Sabre trend no one is talking about

[SwampD]

36 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Hmm i strenuously disagree 

 

[Archie Lee]

On 8/16/2025 at 10:01 AM, dudacek said:

Not sure there is a bigger collection of defencemen in the league right now than what the Sabres have, both on the ice and in the pipeline.
 

• Power 6’6”
• Kesselring 6’5”
• Samuelsson 6’4”
• Timmins 6’3”
• Dahlin 6’3”
• Byram 6’1”
•  
• Mrtka 6’6”
• Kleber 6’6”
• Bedkowski 6’5”
• Novikov 6’4”
• Komarov 6’4”
• McCarthy 6’3”
• Strbak 6’2”

 

Is this intentional? Does it matter?

I think it is clearly intentional. I think it does matter, but it can be hard to follow the logic. Adams seems to become focused on a certain area or trait related to asset acquisition, rather than focus on acquiring a collection of traits that will equate to a successful team.  

He started with acquiring picks, then the focus was on skilled forwards, an insistence on building out the pipeline, then it became tall defensemen, then upgrading the 4th line, then being tougher to play  against, and now tall AND right-handed defensemen. 

Perhaps this is the year where he has finally put together the needed combination of skill, toughness, and experience that equates to a playoff level team. It seems there are more conventional ways to do this. 

[TheAud]

So in a league-wide basketball tournament made up of each team's defenseman, we just need a point guard? Or is that why Kevyn keeps Bryson around? It would explain it, at least.

[Broken Ankles]

4 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I think it is clearly intentional. I think it does matter, but it can be hard to follow the logic. Adams seems to become focused on a certain area or trait related to asset acquisition, rather than focus on acquiring a collection of traits that will equate to a successful team.  

He started with acquiring picks, then the focus was on skilled forwards, an insistence on building out the pipeline, then it became tall defensemen, then upgrading the 4th line, then being tougher to play  against, and now tall AND right-handed defensemen. 

Perhaps this is the year where he has finally put together the needed combination of skill, toughness, and experience that equates to a playoff level team. It seems there are more conventional ways to do this. 

  Interesting hypothesis.  Where does goaltending acquisition fit?  Really it’s just Levi, right?   And if he thought that was sufficient then he must have had supreme confidence is in tenure as a GM, because that was over 4 years ago.  And, there was no path to Devon being a 60 game starter by now.  Did he lose focus too quickly? 

[Archie Lee]

13 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

  Interesting hypothesis.  Where does goaltending acquisition fit?  Really it’s just Levi, right?   And if he thought that was sufficient then he must have had supreme confidence is in tenure as a GM, because that was over 4 years ago.  And, there was no path to Devon being a 60 game starter by now.  Did he lose focus too quickly? 

I’m not sure about “60 game starter”, but I think it is abundantly clear that Adams was certain Levi would be his starting goalie by now. When asked prior to 23-24 about whether Levi needed AHL time he was rather dismissive and referred to Levi as “special”. They then gave Levi four straight, mostly ineffective, starts to begin that season; there is no question in my mind that he believed Levi was his starting goalie two years ago. 

I think this ties in to my point. Adams hasn’t been able to address multiple loose ends at one time. He, largely, focuses on one element and seems caught off guard when another issue inevitably rises.

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

I think this ties in to my point. Adams hasn’t been able to address multiple loose ends at one time. He, largely, focuses on one element and seems caught off guard when another issue inevitably rises.

Historically, he does bug/defect triage and works only the priority fix, rather than manage the entire deployment, which is his role. His product is under budget. But he’s never reached a milestone and hasn’t deployed a product (to playoffs/market). At some point you’d think the investors would wonder where all their dollars have gone to.

[PerreaultForever]

10 hours ago, tom webster said:

Like I have said previously, I don’t post other people’s work but if you look up an article by Jonathan Willis, the numbers don’t back up your assertions, especially amongst playoff teams. The median height has remained constant and the mean weight has gone down. Florida was the third lightest team in the playoffs last year, ahead of only Tampa and Colorado. 

Proving only that these stats mean nothing. 

Third "lightest"?  Florida was obviously brought down by E-Rod being there 🙂

Owen Power's 97 kg. Sam Bennett's 91 kg. Who you got in that battle?

Strength, fortitude, compete, and general nastiness do not show up in the stats. They do however, mean everything on the ice. 

