The offseason so far - Are the Sabres better?

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Calling Norris a 1C doesn’t make him one.

We still have the twin towers of softness but hopefully Kesselring and Timmons can offset that.

Quinn is 3W material until he’s not.

We are missing a legitimate 1C, 1LW, reliable starting goalie, partner for Dahlin.

Are the Sabres better? No. They are just as bad with an expected uptick in physicality.

If we are hinging our hopes on Norris as 1C, Benson in the top six, Levi in the NHL, and Muel with Dahlin then we shouldn’t be surprised by the late season storm of “this team sucks” threads.

Are the twin towers of softness Tage and Power?

[7+6=13]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

why??

I explained 

[7+6=13]

8 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Calling Norris a 1C doesn’t make him one.

We still have the twin towers of softness but hopefully Kesselring and Timmons can offset that.

Quinn is 3W material until he’s not.

We are missing a legitimate 1C, 1LW, reliable starting goalie, partner for Dahlin.

Are the Sabres better? No. They are just as bad with an expected uptick in physicality.

If we are hinging our hopes on Norris as 1C, Benson in the top six, Levi in the NHL, and Muel with Dahlin then we shouldn’t be surprised by the late season storm of “this team sucks” threads.

This is why our fans frustrate me sometimes.  For some reason there's a love affair with doom and gloom and it's real. 

Why do we have to find a partner for Dahlin when we have Byram?

Do you believe it strengthens your gloom?

 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by 7+6=13

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

This is why our fans frustrate me sometimes.  For some reason there's a love affair with doom and gloom and it's real. 

Why do we have to find a partner for Dahlin when we have Byram?

Do you believe it strengthens your gloom?

 

 

 

It's not for "some reason" as if it were unfathomable and irrational. There is a long history of ineptitude, which quite naturally produces skepticism. There is also inconsistency. Don't block the young players. Then when they hit on one who doesn't want to be here, you end up trading the unblocked. Handedness didn't matter on D, and now it does. They were all finesse, and now we have discovered the need for grit.

I like the current shift, but the GM does not inspire confidence. The change is not coming from principle, unless it is someone else behind the altered criteria, which is quite possible. 

If Byram is not traded, the D is fine. I think he's probably going to be traded, but it's not as certain as it seemed a few days ago. They should bring in veteran competition for UPL, and let Levi season another year. I rather doubt that is their plan, though. They need to bring in a top 6 winger. There's cap room to do it, but most folks are rightly concerned that we won't spend, because TP has been cheap. You can conjecture various reasons, but the cheap part is undeniable, or should be. 

[7+6=13]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

It's not for "some reason" as if it were unfathomable and irrational. There is a long history of ineptitude, which quite naturally produces skepticism. There is also inconsistency. Don't block the young players. Then when they hit on one who doesn't want to be here, you end up trading the unblocked. Handedness didn't matter on D, and now it does. They were all finesse, and now we have discovered the need for grit.

I like the current shift, but the GM does not inspire confidence. The change is not coming from principle, unless it is someone else behind the altered criteria, which is quite possible. 

If Byram is not traded, the D is fine. I think he's probably going to be traded, but it's not as certain as it seemed a few days ago. They should bring in veteran competition for UPL, and let Levi season another year. I rather doubt that is their plan, though. They need to bring in a top 6 winger. There's cap room to do it, but most folks are rightly concerned that we won't spend, because TP has been cheap. You can conjecture various reasons, but the cheap part is undeniable, or should be. 

You missed my point.  You don't think I know the history?

I'm saying no one can add Byram being gone today to the reason we're not better, unless you're always trying to paint the worst picture, which is what some Buffalo fans have been doing my entire life.

So if you're going to say we need a partner for Dahlin today because of the departure of Byram, then incorrectly say we don't need a top 6 winger or whatever you want to make up.

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Are the twin towers of softness Tage and Power?

Thought he meant Samuelsson and Power.

[Dr. Who]

4 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

You missed my point.  You don't think I know the history?

I'm saying no one can add Byram being gone today to the reason we're not better, unless you're always trying to paint the worst picture, which is what some Buffalo fans have been doing my entire life.

So if you're going to say we need a partner for Dahlin today because of the departure of Byram, then incorrectly say we don't need a top 6 winger or whatever you want to make up.

"For some reason there's a love affair with doom and gloom" is your overall interpretive conclusion as to the motivation behind folks speculating: that's your own bias regarding the nature of the board, which you've expressed quite often.

