How would you line them up?

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

Benson isn't but that's a long argument so let's leave it as agree to disagree.

Thompson is bad defensively but you forgive that a little. Most teams have an offensive star or two who is bad defensively. Boston's a highly structured team but Pasternak can make huge defensive gaffs and that's forgiven with offensive production. Same can hold for a few guys here like Thompson, but the rest of the team has to pick up the slack. 

Now look at the rest of the better defensive players you listed. Tuch, Zucker, McLeod, all developed outside the Sabres system and methods. Their defensive game was imported, which argues to my point about too much internal development and not enough veterans brought in. Our internal defensive development is not good. 

Zach Benson is the best defensive player on the team. But you're right, he imported that himself. It's why I want Wilford gone and why they need to understand drafting better. 

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Benson isn't but that's a long argument so let's leave it as agree to disagree.

Thompson is bad defensively but you forgive that a little. Most teams have an offensive star or two who is bad defensively. Boston's a highly structured team but Pasternak can make huge defensive gaffs and that's forgiven with offensive production. Same can hold for a few guys here like Thompson, but the rest of the team has to pick up the slack. 

Now look at the rest of the better defensive players you listed. Tuch, Zucker, McLeod, all developed outside the Sabres system and methods. Their defensive game was imported, which argues to my point about too much internal development and not enough veterans brought in. Our internal defensive development is not good. 

Tage isn’t bad defensively tho. A superstar is great offence and merely ok D. I think people forget that sometimes 

Great offence and great D is prime Crosby 

[PerreaultForever]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Zach Benson is the best defensive player on the team. But you're right, he imported that himself. It's why I want Wilford gone and why they need to understand drafting better. 

Yes, that's part of why I said it's a complicated argument. Benson shouldn't be the best defensive forward. He is in part because they are so bad. He has been well coached and he does think the game through properly at a high speed. There is nothing about Benson's game I dislike. It still remains to be seen how effective he can end up being due to his size (as in a high end player or a mid level player) but despite his size I'd bet he's already stronger than Quinn (and some others) and he's still growing. We need to focus on his development though and not just go "oh he's fine, let him grow on his own". 

We both have issues with their coaching, no question. 

[PerreaultForever]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Tage isn’t bad defensively tho. A superstar is great offence and merely ok D. I think people forget that sometimes 

Great offence and great D is prime Crosby 

Tage could be better, but okay, let's not say "bad". Some of the others are worse. Team as a whole plays open ice hockey, doesn't win puck battles, and breaks down structurally often. 

Absolutely on Crosby. Bergeron and Kopitar were the perfect players for me. Excellent offensively but total shut down defensively. Currently, this is Barkov, who quietly leads Florida with a perfect 2 way game while Bennett and Tkachuk etc get all the press. 

[dudacek]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Benson isn't but that's a long argument so let's leave it as agree to disagree.

Thompson is bad defensively but you forgive that a little. Most teams have an offensive star or two who is bad defensively. Boston's a highly structured team but Pasternak can make huge defensive gaffs and that's forgiven with offensive production. Same can hold for a few guys here like Thompson, but the rest of the team has to pick up the slack. 

Now look at the rest of the better defensive players you listed. Tuch, Zucker, McLeod, all developed outside the Sabres system and methods. Their defensive game was imported, which argues to my point about too much internal development and not enough veterans brought in. Our internal defensive development is not good. 

Thompson ranks 4th among Sabres forwards in Corsi, 3rd in GF% and 2nd in xG%. He’s above 50% in all three measures.

He’s also almost certainly playing against good players.

[dudacek]

Money puck has an interesting section I hadn’t really checked out before: basically defence per hour:

The bad defenders:

Most shot attempts against per 60:

• Clifton 63.4
• Zucker 62.1
• Peterka 61.5
• Kulich 60.6
• Quinn 60.4

Most high danger shots against per 60:

• Peterka 3.41
• Lafferty 3.16
• Byram 3.06
• Clifton 3.04
• Samuelsson 2.94

Expected goals against per 60:

• Peterka 3.0
• Bryson 2.9
• Quinn 2.8
• Zucker 2.8
• Clifton 2.8

 

 

 

 

 

[dudacek]

The good defenders:

Least shot attempts against per 60:

• Benson 50.58
• Dahlin 52.61
• Malenstyn 55.5
• Krebs 55.68
• Greenway 56.32

Least high danger shots against per 60:

• Benson 1.84
• Greenway 2.23
• Dahlin 2.44
• Power 2.48
• McLeod 2.48

Fewest expected goals against per 60:

• Benson 2.2
• Dahlin 2.36
• Malenstyn 2.45
• Lafferty 2.55
• Tuch 2.58

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

Money puck has an interesting section I hadn’t really checked out before: basically defence per hour:

The bad defenders:

Most shot attempts against per 60:

• Clifton 63.4
• Zucker 62.1
• Peterka 61.5
• Kulich 60.6
• Quinn 60.4

Most high danger shots against per 60:

• Peterka 3.41
• Lafferty 3.16
• Byram 3.06
• Clifton 3.04
• Samuelsson 2.94

Expected goals against per 60:

• Peterka 3.0
• Bryson 2.9
• Quinn 2.8
• Zucker 2.8
• Clifton 2.8

 

 

 

 

 

How do they measure high danger shots against when there are 5 guys on the ice? Aren't all 5 responsible?

Also, I thought the stats said Zucker was one of our good defenders?

[JohnC]

18 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Zach Benson is the best defensive player on the team. But you're right, he imported that himself. It's why I want Wilford gone and why they need to understand drafting better. 

Is it Ruff who wants to keep this coach on or is it the organization mandating it? There were reports that there were overtures to some coaches who simply didn't want to come here. That's a commentary onto itself about how this franchise is perceived.

[dudacek]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

How do they measure high danger shots against when there are 5 guys on the ice? Aren't all 5 responsible?

Also, I thought the stats said Zucker was one of our good defenders?

1. yes it works like +\-, all 5 get get blame

2. Not according to 2 of these stats, he was fine in the 3rd.

[Taro T]

14 hours ago, dudacek said:

Money puck has an interesting section I hadn’t really checked out before: basically defence per hour:

The bad defenders:

Most shot attempts against per 60:

• Clifton 63.4
• Zucker 62.1
• Peterka 61.5
• Kulich 60.6
• Quinn 60.4

Most high danger shots against per 60:

• Peterka 3.41
• Lafferty 3.16
• Byram 3.06
• Clifton 3.04
• Samuelsson 2.94

Expected goals against per 60:

• Peterka 3.0
• Bryson 2.9
• Quinn 2.8
• Zucker 2.8
• Clifton 2.8

 

 

 

 

 

The 2 bad Zucker stats don't pass the eye test.  Kind of surprising.

[dudacek]

34 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The 2 bad Zucker stats don't pass the eye test.  Kind of surprising.

I tend to agree.

By my eye test last year:

Good defensively: Greenway, McLeod Tuch, Benson, Dahlin

Bad: Cozens, Quinn, Peterka, Lafferty, Power, Clifton, Samuelsson, Bryson

Fine: Krebs and Zucker

Adequate: Thompson, Kulich, Jokiharju, Malenstyn and Byram

By reputation Doan is good, Timmins Kesselring, Norris and Danforth are fine.

We shall see if that survives the Sabres, and if Power, Quinn and Samuelsson- who were all better under Granato - can bounce back.

Edited 9 hours ago by dudacek

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

1. yes it works like +\-, all 5 get get blame

2. Not according to 2 of these stats, he was fine in the 3rd.

So how does Malentstyn end up being one of the best defenders and Lafferty one of the worst, if it's a 5 member stat and they play on the same line? 

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

Is it Ruff who wants to keep this coach on or is it the organization mandating it? There were reports that there were overtures to some coaches who simply didn't want to come here. That's a commentary onto itself about how this franchise is perceived.

There was far too much continuity when Ruff was hired. The entire staff should have been booted. 

I don't know how they run their practices or who does what exactly but you kind of get the impression that Ruff was hired to oversee things, give inspirational talks and manage the bench but everything else basically stayed the same. Sort of like an appeasement to the fanbase and the impression of real change but not real change. 

Lines were the same at the beginning of the year, spots were held for players, everything was pretty much set as is. I am hoping this year Ruff takes charge and makes changes. I also hope it's a competitive camp, but it doesn't look like it will be. 

[Taro T]

11 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

So how does Malentstyn end up being one of the best defenders and Lafferty one of the worst, if it's a 5 member stat and they play on the same line? 

