GDT: Flames @ Sabres, 7:30pm Nov. 19, 2025, 🎙 📺 ESPN+/MSG

[Thorny]

2 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

The only insanity is we keep saying the same things, ever how untrue they are.  I don't excuse TP, he's clearly failed.  He's made multiple different types of hires, he's fired people quickly with term on their contracts, he's now kept a GM for too long.  Nothing has worked but his decisions aren't close to being repetitive.

A common denominator with all 3 of his GM hires is a low expectation to win in the now 

[PASabreFan]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It’s largely a commentary on the roster

i think people forget sometimes that this isn’t the nfl. In an 82 game season the bad teams win a lot of games, it’s that simple 

And the good teams lose a bunch. It’s why I am always poking fun at the extreme nature of the GDTs

Like the players recently said, it’s an 80% league. Of course no one gives full effort every shift, every night. That’s pie in the sky, it’s not human 

the functional difference is the teams with the talent and roster construction to win when they play at 80. That’s not us 

Hence the "the Sabres have the talent" to win, they just don't try hard enough all the time.

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Hence the "the Sabres have the talent" to win, they just don't try hard enough all the time.

It’s essentially the same logic point as injuries re: excuse making 

the idea isn’t to construct a team that doesn’t get injured it’s to build one that has the depth to win anyways 

if you need your roster going balls-to-the-wall to scrape Ws in November, you’ve already lost 

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[Thorny]

The playoffs are the theatre of Will. Everyone is talented, the difference is the men from the boys 

the regular season is a showcase of who’s talent shows up more on a random Wednesday in the dog days of the marathon, cold, regular season 

The regular season is about your lowest common denominator output, that you can’t help but serve up because you are inherently skilled and apt 

[LTS]

I'm so glad i turned this game off when they disallowed the first goal.

By virtue of the Sabres I am now just getting tired of the NHL as a whole. I'm tired of goalie "interference". It's worst than what constitutes a completed catch in football.

Oh well.. more of the same.  Time to check out.

[PASabreFan]

7 minutes ago, LTS said:

I'm so glad i turned this game off when they disallowed the first goal.

By virtue of the Sabres I am now just getting tired of the NHL as a whole. I'm tired of goalie "interference". It's worst than what constitutes a completed catch in football.

Oh well.. more of the same.  Time to check out.

I tried to read the goalie interference rule last night.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Terry has yet to hire a legitimate hockey GM to run hockey operations.   Most of us here knew Adams was not only unqualified, but was his puppet.  Look at his past hires, almost all are out of the league for good.  

Losing the 3rd period 4-0 at home, to the worst team in the league, on a back to back, right after playing their best game of the season - it was predictable and it just happened one week earlier against St Louis.  

The players just do not want it enough, the coaches are being ignored, it’s past the time to flush the coaching staff.   

I’m not sure if the owner even cares. His actions or rather his inactions indicate an apathetic owner. It’s futile to argue where this silent owner’s head is actually at. The indisputable fact is that he presides over a flawed and failed franchise. And this shiiiit has been going on for a generation. 

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, LTS said:

I'm so glad i turned this game off when they disallowed the first goal.

By virtue of the Sabres I am now just getting tired of the NHL as a whole. I'm tired of goalie "interference". It's worst than what constitutes a completed catch in football.

Oh well.. more of the same.  Time to check out.

Yeah, that one was very frustrating.  It was ruled a good goal on the ice, and most of the details lead towards that goal typically being upheld.

Thompson was outside the crease when he was impacted by the D-man which seemed to be the impetus for him entering the crease.  - that usually leads to a goal being considered good.

Thompson appeared to make an effort to not contact the goalie after he entered the crease. - seems to not really impact one way or another the decision in TO.

The contact was mimimal and the goalie didn't seem to get moved off where he was - that usually leads to a goal being considered to be good.

The goalie had time to get squared to the shot before the shot was taken - that usually leads to a goal being considered to be good.

Thompson was outside the crease when the shot came - that usually leads to a goal being considered good.

 

And the Calgary coach was so unsure about whether to ask for the review or not, he burned his timeout trying to decide if it was worth it or not.

 

IMHO, the biggest piece of it was whether the D-man was influential to Thompson entering the crease or not AND whether the goalie still had time to be square to the shot by the time it happened.  Those are what the overseers in that room in TO tend to lend the most weight to.  And both were on the "good goal" side of the ledger.

[7+6=13]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

A common denominator with all 3 of his GM hires is a low expectation to win in the now 

Agree that's the situation not winning has put the new hure in.  Rebuild or whatever gross term we'd want to use.  

