The offseason so far - Are the Sabres better?

[Thorny]

17 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Do I think the Sabres make the playoffs this coming season? No. Do I think Adams has made the team better overall in his tenure? Also no.

But it is too soon to write off the 25-26 season.

Some core players could take a solid step forward in their development. But I consider the division and some points that will be available throughout the season. Florida will coast to the playoffs. The Leafs may be a one-line team now, which can always fall apart if folks get injured but not too injured to LTIR for reinforcements. Boston will likely decide to tank by December. Detroit could as well. The Habs are prime candidates to regress a bit in the standings (and still improve overall). The Sabres could (very, very very unlikely) find themselves competitive for an 8 seed through no fault merit of their own.

Good post and well said 

[dudacek]

18 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Do I think the Sabres make the playoffs this coming season? No. Do I think Adams has made the team better overall in his tenure? Also no.

But it is too soon to write off the 25-26 season.

Some core players could take a solid step forward in their development. But I consider the division and some points that will be available throughout the season. Florida will coast to the playoffs. The Leafs may be a one-line team now, which can always fall apart if folks get injured but not too injured to LTIR for reinforcements. Boston will likely decide to tank by December. Detroit could as well. The Habs are prime candidates to regress a bit in the standings (and still improve overall). The Sabres could (very, very very unlikely) find themselves competitive for an 8 seed through no fault merit of their own.

Maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t this what usually happens? 

It’s never the teams that win the offseason, it’s the teams where enough things go surprisingly right.

Maybe UPL has a career year like Logan Thompson, Krebs comes out of nowhere like Protas, Kesselring is the missing ingredient like Chychrun, Quinn takes a leap like McMichael and Norris isn’t the waste he appeared to be like Dubois.

I mean the miracle of 14 years is that even the sloppiest franchises seem to back their way in at some point.

Edited Thursday at 09:39 PM by dudacek

[Thorny]

33 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t this what usually happens? 

It’s never the teams that win the offseason, it’s the teams where enough things go surprisingly right.

Maybe UPL has a career year like Logan Thompson, Krebs comes out of nowhere like Protas, Kesselring is the missing ingredient like Chychrun, Quinn takes a leap like McMichael and Norris isn’t the waste he appeared to be like Dubois.

I mean the miracle of 14 years is that even the sloppiest franchises seem to back their way in at some point.

Zero doubt in my mind Adams tells himself this every morning in the mirror 

The sabres are not normal. The ever present urge to claim their behaviour as normal is unhealthy imo

Isn’t this exactly how they view it? Can you explain the appeal to me? Miracle, exactly - it’s an act of God they haven’t made it, right? I can’t see that not being their reasoning  

- - - 

you can’t claim “hope for the best” if you haven’t done everything in your power to put the situation in the best possible scenario for that to happen- which they never, ever do

they aren’t Frodo Baggins, providence isn’t coming to push the Ring in the rest of the way because Frodo sold his soul to get it as far as he could - there’s no grace on the way. They haven’t earned it.

They have not done the honest to goodness work to facilitate the farming ground for those surprises 

Edited Thursday at 10:12 PM by Thorny

[thewookie1]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Zero doubt in my mind Adams tells himself this every morning in the mirror 

The sabres are not normal. The ever present urge to claim their behaviour as normal is unhealthy imo

Isn’t this exactly how they view it? Can you explain the appeal to me? Miracle, exactly - it’s an act of God they haven’t made it, right? I can’t see that not being their reasoning  

- - - 

you can’t claim “hope for the best” if you haven’t done everything in your power to put the situation in the best possible scenario for that to happen- which they never, ever do

they aren’t Frodo Baggins, providence isn’t coming to push the Ring in the rest of the way because Frodo sold his soul to get it as far as he could - there’s no grace on the way. They haven’t earned it.

They have not done the honest to goodness work to facilitate the farming ground for those surprises 

My question is how do we know they haven’t done all they could? From the outside we can certainly pick them apart but how do we know that we aren’t just ***** this offseason thanks to a combination of a lack of good UFAs, NMCs/NTCs, a general dislike among other players/coaches/management candidates, etc?