Probably by Malenstyn playing most games and Lafferty being healthy scratched usually.

[dudacek]

21 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

So how does Malentstyn end up being one of the best defenders and Lafferty one of the worst, if it's a 5 member stat and they play on the same line? 

Because players don’t play together nearly as much as depth charts indicate.

Malenstyn played away from Lafferty nearly as much as he did with him

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

There was far too much continuity when Ruff was hired. The entire staff should have been booted. 

I don't know how they run their practices or who does what exactly but you kind of get the impression that Ruff was hired to oversee things, give inspirational talks and manage the bench but everything else basically stayed the same. Sort of like an appeasement to the fanbase and the impression of real change but not real change. 

Lines were the same at the beginning of the year, spots were held for players, everything was pretty much set as is. I am hoping this year Ruff takes charge and makes changes. I also hope it's a competitive camp, but it doesn't look like it will be. 

Usually, when a new HC takes over there is a major cleaning house of coaches from the previous regime. The new coach usually brings in mostly a new staff. I'm just curious as to whether the coaches who worked under Granato were forced on him or whether he wanted to keep the staff in place. Just curious. 

Now that Ruff has one year under his belt, he should have a better grasp of the different personalities and have a better feel for what each player's strength and weaknesses are. I just didn't get the sense that this was a well coached team because the players seem to make the same mistakes. (That's my opinion based on watching the games without resorting to analytics.)

[oddoublee]

49 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Usually, when a new HC takes over there is a major cleaning house of coaches from the previous regime. The new coach usually brings in mostly a new staff. I'm just curious as to whether the coaches who worked under Granato were forced on him or whether he wanted to keep the staff in place. Just curious. 

Now that Ruff has one year under his belt, he should have a better grasp of the different personalities and have a better feel for what each player's strength and weaknesses are. I just didn't get the sense that this was a well coached team because the players seem to make the same mistakes. (That's my opinion based on watching the games without resorting to analytics.)

Ruff has been in the game too long to not want his own staff. He was hamstrung by ownership and Buffalo's current optics. It's a sh$t show

[JohnC]

29 minutes ago, oddoublee said:

Ruff has been in the game too long to not want his own staff. He was hamstrung by ownership and Buffalo's current optics. It's a sh$t show

Ruff has been in the NHL long enough to know what the standard practice is regarding staff when a new coach takes over. He agreed to the arrangement of retaining the former staff. After a year, he has kept the same staff in place. If it’s a shiiit show (your description) he’s agreed to again role in the manure pile.

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Probably by Malenstyn playing most games and Lafferty being healthy scratched usually.

I guess that's true. I've already wiped most of last season out of my memory. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

Usually, when a new HC takes over there is a major cleaning house of coaches from the previous regime. The new coach usually brings in mostly a new staff. I'm just curious as to whether the coaches who worked under Granato were forced on him or whether he wanted to keep the staff in place. Just curious. 

Now that Ruff has one year under his belt, he should have a better grasp of the different personalities and have a better feel for what each player's strength and weaknesses are. I just didn't get the sense that this was a well coached team because the players seem to make the same mistakes. (That's my opinion based on watching the games without resorting to analytics.)

There is one other possibility and that's that Ruff isn't as respected or connected any more as we think he is. Maybe he didn't have a bunch of possible assistants who wanted to work with him ready? In any event, all the assistants suck. 

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

There is one other possibility and that's that Ruff isn't as respected or connected any more as we think he is. Maybe he didn't have a bunch of possible assistants who wanted to work with him ready? In any event, all the assistants suck. 

The manner in which he was hired was a charade. It was a typical Terry Pegula third-rate approach to running a franchise. 

[Broken Ankles]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

Because players don’t play together nearly as much as depth charts indicate.

Malenstyn played away from Lafferty nearly as much as he did with him

382 with

296 without

https://www.naturalstattrick.com/linestats.php?fromseason=20242025&thruseason=20242025&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&rate=n&team=BUF&vteam=ALL&view=wowy&loc=B&gpfilt=none&fd=2024-10-04&td=2025-04-17&tgp=2000&strict=incl&p1=8479359&p2=8478043&p3=0&p4=0&p5=0

[dudacek]

I love fiddling with line combinations as much as any fan, but check out one of the sites that tracks this stuff.

It’s so all over the map though the course of a season I’m not sure it matters.

To me it’s about ice time and situational use.