and who can creatively generate chances as well.

 

[WildCard]

2 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I voted Skinner.

I could have done so based on the fact that I was/am totally done with Kane.

I recognize that Kane was 110 mph and a physical force. I am also adamant that he was also dumb as a box of rocks out there -- just no real hockey IQ. (Shoutout to that guy in the section over from us who, exasperated, screamed at Kane last season when he was yet again gumming up Eichel's zone entry: "GET OUTTA THE WAY, KANE!")

I hear that Skinner, like Kane, likes to carry the puck. But I'm banking on Skinner being a smarter player, who finds and takes better shots and who can creatively generate chances as well.

 

Exactly how I feel

[nfreeman]

Good poll question.

Kane is 1 year older (he just turned 27 yesterday) and certainly plays a more physical game.  Skinner is a bit faster and more skilled, although not by much in either category.

Work ethic/locker room affect is probably a factor that JBott considered.  The Canes' color guy was on WGR this AM and said that Skinner is a very hard worker -- first on the ice and last off at practice -- pretty different from Kane.

I don't think we can answer the question until we see how Skinner meshes with Eichel or Casey, and how much it costs to keep him.

[Doohickie]

I figured go with the devil you know so I picked Kane.  It was an expiring contract so he got what he could; I don't think Kane was going to sign for a deal JBot wanted to pay.  He has a vision for the team and even though Kane is a good player, Jbot wanted Skinner.  If you're trying to change the culture sometimes you gotta change the players.  I see it as Skinner has more offensive upside, Kane plays a more complete game.

 

[That Aud Smell]

4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

The Canes' color guy was on WGR this AM and said that Skinner is a very hard worker -- first on the ice and last off at practice -- pretty different from Kane.

I quite forgot about this.

[JJFIVEOH]

I'd like to have both. 

[Doohickie]

22 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

The Canes' color guy was on WGR this AM and said that Skinner is a very hard worker

There's a disconnect in my mind:  The Canes fans say Skinner's terrible on defense.  When a forward is bad at defense, it's likely because he's lazy, slow, or stupid (i.e., doesn't understand his responsibilities).  I'm not hearing any of those to be true about Skinner, so why is he bad at defense?

Jack wasn't great at D but has gotten much better; hopefully they can get Skinner singing in that same choir.

[...]

I liked Kane's physical side, but his lack of hockey IQ was maddening.  

I'll take the 'Canes color guy at his word on ethics, but, frankly, anyone can "fall" at any time and I think we should all be aware by now who these guys actually are is pretty well kept from the general public.

The net-result take above is a good one on the surface, so long as you're counting goals from an individual, but if Skinner is better at the game in his head, and is a positive contributor ethically, I don't think the net-result is 1:1.  Skinner might have similar numbers, but his effect on the rest of the team would be to elevate the numbers of others as well, so his net-result should include an (hopefully) increase in production from his teammates. 

All of that said, I still don't know the guy enough to vote.  I liked Kane, even with his peccadilloes, but there were definitely things I wished he would/could do better in-game.  If he brings that, then, the vote is obvious.

 

[Cheektorado]

28 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

There's a disconnect in my mind:  The Canes fans say Skinner's terrible on defense.  When a forward is bad at defense, it's likely because he's lazy, slow, or stupid (i.e., doesn't understand his responsibilities).  I'm not hearing any of those to be true about Skinner, so why is he bad at defense?

Jack wasn't great at D but has gotten much better; hopefully they can get Skinner singing in that same choir.

Speculation on my part but with Skinners high takeaway numbers he probably plays himself out of position trying to "steal" pucks.

In the offensive zone it would put him behind and he would be the "last man back".

In the defensive zone he would get behind his guy letting him free to make plays.

Watching some tape this morning he is pretty aggressive (which I like).

Maybe pair him with a more defensive minded RW and why not try him with Jack.  Those 2 could be beasts in the O zone.

Like I said, I'm speculating.

[Doohickie]

I think the line will be Skinner-Jack-Samson.

[Derrico]

I like the idea of Skinner-Jack-Samson.  Samson can take more D responsibilities and is smart enough to dish the puck to the other two.  Questions is whether he can keep up with them. 

However, if he's a guy that likes to hang onto the puck like Randall says then I wouldn't mind seeing him play with Mitts.  Let Mitts be a secondary type player on his line come his rookie year and Skinner may do wonders for the kid. 

Going to be fun to see what happens in another month or two.

[JJFIVEOH]

You can't get an entire team full of players who excel in every aspect of the game. Some guys lack the talent in some aspects but excel in others. You want a guy who can score goals? You're going to pay a hefty price if you want one that can play a two game. This is where the head coach does his job. Lindy was notorious the last couple of years for forcing players to do what they weren't good at. A great coach will recognize each player's strong points and utilize them accordingly. That's what Spuddy Gallant was good at in Florida, and is now good at in Vegas. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Neither.

[JohnnyK]

IMO if the Sabres lose Skinner for nothing at the end of the year it is a waste of assets!  If they re-sign him or move him before than I like the move, To answer the Q I picked Kane, we still need more toughness who can score!!!!  

[JohnnyK]

32 minutes ago, JohnnyK said:

IMO if the Sabres lose Skinner for nothing at the end of the year it is a waste of assets!  If they re-sign him or move him before than I like the move, To answer the Q I picked Kane, we still need more toughness who can score!!!!  

Just watched Skinner highlights and would like to change my vote!!!! OMG!!! this should be a fun year!  

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, JohnnyK said:

IMO if the Sabres lose Skinner for nothing at the end of the year it is a waste of assets!  If they re-sign him or move him before than I like the move, To answer the Q I picked Kane, we still need more toughness who can score!!!!  

Your first sentence:  That's not going to happen.  

Your last sentence:  I agree; Kane brings more.

[drnkirishone]

I love the type of game Kane plays. He is my ideal prototype forward as far as skill set. However I think the NHL today and the players we already have makes Skinner the better player for the team

[3putt]

Great poll.  I voted Kane.  This team may play fire wagon hockey and be fun to watch, but they are soft and there is no one to protect the shiny new toys.  Kadri, Wilson Reaves are still a reality in the NHL. 

[Eleven]

9 hours ago, 3putt said:

Great poll.  I voted Kane.  This team may play fire wagon hockey and be fun to watch, but they are soft and there is no one to protect the shiny new toys.  Kadri, Wilson Reaves are still a reality in the NHL. 

I laughed at the Kadri part.

 

[bunomatic]

I picked Skinner despite loving the type of game Kane is capable of playing. I've always been partial to the big bad dog that can hurt you in the trenches or on the scoreboard. That being said Skinner is our guy now. I moved on from Kane and am excited about how JBott has retooled this squad this off season. It'll be interesting the next time we play the Sharks.