The question of whether the Sabres are better is in flux, so obviously some figured in what they thought likely (a trade of Byram), and others held off, and based judgment on what is true right now. I don't see that kind of variance as proof of an odd desire to "paint the worst picture," though it is true that a self-destructive madness can overcome a group when conditions turn in a certain direction. 

I hardly think that is what is happening on this board. In my judgment, the current roster is not a playoff team, so the offseason is a failure if it remains more-or-less what it is now. You can make an argument that the team is marginally improved overall. I'm not certain that is correct, but it is not ridiculous. What happens in the next week or so will be much more telling, so pausing on making pronouncements until there is greater clarity is actually the most prudent course.

[Taro T]

19 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

Short answer, they are about the same, I think if there are no major injuries, slightly better....but that is only if there are no major injuries...and slightly is not good enough to make a major jump in the standings.

1.)  Cozens/Norris.  If Norris is healthy, this make the team better. The advanced stats, the simple stats, watching the games....all of those things pointed to Cozens hurting the team more than (or at least as much as) he helped.

2.) I liked Jokiharju, I think he was better than most people thought, but at BEST he was a serviceable mid-pair guy.  Losing him not a huge factor.

3.) No clue.  I think Peterka caused almost as many problems as he solved with his goals, but the key word there is 'almost'.  While I think Cozens was a net negative player, Peterka was still an overall positive.  He will be a loss, but hopefully the return will negate that loss.

4.) Clifton for Timmins?  Not a big deal either way.

5.) Quinn.  If he played like he did the last 1.5 years, I don't want him on the team. I guess the hope is he turns his bad play around (his own end and unwillingness to go to the net).

More needs to be done. It'll be easier to have an answer to this question when we know if Byrum re-signs or what the return for him is...and we know more about the quality of goaltending they will get.

This team had problem last year, but in my opinion the problems were in this order. 1.)  How bad the goaltending was  2.) How bad Cozens and Quinn were without the puck  3.)  D-partners/pairings that didn't look in sync with each other.

#1 is still a wide open question.  #2 has partially been solved, but not totall.  #3, well, they are making an attempt, but we have no idea until October (or later) how successful their attempt is.

 

 

Agree with most of this, but believe you are leaving out one huge issue from last season that contributed heavily towards your issues 2 & 3.  The coaches don't know how to get through to the players on this team.  Is that because they don't know how to teach/implement the system Ruff wants them to run, is it beause the system (as opposed to Granato's lack of a system) isn't good enough, is it because the players can't/won't implement it, something other, or a combination of all?  Yes.  But regardless of why the coaches are ineffective and have been for years hear; making a change there would seem to be the low hanging fruit to get improvement from the players.  So frustrated that there is no movement on remedying this particular issue. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, 7+6=13 said:

This is why our fans frustrate me sometimes.  For some reason there's a love affair with doom and gloom and it's real. 

Why do we have to find a partner for Dahlin when we have Byram?

Do you believe it strengthens your gloom?

 

 

 

Because Dahlin Byram wasn't that good. 

[PotentPowerPlay21]

The question should be : Are the Sabres better than their opponents? Even if they improve, they have to be better than their competition. Many of them also improved.

 

I still don't understand Adams logic. For years he drafted soft players and now all of a sudden he realizes the team needs to be tougher to play against. Maybe he should have thought of that in 2021 when he drafted two marshmallows in the first round: Power and Rosen. Or in 2022 when he drafted tiny Savoie and Östlund in round 1. In 2023 he drafted tiny Benson. I like Benson, but he doesn't scare anybody. The point is that the Sabres aren't hard to play against because of Adams' and Forton flawed drafts. However, they still haven't lost any of their arrogance despite failing.

[PASabreFan]

If they are, it's only on paper, which doesn't mean anything.

 

[SABRES 0311]

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Are the twin towers of softness Tage and Power?

Muel and Power

[LGR4GM]

24 minutes ago, PotentPowerPlay21 said:

The question should be : Are the Sabres better than their opponents? Even if they improve, they have to be better than their competition. Many of them also improved.

 

I still don't understand Adams logic. For years he drafted soft players and now all of a sudden he realizes the team needs to be tougher to play against. Maybe he should have thought of that in 2021 when he drafted two marshmallows in the first round: Power and Rosen. Or in 2022 when he drafted tiny Savoie and Östlund in round 1. In 2023 he drafted tiny Benson. I like Benson, but he doesn't scare anybody. The point is that the Sabres aren't hard to play against because of Adams' and Forton flawed drafts. However, they still haven't lost any of their arrogance despite failing.