[Night Train]

Awesome. They could win the charity basketball tourney. 

[tom webster]

50 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Proving only that these stats mean nothing. 

Third "lightest"?  Florida was obviously brought down by E-Rod being there 🙂

Owen Power's 97 kg. Sam Bennett's 91 kg. Who you got in that battle?

Strength, fortitude, compete, and general nastiness do not show up in the stats. They do however, mean everything on the ice. 

That’s a while different argument. And Willis points out that the numbers are actually inflated by lesser used players so EROD only balances it out.

Florida only proves that it’s not all about size. Like LGRM says, teams are drafting bigger defenseman but it still hasn’t manifested itself with the leagues elite.

[Pimlach]

On 8/16/2025 at 11:01 AM, dudacek said:

Not sure there is a bigger collection of defencemen in the league right now than what the Sabres have, both on the ice and in the pipeline.
 

• Power 6’6”
• Kesselring 6’5”
• Samuelsson 6’4”
• Timmins 6’3”
• Dahlin 6’3”
• Byram 6’1”
•  
• Mrtka 6’6”
• Kleber 6’6”
• Bedkowski 6’5”
• Novikov 6’4”
• Komarov 6’4”
• McCarthy 6’3”
• Strbak 6’2”

 

Is this intentional? Does it matter?

I like big.   I like big, skilled, and tough even better.   Hoping to see more physical presence and toughness to go with the height.  

Edited 2 hours ago by Pimlach

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, tom webster said:

That’s a while different argument. And Willis points out that the numbers are actually inflated by lesser used players so EROD only balances it out.

Florida only proves that it’s not all about size. Like LGRM says, teams are drafting bigger defenseman but it still hasn’t manifested itself with the leagues elite.

It's not hard to understand. With the way the league has gone you want D men with long reach. That doesn't mean you can't build a good team with shorter guys (and shorter guys often have other skills) but that longer reach is useful and advantageous around the net. 

Florida proves it's about strength, not size, as I said. Speed and strength that's what you want. That's how you win. 

[tom webster]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

It's not hard to understand. With the way the league has gone you want D men with long reach. That doesn't mean you can't build a good team with shorter guys (and shorter guys often have other skills) but that longer reach is useful and advantageous around the net. 

Florida proves it's about strength, not size, as I said. Speed and strength that's what you want. That's how you win. 

Again, I’m not disputing any of this. My only contention is that whatever trends are happening in the draft process, it not yet impacted the league’s mean height and weight for skaters. Maybe that changes in the coming years.

[JP51]

On 8/16/2025 at 12:01 PM, dudacek said:

Not sure there is a bigger collection of defencemen in the league right now than what the Sabres have, both on the ice and in the pipeline.
 

• Power 6’6”
• Kesselring 6’5”
• Samuelsson 6’4”
• Timmins 6’3”
• Dahlin 6’3”
• Byram 6’1”
•  
• Mrtka 6’6”
• Kleber 6’6”
• Bedkowski 6’5”
• Novikov 6’4”
• Komarov 6’4”
• McCarthy 6’3”
• Strbak 6’2”

 

Is this intentional? Does it matter?

I am going way back... Stan Johnathan, Danny Gare, Wendall Clark, even Marchant, Brad May, Barnaby, Ray, etc... not sure any of these guys were over 6 feet, but they brought the nasty... So I love the size, but will they use it...  or do we have Mike Wilson, Tyler Myers, Richard Smell Ick, Ken Sutton, etc ... I am not seeing anyone on that list that has anywhere near the nasty of a Samulesson (Ulfy) , Pronger, Chara, Stevens, Robinson, Kasparitis, Hatcher, Zadorov, etc... (just randomly naming nasty players, not even fighting, just nasty)  Kesslring I honestly have not seen him play... maybe he is one... but if we are going to get that level of physicality to me a bunch of those guys need to change their spots... 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, JP51 said:

I am going way back... Stan Johnathan, Danny Gare, Wendall Clark, even Marchant, Brad May, Barnaby, Ray, etc... not sure any of these guys were over 6 feet, but they brought the nasty... So I love the size, but will they use it...  or do we have Mike Wilson, Tyler Myers, Richard Smell Ick, Ken Sutton, etc ... I am not seeing anyone on that list that has anywhere near the nasty of a Samulesson (Ulfy) , Pronger, Chara, Stevens, Robinson, Kasparitis, Hatcher, Zadorov, etc... (just randomly naming nasty players, not even fighting, just nasty)  Kesslring I honestly have not seen him play... maybe he is one... but if we are going to get that level of physicality to me a bunch of those guys need to change their spots... 

