Jump to content

Sabres Christmas wish list


sweetlou

Recommended Posts

1.  Jack to stay healthy and break 100 pts  - I would really like to see what he can put up in 82 games

2.  LTC for Jeff Skinner - 8 x $8M or less

3.  A #2 C w/ 2-3 years left on contact

4.  Victor Olafsson up on the big club for a couple games

5.  Just beat the Leafs in 2019

Oh yeah and Sabres in the 2019 Playoffs!!!

Go Sabres!

 

Edited by Beer
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beer said:

1.  Jack to stay healthy and break 100 pts  - I would really like to see what he can put up in 82 games

2.  LTC for Jeff Skinner - 8 x $8M or less

3.  A #2 C w/ 2-3 years left on contact

4.  Victor Olafsson up on the big club for a couple games

5.  Just beat the Leafs in the playoffs of 2019

Oh yeah and Sabres in the 2019 Playoffs!!!

Go Sabres!

 

FTFY

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the lost leads — is the answer scoring more goals to extend leads or maybe adding a defensive specialist or two? The Sabres don't have a reliable faceoff man, especially shorthanded, where Larsson is poor. Of the top five in total draws taken, only Rodrigues, Larsson and Sobotka are threatening 50%. Jack as a dominant guy kind of fizzled out, although he's pretty money on the power play. Buffalo is 26th in faceoff winning percentage, so it's a bit of a sore point. Now, I might be living in the past where protecting leads and winning draws mattered.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

All the lost leads — is the answer scoring more goals to extend leads or maybe adding a defensive specialist or two? The Sabres don't have a reliable faceoff man, especially shorthanded, where Larsson is poor. Of the top five in total draws taken, only Rodrigues, Larsson and Sobotka are threatening 50%. Jack as a dominant guy kind of fizzled out, although he's pretty money on the power play. Buffalo is 26th in faceoff winning percentage, so it's a bit of a sore point. Now, I might be living in the past where protecting leads and winning draws mattered.

Tied for fourth most points in the while being 26th in faceoffs. Would be nice to have an ace when you need one but maybe they aren’t all that important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Twelve Days of Christmas the Sabres gave to me

And the use of our 2019 1st Rd at No. 31.

2. More wins against the Pacific Div (we are 9-2-1 so far)

at least  3 NHL Awards -(Calder - Dahlin, MVP Jack, Jack Adams Housley and GM Jbots)

4. Playoff Series Wins

5. Sabres ALL-stars (Skinner, Jack, Risto, Hutton and Dahlin)

6. More Wins Against the Central (Sabres currently 2-2-1)

A 7 year extension for Skinner.

8. More wins against the Atlantic (Sabres currently 7-4-2)

9. More wins against the Metro (Sabres currently 3-3-2)

10. Top 10 Special Teams

11. Players with 10 or more goals for the Season (Jack, Skinner, Sam, Risto, Dahlin, KO, Mitts, Tage, Sheary, Pommers and one surprise - Olofsson)

12. Game Winning Streak.

Edited by GASabresIUFAN
I made some changes to reflect bigger goals
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, bg17 said:

Tied for fourth most points in the while being 26th in faceoffs. Would be nice to have an ace when you need one but maybe they aren’t all that important. 

And they were top 10 last season in faceoffs, so yeah... "When you need one" is the operative term. They're not important until they are.

I started looking around for evidence that faceoff wins can be correlated to winning. I thought there might be (should be?) a correlation between winning faceoffs while shorthanded and having penalty killing success. Disappointingly, nhl.com doesn't break down shorthanded faceoffs by winning percentage, just the raw wins and losses, so I gave up — too much work.

What I noticed is that almost no team last season won more shorthanded faceoffs than it lost. In fact, Buffalo was the only team above 50%, and barely. Boston was exactly 50% and the rest were underwater. Why's it harder to win a faceoff when you're shorthanded?

Edited by PASabreFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

And they were top 10 last season in faceoffs, so yeah... "When you need one" is the operative term. They're not important until they are.

I started looking around for evidence that faceoff wins can be correlated to winning. I thought there might be (should be?) a correlation between winning faceoffs while shorthanded and having penalty killing success. Disappointingly, nhl.com doesn't break down shorthanded faceoffs by winning percentage, just the raw wins and losses, so I gave up — too much work.

What I noticed is that almost no team last season won more shorthanded faceoffs than it lost. In fact, Buffalo was the only team above 50%, and barely. Boston was exactly 50% and the rest were underwater. Why's it harder to win a faceoff when you're shorthanded?

Winning faceoffs is a five man endeavor. I'm guessing it's harder when you only have four.

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2018 at 12:05 AM, StuckinFL said:

If nothing else, beating the leafs in a playoff series would be magical. I think that might be even sweeter than winning the SC. 

No.  The Sabres beat the Leaves to get to the Final once, and it was NOT sweeter than winning the Cup would have been.

  • Thanks (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

And they were top 10 last season in faceoffs, so yeah... "When you need one" is the operative term. They're not important until they are.

I started looking around for evidence that faceoff wins can be correlated to winning. I thought there might be (should be?) a correlation between winning faceoffs while shorthanded and having penalty killing success. Disappointingly, nhl.com doesn't break down shorthanded faceoffs by winning percentage, just the raw wins and losses, so I gave up — too much work.

What I noticed is that almost no team last season won more shorthanded faceoffs than it lost. In fact, Buffalo was the only team above 50%, and barely. Boston was exactly 50% and the rest were underwater. Why's it harder to win a faceoff when you're shorthanded?

2 reasons for it being tougher to win the faceoff when SH.  1, as mentioned already, the SH team has 1 less skater than the PP team & 1 less body to win a scrum when the FO doesn't get won cleanly.  And 2, the C in his own defensive zone has to line up 1st so the PP C has an edge from the get go.

Edited by Taro T
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...