While I don’t think they’ve exhausted every search or turned over every rock to anyone’s satisfaction; that doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything. 
 

I can’t quite wrap my head around how you are even a fan of the Sabres or any sports team for that matter. You want to take the hardline logical and cynical approach to everything and fandom is neither at the core of it. No matter the hopeless situation that may appear; fans will always find some means to make cheering meaningful. Your need to give anyone here a cynical diatribe about how we are delusional about this team because we want to manufacture hope is just not needed. It’s akin to telling a Stage 4 cancer patient, “yeah, you’re going almost certainly die” and even when you’re likely 99% factual with that statement that doesn’t mean you’re required to tell them that. You aren’t their doctor, you are just the person’s acquaintance from across the street. 

Maybe we even deserve some divine providence at this point; we’ve been royally screwed so many times and yet somehow never get to fall ass backwards into even a semblance of success. 

[Thorny]

11 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

My question is how do we know they haven’t done all they could? From the outside we can certainly pick them apart but how do we know that we aren’t just ***** this offseason thanks to a combination of a lack of good UFAs, NMCs/NTCs, a general dislike among other players/coaches/management candidates, etc?

While I don’t think they’ve exhausted every search or turned over every rock to anyone’s satisfaction; that doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything. 
 

I can’t quite wrap my head around how you are even a fan of the Sabres or any sports team for that matter. You want to take the hardline logical and cynical approach to everything and fandom is neither at the core of it. No matter the hopeless situation that may appear; fans will always find some means to make cheering meaningful. Your need to give anyone here a cynical diatribe about how we are delusional about this team because we want to manufacture hope is just not needed. It’s akin to telling a Stage 4 cancer patient, “yeah, you’re going almost certainly die” and even when you’re likely 99% factual with that statement that doesn’t mean you’re required to tell them that. You aren’t their doctor, you are just the person’s acquaintance from across the street. 

Maybe we even deserve some divine providence at this point; we’ve been royally screwed so many times and yet somehow never get to fall ass backwards into even a semblance of success. 

Dude why don’t you just block me? Not saying this in snark. Like, just for personally peace? You constantly constantly quote me taking issue with merely the macro issue of how it is I am a fan. How are you even a fan, Thorny. Regardless of the fact the forum is filled with evidence for 10 years explaining why if you cared to look - I’m not answerable to you. And I’m specifically not going to explain it to you right now because you’ve proven it won’t be worth my time as I’ve explained it to you before

we are not the same. I talk about, and have posted before that I’m jealous you can be so relatively seemingly unaffected by the constant losing, how I truly wish that was me - you post questioning why I’m a fan at all, and on more than one occasion have told me to leave - don’t get me wrong: I’m not offended by it. I truly do not care what you think about my loyalty as a fan. But like I said, for your own piece of mind..

why don’t you follow my twitter and peruse my blue jays tweets? Would give anyone a pretty good preview of what I’m like when a team displays basic competence 

I’m sorry but wookie - if you can’t make the logical leap to think that maybe, like, JUST MAYBE MAYBE I am being honest when I say the historical ineptitude leads to historical disenfranchisement, I’m telling the truth? Is it that inconceivable I could be speaking honestly? That maybe, just MAYBE, if the team made the playoffs once it would be reflected in the way I post? 

I am frequently floored by the fact that logical leap can’t be made - the idea it can’t just be the team that makes me post this way. That I have to have some other agenda 

can’t you just, in the name of science, test your theory once? Like, just once see what my reaction is once we achieve something? 

Edited Thursday at 10:57 PM by Thorny

[Thorny]

 

23 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

My question is how do we know they haven’t done all they could? From the outside we can certainly pick them apart but how do we know that we aren’t just ***** this offseason thanks to a combination of a lack of good UFAs, NMCs/NTCs, a general dislike among other players/coaches/management candidates, etc?

While I don’t think they’ve exhausted every search or turned over every rock to anyone’s satisfaction; that doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything. 
 

