GDT: Calder Cup QF: Amerks (2-2) @ Rocket, Gm5: Sun May 24 4:30p FLO, The Fan

[Ogelthorpe]

Soft, unwilling to engage or unable, to small, issues in net. Sounds just like the Sabres. Lol

[LGR4GM]

57 minutes ago, Ogelthorpe said:

Soft, unwilling to engage or unable, to small, issues in net. Sounds just like the Sabres. Lol

Sabres were like the 12th biggest nhl team this season or something but please, tell me more. 

[LGR4GM]

I looked, 7th in height and 14th in weight for Buffalo. 

[K-9]

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

It's $120 for the entire year.

Last September it was $150 for a year (iirc) and I seriously considered it at the time, but I thought I’d see how the Sabres fared first before sinking another dime for my time. Well, my revolt against the organization crystallized as the season progressed and I gave less and less of a damn as it wore on. But as usual, the season ended and my thirst for hockey returned, so I thought “what the hell” and for $30 I thought it was worth watching the farm kids in the playoffs. I just didn’t see the point in watching any more FloHockey when the Amerks got eliminated as I have no interest in the remaining Calder Cup contenders. 

But FloHockey is a good deal, regardless. 

[Ctaeth]

Amerks had a good year.  I know thats not what people want to hear because they have their issues with the Sabres. But that was a successful season 

I do have one thing to say regarding the playoffs though.  The Noah Östlund disappearing act in the playoffs hurt them bad.  After that first stretch where he was figuring out the north American game, he was roughly a point per game player.  They needed this guy to show up and he didn't.  I know he had less opportunities bc of kulich, but you have to do more than 2 assists in 8ish games

[Ogelthorpe]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Sabres were like the 12th biggest nhl team this season or something but please, tell me more. 

That makes their softnessl look even worse. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Ogelthorpe

[Wyldnwoody44]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I looked, 7th in height and 14th in weight for Buffalo. 

And 31st in heart. 

[French Collection]

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I looked, 7th in height and 14th in weight for Buffalo. 

Those numbers tell me that they are too young, lacking older man muscles. KA running it back will eventually get them to top 10 in weight.

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

And 31st in heart. 

 

 

[Weave]

7 hours ago, French Collection said:

Those numbers tell me that they are too young, lacking older man muscles. KA running it back will eventually get them to top 10 in weight.

Not if they all demand trades as they hit prime age.

[LGR4GM]

13 hours ago, Ogelthorpe said:

That makes their softnessl look even worse. 

Size doesn't equal toughness. It never will. 

[Thorny]

14 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

And 31st in heart. 

Adams will tout this as improvement 

[Ogelthorpe]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Size doesn't equal toughness. It never will. 

True there are exceptions but size helps. 

[Thorny]

I think the one area we see size as nearly non-negotiable is in net. There are a multitude of avenues for truly skilled players to “make up the gaps” when small, not so for goalies. At a natural disadvantage they constantly have to deal with that doesn’t come with any added benefits (GT much less about speed than positioning, *especially* the higher the level of play gets) 

There’s no where to hide in net, no weaknesses to expose with the skills you do have. A small goalie needs to overcome his disadvantage on every play, needs to account for the fact he takes up less of the net naturally, all the time. 

It almost invariably catches up.

Small forwards…much easier path 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Ogelthorpe said:

True there are exceptions but size helps. 

Only if you use it. Zach Benson is the poster child of pushing back against this. He routinely wins board battles against bigger players. 

And you wouldn't have drafted him. 

[Ogelthorpe]

27 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Only if you use it. Zach Benson is the poster child of pushing back against this. He routinely wins board battles against bigger players. 

And you wouldn't have drafted him. 

Don't be daft. I agreed with you that there are exceptions. Work on your reading comprehension.  

[LGR4GM]

9 minutes ago, Ogelthorpe said:

Don't be daft. I agreed with you that there are exceptions. Work on your reading comprehension.  

And you wouldn't have drafted Zach Benson. You like him now, sure but I'd bet money that you would not have drafted 5'10" Benson after the 2022 draft of Savoie.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Ogelthorpe said:

True there are exceptions but size helps. 

Actually, in the NHL, there's a bunch of scenarios where size might not help. For example if you get inside someone's reach, it becomes more difficult for a taller player to regain leverage unless they can physically push you away. Ideally 6'-6'3" is optional nhl player size. 

[LGR4GM]

Roll roll roll your eyes, idgaf

merrily merrily merrily merrily, I'm heading off to lunch

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I think the one area we see size as nearly non-negotiable is in net. There are a multitude of avenues for truly skilled players to “make up the gaps” when small, not so for goalies. At a natural disadvantage they constantly have to deal with that doesn’t come with any added benefits (GT much less about speed than positioning, *especially* the higher the level of play gets) 

There’s no where to hide in net, no weaknesses to expose with the skills you do have. A small goalie needs to overcome his disadvantage on every play, needs to account for the fact he takes up less of the net naturally, all the time. 

It almost invariably catches up.

Small forwards…much easier path 

Yet we traded highly skilled Sam Reinhart, who was just about reaching prime years, for a small goalie (Levi) and the 28 OA draft choice. 

How many microseconds did it take for Zito to jump on that one?  

[Pimlach]

17 hours ago, Ogelthorpe said:

That makes their softnessl look even worse. 

They are not a small team by measurement but  they do not have players that play with a mean streak or that other teams have to be concerned about.   They have a few but they are collectively way too young every year.  They never get older as a team because they keep adding younger players each year and the result is regression in the standings. 

Half the team cannot even grow a beard yet.  So many games look like boys against men.  

They don't need to draft a #1 this year, they have plenty of good prospects in Rochester and elsewhere, but they do need to add better players in their prime years right now - use that pick as part of a plan to get older and tougher and smarter.   Which gets us to the next issue - who is willing to come to Buffalo under this current regime?  Apparently not many.  

[Ogelthorpe]

3 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

They are not a small team by measurement but  they do not have players that play with a mean streak or that other teams have to be concerned about.   They have a few but they are collectively way too young every year.  They never get older as a team because they keep adding younger players each year and the result is regression in the standings. 

Half the team cannot even grow a beard yet.  So many games look like boys against men.  

They don't need to draft a #1 this year, they have plenty of good prospects in Rochester and elsewhere, but they do need to add better players in their prime years right now - use that pick as part of a plan to get older and tougher and smarter.   Which gets us to the next issue - who is willing to come to Buffalo under this current regime?  Apparently not many.  

I agree with most of what you say. However I think the prospect system is vastly overrated.  

[LGR4GM]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Actually, in the NHL, there's a bunch of scenarios where size might not help. For example if you get inside someone's reach, it becomes more difficult for a taller player to regain leverage unless they can physically push you away. Ideally 6'-6'3" is optional nhl player size. 

I should amend this. Ideal "forward" size.  There's a bunch of evidence that defense is looking at 6'2" to 6'5" as ideal size. 

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Yet we traded highly skilled Sam Reinhart, who was just about reaching prime years, for a small goalie (Levi) and the 28 OA draft choice. 

How many microseconds did it take for Zito to jump on that one?  

I watched Zito make the offer and Adams accept it.

It was a terrible trade. No need to embellish.