Any time anyone talks about Benson not being hard to play against you get a thumbs dumb. 

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:

"For some reason there's a love affair with doom and gloom" is your overall interpretive conclusion as to the motivation behind folks speculating: that's your own bias regarding the nature of the board, which you've expressed quite often.

The question of whether the Sabres are better is in flux, so obviously some figured in what they thought likely (a trade of Byram), and others held off, and based judgment on what is true right now. I don't see that kind of variance as proof of an odd desire to "paint the worst picture," though it is true that a self-destructive madness can overcome a group when conditions turn in a certain direction. 

I hardly think that is what is happening on this board. In my judgment, the current roster is not a playoff team, so the offseason is a failure if it remains more-or-less what it is now. You can make an argument that the team is marginally improved overall. I'm not certain that is correct, but it is not ridiculous. What happens in the next week or so will be much more telling, so pausing on making pronouncements until there is greater clarity is actually the most prudent course.

You're accurate with most of what you mention here.  I've admitted that I'm going to opine if I feel compelled, when IMO, a poster is being overtly and unjustly negative. 

I have a lot less venum attached to my posts than probably most would think.  It's more of a mantle for me as I've also tried to articulate, probably poorly.

What I disagree with you on is your view of the content itself.  Including Byram as not being here and then not including what need his replacement would fill - is the definition of being wrong.  It's 100% true he's a Sabres.  There's no disputing that.  

We of course have our opinions and by nature are rooted in biases.  However there are truths that should at least be the foundation of a discussion.

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Because Dahlin Byram wasn't that good. 

I'm not sure that proves Byram isn't on the Sabres. 

Do you think we were better before the draft and having pick #9 or now with Mrtka?

[JP51]

I would not say we are better or project to be at this point. I would not say we are worse... but let's see what next week brings. 

[jad1]

They might be better, but they are not a playoff team.

Adams needs to show some out-of-character competency this week to make this season something more than another colossal waste of time for the franchise.

 

 

[sabremike]

The only way anything ever gets better is for Terry to go away. There is no hope as long as he is the owner.

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Because Dahlin Byram wasn't that good. 

Demonstrably utterly and completely false.

The were the most effective #1 defence pair in the NHL last year by a wide margin.

[Taro T]

26 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Demonstrably utterly and completely false.

The were the most effective #1 defence pair in the NHL last year by a wide margin.

But it doesn't count because it was all Dahlin and Dahlin and ANYBODY else would've been better (except at least with who the Sabres had, it wasn't) and Byram and Power were demonstrably bad together and Bryam couldn't be the Sabres 1 when Dahlin was out.

Still would like the Sabres to keep Byram.  But if Byram going out the door would bring Demko in; well, bye-bye Bo.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

I'm not sure that proves Byram isn't on the Sabres. 

Do you think we were better before the draft and having pick #9 or now with Mrtka?

Well every team is better after the draft because everybody adds prospects and bad teams add higher rated ones. Mrtka is 3-5 years away from making the Sabres any better on ice. The opening night roster as is, is not good enough to make the playoffs. 

[PerreaultForever]

57 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Demonstrably utterly and completely false.

The were the most effective #1 defence pair in the NHL last year by a wide margin.

You should go into stand up. 

[The Jokeman]

Thus far I say we're worse yet we still have free agency and possible trades so I'm still hoping we do more obviously. If we can add Kyrou or Robertson and a goalie to split time with UPL it be a good not great off-season. 

Edited 5 hours ago by The Jokeman

[WhenWillItEnd66]

Defensively,  yes.  Clifton and JJP were sieve for defense and Clifton was a turnover machine. We lost some scoring though that needs to be replaced.  So it is a TBD....

[dudacek]

30 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

You should go into stand up. 

You shouldn’t post lies.

Best goals for % by NHL pairings, minimum 500 minutes:

• 1 Dahlin Byram 70%
• 2 McDonagh Cernak 63.8%
• 3 McCabe Tanev 63.3%
• 4 Samberg Pionk 63.2%
• 5 Toews Makar 61.4%

How can any defence pairing that helped outscore the opposition 35 to 15 at even strength on the Buffalo Sabres be called “wasn’t that good” by anyone with a straight face?

Its like saying Tage Thompson is not a very good goal scorer, or Josh Norris never gets hurt.

Edited 4 hours ago by dudacek