I can’t quite wrap my head around how you are even a fan of the Sabres or any sports team for that matter. You want to take the hardline logical and cynical approach to everything and fandom is neither at the core of it. No matter the hopeless situation that may appear; fans will always find some means to make cheering meaningful. Your need to give anyone here a cynical diatribe about how we are delusional about this team because we want to manufacture hope is just not needed. It’s akin to telling a Stage 4 cancer patient, “yeah, you’re going almost certainly die” and even when you’re likely 99% factual with that statement that doesn’t mean you’re required to tell them that. You aren’t their doctor, you are just the person’s acquaintance from across the street. 

Maybe we even deserve some divine providence at this point; we’ve been royally screwed so many times and yet somehow never get to fall ass backwards into even a semblance of success. 

I actually just noticed the cancer reference. Dude, that’s neither here nor there an an awful comp to draw 

Seriously guy, reconfigurate a bit. Me saying you are wrong about a professional sports club you follow as a hobby to pass the time is not the same thing, good grief my man, good grief. It’s not life and death. The other, well it f*ckin is 

Edited Thursday at 11:09 PM by Thorny

[dudacek]

I just listened to a podcast of Rick Tocchet talking hockey, not in front of post-game media crowd, or on a intermission panel, but honestly breaking down the game nerd-fashion with a couple other hockey nerds.

I’ve listened to Donnie Granato and other pros in similar settings and it gave me the same vibe.

My takeaway in general is that the pros are by and large not the idiots fans make them out to be. They get where they are because they’re smart and they’re passionate.

My Habs fan buddy always talks about pissed off he’d get with Marc Bergevin. And then he’d listen to him explain himself and 10 minutes later he’d be “wow, that totally makes sense! We’re gonna be fine!”

it really makes me curious as to how overmatched our brain trust really is.

Edited Thursday at 11:46 PM by dudacek

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I just listened to a podcast of Rick Tocchet talking hockey, not in front of post-game media crowd, or on a intermission panel, but honestly breaking down the game nerd-fashion with a couple other hockey nerds.

I’ve listened to Donnie Granato and other pros in similar settings and it gave me the same vibe.

My takeaway in general is that the pros are by and large not the idiots fans make them out to be. They get where they are because they’re smart and they’re passionate.

it really makes me curious as to how overmatched our brain trust really is.

This is why I always say: the players aren’t stupid. They understand as well as we do the overall situation - they aren’t blind to Pegula. We don’t draft a bunch of quitters - we bring them up in an environment where they are fully aware of the owner’s lack of commitment to winning. The players understand and are aware and can keenly perceive the lack of expectation, far more potently than we can. It’s why I always scoff at the reaction to those asking out.

they know 

Edited Thursday at 11:49 PM by Thorny

[Thorny]

Right along those lines, what gets underplayed often is for how many of these players it’s a CAREER, a job, a way to make money: they have a life to live, after. They have a life to live, now. They are rounded human beings
 

like Kyrie Irving said: “do you think I walk around with a basketball?”

far, far more players than people would care to admit pursue their career and work so hard and diligently and to your point smartly at it because they are GOOD at it, rather than because it’s their undying passion. They are far more similar to other career folk than some think 

that’s of course not everyone. And lots of actors love acting. And lots of pilots love being a pilot and lots of retail sales associates love being retail sales associates: but, you don’t have to take my word for it, countless numbers of players have spoken to the nature of this. Players aren’t routinely candid about this stuff in front of the media; they’ll get torched like Scottie scheffler 

a lot of fans can’t reckon with this, many people even around these parts: they aren’t amendable to the loyalty we show, as fans, they aren’t fans. They are professionals. Their primary concern is a career 

sometimes they just ask out because they think they have a good chance of a better career elsewhere. If you turn against them knowing what we know, and knowing they know more, and knowing that our prime interests aren’t the same…I mean there’s probably nothing I could say if it’s still being ignored 

Edited Thursday at 11:57 PM by Thorny

[dudacek]

28 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Right along those lines, what gets underplayed often is for how many of these players it’s a CAREER, a job, a way to make money: they have a life to live, after. They have a life to live, now. They are rounded human beings
 

like Kyrie Irving said: “do you think I walk around with a basketball?”