Players have different skill sets and style of play. Power and Samuelsson are not thumpers and rugged players. That's not their game and never has been.  I would also say the same thing about Byram from a stylistic standpoint. The choice is you either get different players or adapt your defensive approach to their assets and not their liabilities. 

I, like you, am not familiar with Kesserling's play. What I do know is that when he filled in as a second-pairing defenseman as an injury replacement, he played well. If he ends up as the partner for Power, then Samuelsson most likely will move down to the third-pair. The makeup of the unit could end up being Byrum/Dahlin, Power/Kesserling and Samuelsson/Timmons. I consider that a respectable unit. 

[JP51]

30 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Players have different skill sets and style of play. Power and Samuelsson are not thumpers and rugged players. That's not their game and never has been.  I would also say the same thing about Byram from a stylistic standpoint. The choice is you either get different players or adapt your defensive approach to their assets and not their liabilities. 

I, like you, am not familiar with Kesserling's play. What I do know is that when he filled in as a second-pairing defenseman as an injury replacement, he played well. If he ends up as the partner for Power, then Samuelsson most likely will move down to the third-pair. The makeup of the unit could end up being Byrum/Dahlin, Power/Kesserling and Samuelsson/Timmons. I consider that a respectable unit. 

Yes thats fine but I was responding to the question of does the size of this unit matter... and in my opinion, the size is nice but if you are looking for this unit to be physical they are going to need to change their modus operandi... aka spots... and we all know how often a leopard changes those...  lastly that size in itself doesnt mean you are that type of temprament.. citing smaller players that were hellions to play against...  so I dont disagree with what you are saying, but I was responding to the does size matter question... so while it may or may not be a respectable unit, I am not anticipating hard nosed physical play out of this unit..  they will just be able to see over a lot of players looking up ice LOL... 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, JP51 said:

Yes thats fine but I was responding to the question of does the size of this unit matter... and in my opinion, the size is nice but if you are looking for this unit to be physical they are going to need to change their modus operandi... aka spots... and we all know how often a leopard changes those...  lastly that size in itself doesnt mean you are that type of temprament.. citing smaller players that were hellions to play against...  so I dont disagree with what you are saying, but I was responding to the does size matter question... so while it may or may not be a respectable unit, I am not anticipating hard nosed physical play out of this unit..  they will just be able to see over a lot of players looking up ice LOL... 

My point is simply that when you draft or acquire a more finesse oriented player, then that is what you get. We're not disagreeing here. 

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, JP51 said:

Yes thats fine but I was responding to the question of does the size of this unit matter... and in my opinion, the size is nice but if you are looking for this unit to be physical they are going to need to change their modus operandi... aka spots... and we all know how often a leopard changes those...  lastly that size in itself doesnt mean you are that type of temprament.. citing smaller players that were hellions to play against...  so I dont disagree with what you are saying, but I was responding to the does size matter question... so while it may or may not be a respectable unit, I am not anticipating hard nosed physical play out of this unit..  they will just be able to see over a lot of players looking up ice LOL... 

Not arguing that snarl doesn't matter: it does. But doesn't size have other benefits that have nothing to do with snarl?

Strength is strength that usually comes along with size, and that can be an advantage, regardless of snarl.

But more importantly, length is length: bigger guys make bigger obstacles in terms of getting sticks on pucks and diverting attackers wide.

[JP51]

39 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Not arguing that snarl doesn't matter: it does. But doesn't size have other benefits that have nothing to do with snarl?

Strength is strength that usually comes along with size, and that can be an advantage, regardless of snarl.

But more importantly, length is length: bigger guys make bigger obstacles in terms of getting sticks on pucks and diverting attackers wide.

this is fair... longer poke check reach, harder to move... Tage's span is an asset for sure... fair very fair point, I was looking more at physicality..  I got you. 

[JP51]

54 minutes ago, JohnC said:

My point is simply that when you draft or acquire a more finesse oriented player, then that is what you get. We're not disagreeing here. 

we are not at all... in fact, pretty much we are in total agreement...  @dudacek also made a good point... does the fact they have size not necessarily physicality, matter... longer reach, more difficult to move, etc...  I was focusing on physicality