far, far more players than people would care to admit pursue their career and work so hard and diligently and to your point smartly at it because they are GOOD at it, rather than because it’s their undying passion. They are far more similar to other career folk than some think 

that’s of course not everyone. And lots of actors love acting. And lots of pilots love being a pilot and lots of retail sales associates love being retail sales associates: but, you don’t have to take my word for it, countless numbers of players have spoken to the nature of this. Players aren’t routinely candid about this stuff in front of the media; they’ll get torched like Scottie scheffler 

a lot of fans can’t reckon with this, many people even around these parts: they aren’t amendable to the loyalty we show, as fans, they aren’t fans. They are professionals. Their primary concern is a career 

sometimes they just ask out because they think they have a good chance of a better career elsewhere. If you turn against them knowing what we know, and knowing they know more, and knowing that our prime interests aren’t the same…I mean there’s probably nothing I could say if it’s still being ignored 

Fantastic post.

(Doesnt apply to JJ Peterka in the slightest, but I digress 😘)

You’ve taken my post in a very different but thoughtful direction.

I was musing at the executive level:

I think Bylsma won a cup mostly because he’s lucky and Zito mostly because he’s good.

I think most GMs and coaches are smart; they have to be to reach the apex of a highly competitive profession. I think the smartest coaches and executives are in the NHL but the 64 in the NHL aren’t the 64 smartest.

How good do they have to be to win? How bad do they have to be not to have a chance? Because at some point they’ll be facing the very best.

What is the Jay Feaster line and where are Kevyn Adams and Lindy Ruff in relation to it?

Edited Friday at 12:22 AM by dudacek

[Thorny]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

Fantastic post.

(Doesnt apply to JJ Peterka in the slightest, but I digress 😘)

You’ve taken my post in a very different but thoughtful direction.

I was musing at the executive level:

I think Bylsma won a cup mostly because he’s lucky and Zito mostly because he’s good.

I think most GMs and coaches are smart; they have to be to reach the apex of a highly competitive profession. I think the smartest coaches and executives are in the NHL but the 64 in the NHL aren’t the 64 smartest.

How good do they have to be to win? How bad do they have to be not to have a chance? Because at some point they’ll be facing the very best.

What is the Jay Feaster line and where are Kevyn Adams and Lindy Ruff in relation to it?

I think a lot of it comes down to strategy rather than execution.

Has Adams done a BAD job implementing a build through the draft, acquire nearly exclusively young talent, low cost, long form rebuild? The problem is apparent nearly just from reading the sentence: I mean sure he hasn’t been GREAT at the execution but when you are asking him, or sorry, he’s choosing to implement a plan that has the focus (clearly) of being young, and cheap, how can you possibly begin to separate poor execution from poor strategy? 

if more of the players we drafted were taking bigger strides right now, Quinn, Cozens et al, wouldn’t the results be better and the strategy justified? That may sound dim and obvious but think about it: did we dislike the picks Adams has made, at the time? Not really. They seemed fine

Now you may say wow Thorny you hypocrite you always say hindsight doesn’t matter it’s the results, you dope. And to that I say: well, yes, that’s true. Adams is still responsible though as we all know, because as people say: it’s more about what he doesn’t do. The McLeod move sure looked good.

But that’s important in a macro sense: it’s not that he made really bad picks or really bad trades, he just *implemented a type of strategy* that puts things behind the 8 ball from day one. It never had a high likelihood of success. At least in terms of how we as FANS might define success. Example being - If you have to be a consistently *great* drafter to make up any ground at all, due to lack of other notable action, you are choosing a dive with one too many twists and turns: drafting is largely a crapshoot. Draft nuts don’t jump on that, I’m not saying there’s no skill. But when luck is undeniably a SIZEABLE variable and factor in the result it’s exceptionally difficult to make up ground vs other teams when so much necessarily must be left to chance by nature. And, again, you are already choosing to largely not use other aspects of team building to your favour.  

It’s like trying to build your strategy around one building point Superstar. If you aren’t Drafter McJesus, you need depth.

And it’s NOT a strategy we have to implement because “no one will come here.” Demonstrably wrong. McLeod and Zucker are here and they are better than most of the guys we drafted 

That sort of “behind the 8 ball from the get go” thinking is the same with the tank, the nonsense of “well it succeeded”. Right, and if you rob a bank at gun point you may successfully get away with the money.

Are you going to get to spend it? 

The circumstances by which you seized the cash matter. If you have to create a situation with the parameters of a Kobayashi Maru to “achieve your goal” your are likely going to lose the war.

That’s what the tank was.

- - - 

And in my opinion, every day we continue to operate without winning being the priority, even if it’s not to the extent of the tank, is more egregiously offensive as a fan than the last because there’s only more mounting evidence to suggest it doesn’t work 

Edited Friday at 02:46 AM by Thorny

[dudacek]

14 hours ago, Thorny said:

Right along those lines, what gets underplayed often is for how many of these players it’s a CAREER, a job, a way to make money: they have a life to live, after. They have a life to live, now. They are rounded human beings
 

like Kyrie Irving said: “do you think I walk around with a basketball?”

far, far more players than people would care to admit pursue their career and work so hard and diligently and to your point smartly at it because they are GOOD at it, rather than because it’s their undying passion. They are far more similar to other career folk than some think 

that’s of course not everyone. And lots of actors love acting. And lots of pilots love being a pilot and lots of retail sales associates love being retail sales associates: but, you don’t have to take my word for it, countless numbers of players have spoken to the nature of this. Players aren’t routinely candid about this stuff in front of the media; they’ll get torched like Scottie scheffler 

a lot of fans can’t reckon with this, many people even around these parts: they aren’t amendable to the loyalty we show, as fans, they aren’t fans. They are professionals. Their primary concern is a career 

sometimes they just ask out because they think they have a good chance of a better career elsewhere. If you turn against them knowing what we know, and knowing they know more, and knowing that our prime interests aren’t the same…I mean there’s probably nothing I could say if it’s still being ignored 

As well-considered and rational as this is, what we should find amazing is how few hockey players seem to think this way.

What do retired players say most often when looking back at their careers? It’s how much they miss the room.

Hockey culture is peculiarly tribal and the team has a talismanic quality, a reverence drilled into players from the first time they put on skates. “Have each others backs” “the crest on the front not the name on the back” “this stays in the room”.

Belonging is a crucial psychological element in the indoctrination. Once established it can be hard to shake.

The typical player does not maximize his earnings over a series of short-term deals and highly leveraged negotiations,  he chases security and term and signs for a home-town discount before ever hitting the open market.

Even in such a “toxic” situation as Buffalo you get:

Luukkonen 5 years

Thompson 7 years

Samuelsson 7 years

Power 7 years

Cozens 7 years

Dahlin 8 years

You don’t think Zucker could have got his deal somewhere else this summer?

Or Greenway?

Ryan McLeod just signed on for 4 more seasons.

People are constantly throwing out “no one wants to be in Buffalo”

And yet…

Im not suggesting that none of the above  decisions were free of business considerations.

I am saying that it is actually crazy how frequently those considerations can take a back seat to loyalty, the desire to feel needed and the need to belong.

Edited Friday at 02:14 PM by dudacek

[JohnC]

On 7/24/2025 at 7:43 PM, dudacek said:

I just listened to a podcast of Rick Tocchet talking hockey, not in front of post-game media crowd, or on a intermission panel, but honestly breaking down the game nerd-fashion with a couple other hockey nerds.

I’ve listened to Donnie Granato and other pros in similar settings and it gave me the same vibe.

My takeaway in general is that the pros are by and large not the idiots fans make them out to be. They get where they are because they’re smart and they’re passionate.

My Habs fan buddy always talks about pissed off he’d get with Marc Bergevin. And then he’d listen to him explain himself and 10 minutes later he’d be “wow, that totally makes sense! We’re gonna be fine!”

it really makes me curious as to how overmatched our brain trust really is.

We seem to be dullards in a room full of bright students. 

[dudacek]

I’ve said it earlier, but I think the team will sink or swim with this defence corps and how close each player performs to the concept of what they could be.

In terms of tools, this group is upper-echelon - there aren’t many this big, and there aren’t many this mobile. The skill level is off the charts.

The questions are twofold: can they defend, and can the coaching staff unleash all that talent?

I foresee Timmins getting 15 minutes a night as Power’s base partner, mostly against lesser lines. If you listen to what Adams said he was looking for in a Power partner, it sounded a lot more like the safer Timmins than the more aggressive Kesselring.

Situational play and shortened benches will have Power up around 22 minutes.

Dahlin and Byram (24 and 22 minutes) will be the top ES pairing.

And Samuelsson and Kesselring will get 17 and 19 minutes respectively, often against bigger forwards.

As a group they are exceptionally inexperienced in terms of games played, but at the same time there aren’t any rookies here, or neophytes needing to be sheltered as they learn the league.

This is Dahlin’s 8th year as a pro, year 7 for Timmins, the 5th for Kesselring, Byram and Samuelsson, and #4 for Power. They’ve been around the block, experienced their share of adversity and are at the point in their careers where it’s time to ***** or get off the pot.

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I’ve said it earlier, but I think the team will sink or swim with this defence corps and how close each player performs to the concept of what they could be.

In terms of tools, this group is upper-echelon - there aren’t many this big, and there aren’t many this mobile. The skill level is off the charts.

The questions are twofold: can they defend, and can the coaching staff unleash all that talent?

I foresee Timmins getting 15 minutes a night as Power’s base partner, mostly against lesser lines. If you listen to what Adams said he was looking for in a Power partner, it sounded a lot more like the safer Timmins than the more aggressive Kesselring.

Situational play and shortened benches will have Power up around 22 minutes.

Dahlin and Byram (24 and 22 minutes) will be the top ES pairing.

And Samuelsson and Kesselring will get 17 and 19 minutes respectively, often against bigger forwards.

As a group they are exceptionally inexperienced in terms of games played, but at the same time there aren’t any rookies here, or neophytes needing to be sheltered as they learn the league.

This is Dahlin’s 8th year as a pro, year 7 for Timmins, the 5th for Kesselring, Byram and Samuelsson, and #4 for Power. They’ve been around the block, experienced their share of adversity and are at the point in their careers where it’s time to ***** or get off the pot.

By games this defense is not experienced. Stop trying to hide that behind seasons played. This might be the least experienced defense group in the league. 

[dudacek]

 

Just now, LGR4GM said:

By games this defense is not experienced. Stop trying to hide that behind seasons played. This might be the least experienced defense group in the league. 

That seems an oddly inflammatory response to a post that specifically said 

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

As a group they are exceptionally inexperienced in terms of games played

 

[dudacek]

I stand by my point: they are not grizzled veterans, but these are also not boys getting their first exposure to pro hockey. Physically and mentally, for the most part, they are men.

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

That seems an oddly inflammatory response to a post that specifically said 

 

 

Just now, dudacek said:

I stand by my point: they are not grizzled veterans, but these are also not boys getting their first exposure to pro hockey. Physically and mentally, for the most part, they are men.

I stand by my statement. This group is lacking and listing seasons played and then talking about the adversity they've faced as one of the least experienced groups in the league is hiding behind those seasons played. 

Not a single member of the group is over 25, calling them "men" as though they've reached that late 20s level is questionable. 

[dudacek]

 

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

I stand by my statement. This group is lacking and listing seasons played and then talking about the adversity they've faced as one of the least experienced groups in the league is hiding behind those seasons played. 

I think you missed my point: accusing me of hiding something I specifically pointed out myself is odd.

I have no problem with your opinion on games played. I agree it is a flaw in the composition of the defence corps.

That’s why pointed it out.

Edited 9 hours ago by dudacek

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I stand by my point: they are not grizzled veterans, but these are also not boys getting their first exposure to pro hockey. Physically and mentally, for the most part, they are men.

They are men.  But, except for Dahlin and Timmons they are still quite low on the "been around the block" scale which is really important for D-men.  They are adults but there is a wisdom that comes with experience and there is a reason that D don't reach their peaks for a couple of years beyond them reaching their physical peaks.

Expecting this D will still not be good enough.  Mainly because the coaching, which could help bridge that "wisdom gap," is at absolute best adequate on a good day.  Had they punted Wilford, would be much more intrigued by what this D can do.  But still expect them to stand around leaving guys free to screen UPLyvi or tap in passes to the back door that get through them.

Believe the D as constructed will could be good enough.  Don't believe the tactics they will employ will let their talent prove out.  Hoping that is too pessimistic, but haven't seen anything to believe it won't be.

Edited 9 hours ago by Taro T

[dudacek]

If I was coaching any member of this defence corps I would be entirely comfortable saying “you’re not a kid anymore, you should know better by now”

[mjd1001]

33 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I stand by my point: they are not grizzled veterans, but these are also not boys getting their first exposure to pro hockey. Physically and mentally, for the most part, they are men.

I agree.

Look at some of the key players on this team (the guys who are most important/get the most minutes)

-Tage: 8 NHL seasons (all but 1 of them playing more than half the games), going into his 9th.  450 career games played.

-Tuch: 9 NHL seasons (8 realistically not counting his brief appearance his first year), 536 games played. 66 additional playoff games, 4 playoff runs including deep to the cup finals.

-Dahlin: 7 Full NHL seasons so far. 509 games played. In his 7 seasons, only 7 players in the entire NHL have more total ice time than him. International tournaments.

-Zucker...14, maybe 15 year vet?  770 games played. 9 different (years) playoff appearances.

-McLeod. 5 years (4 full seasons) going into his 6th. Most importantly with him is 4 years in the playoffs including a full run to the cup finals.

-Byram has a cup run (and one he got a lot of top minutes in)

Power is still young, but even he has already over 240 games played in his career, should pass 300 this season, and is 39th out of about 250 Dmen over the last 3 years in total minutes played.

This isn't even considering other older 'veterans' who will play a lesser roll but have a lot of experience like Greenway, Danforth, Timmons, Malenstyn, even Lyons.

That is less than most teams sure, but its not 'nothing'.  There is more than enough there, in terms of age and experience, to generate a competent leadership core.

Edited 9 hours ago by mjd1001

[Archie Lee]

19 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I stand by my point: they are not grizzled veterans, but these are also not boys getting their first exposure to pro hockey. Physically and mentally, for the most part, they are men.

I agree with your point that these are not kids. It remains for me though, that they are collectively young and inexperienced. Individually, any of them could fit in and play their role on a playoff/contending team. What is unclear is if they are talented enough to overcome* their collective youth and inexperience.  
 

*They also will likely need to overcome that they will not be playing within a sound, easily repeatable, defensive structure. I acknowledge that Ruff knows more about coaching hockey than I could learn in a dozen lifetimes, and also that he has not been blessed with having the most talented teams to coach since he left Buffalo. But it is undeniable that his teams have been bad defensively on a pretty consistent basis. Our D will not be playing in a system that demands structure and accountability and that is repeatable night after night, like the systems of a Cassidy, DeBoer, Maurice, or Brind’Amour. 

[dudacek]

I am real curious about what Lindy’s plans are for this group of forwards, if it’s  indeed what they start the season with.

I don’t think there is much debate about Thompson and Tuch being our top 2 forwards and the guys who are going to top the ice time charts.

And Lindy seemed to make it clear down the stretch that he prefers Thompson on the wing, which is probably going to put these two on different lines.

It was made pretty clear when they acquired him that they intend to lean on Norris heavily in a top 6 role. Whether that’s with Tage as in his brief trial, remains to be seen. And for all the Kulich chatter, Lindy playing McLeod 19 minutes a night as he registered a point per game makes it pretty clear who his other top centre is.

It’s possible McLeod ends up centring a “3rd” (checking) line of some sort. But personally I think he and Tuch will be a hard-minute pairing on the “2nd” line deployed like the Drury line back in the day, while Tage and Norris are the first choice in offensive situations.

Regardless of lines, I think it’s pretty clear these are the four guys starting at the top of the depth chart in terms of ice time.

[LGR4GM]

The Sabres are the least experienced team in the league. The defense has 1 guy who has over 300 games played.