[kas23]

This is goalie interference. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Yeah, that one was very frustrating.  It was ruled a good goal on the ice, and most of the details lead towards that goal typically being upheld.

Thompson was outside the crease when he was impacted by the D-man which seemed to be the impetus for him entering the crease.  - that usually leads to a goal being considered good.

Thompson appeared to make an effort to not contact the goalie after he entered the crease. - seems to not really impact one way or another the decision in TO.

The contact was mimimal and the goalie didn't seem to get moved off where he was - that usually leads to a goal being considered to be good.

The goalie had time to get squared to the shot before the shot was taken - that usually leads to a goal being considered to be good.

Thompson was outside the crease when the shot came - that usually leads to a goal being considered good.

 

And the Calgary coach was so unsure about whether to ask for the review or not, he burned his timeout trying to decide if it was worth it or not.

 

IMHO, the biggest piece of it was whether the D-man was influential to Thompson entering the crease or not AND whether the goalie still had time to be square to the shot by the time it happened.  Those are what the overseers in that room in TO tend to lend the most weight to.  And both were on the "good goal" side of the ledger.

After seeing the replay, I was confident that the goal would stand. It didn't. Whether it was a good call or not isn't the troubling issue for me. This is a mentally fragile team, and the self-policing player leadership is missing. To my unschooled eyes, there was little intensity and sense of urgency throughout the game. We have a number of young players who are being given an opportunity to play due to injuries. One would think that they would have seized on that opportunity. They didn't. I have been a supporter of Quinn. In this game he was invisible. Tuch is in his contract year, and whether it is with the Sabres or for another team you would have thought that he would want to showcase his talent and worth. He seemed disinterested. Tage has recently played with some anger and pep. This was a good opportunity for him to show the coach that he should be our #1 center. Compared to the previous number of periods, he seemed to have coasted along acting as if this was a preseason game where one played knowing that your role was locked in. 

This lackadaisical attitude permeates the roster. Sure there are interludes when the team shows that it is capable of keeping up with the upper-tier teams. But the unappealing truth is that this team resides at the bottom of the heap because it deserves to be there. There is little organizational accountability because our owner has created a system where it is not upheld. When your owner is an invisible presence, it shouldn't be a surprise that the franchise turns out to be an inconsequential and irrelevant NHL franchise.  

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I’m not sure if the owner even cares. His actions or rather his inactions indicate an apathetic owner. It’s futile to argue where this silent owner’s head is actually at. The indisputable fact is that he presides over a flawed and failed franchise. And this shiiiit has been going on for a generation. 

I agree that it's difficult to know what Pegula thinks.  Anyone with an opinion on that, attempts to connect decisions to translation of thoughts.  Most fair minded fans understand that and also that there's reasonable potential conclusions that can be possible.

My guess is he cares.  It would make sense that he'd rather win and make more money as a result.  I do wonder if some math can be applied to not spending like he used to?  For example, if he spent to the cap or put more resources into the offices - would say an average of 75% full arena pay for that?  I'd find that interesting and what could be gleamed from info like that.

 

17 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

Agree that's the situation not winning has put the new hire in.  Rebuild or whatever gross term we'd want to use.  

^ pardon me, meant hire

 

[kas23]

10 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I agree that it's difficult to know what Pegula thinks.  Anyone with an opinion on that, attempts to connect decisions to translation of thoughts.  Most fair minded fans understand that and also that there's reasonable potential conclusions that can be possible.

My guess is he cares.  It would make sense that he'd rather win and make more money as a result.  I do wonder if some math can be applied to not spending like he used to?  For example, if he spent to the cap or put more resources into the offices - would say an average of 75% full arena pay for that?  I'd find that interesting and what could be gleamed from info like that.

 

 

I imagine Guelli has this information. Would love to know his opinion. Or maybe he ignores it and focuses on the Bills. 

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I agree that it's difficult to know what Pegula thinks.  Anyone with an opinion on that, attempts to connect decisions to translation of thoughts.  Most fair minded fans understand that and also that there's reasonable potential conclusions that can be possible.

My guess is he cares.  It would make sense that he'd rather win and make more money as a result.  I do wonder if some math can be applied to not spending like he used to?  For example, if he spent to the cap or put more resources into the offices - would say an average of 75% full arena pay for that?  I'd find that interesting and what could be gleamed from info like that.

 

 

The owner can spend as much or as little as he wants. The owner can hire whoever he wants. He can have a hands off or hands on approach to ownership. He can care or not. Those issues are all his prerogatives. In business, profitability is the measure of success or failure. In the sports endeavor, it is easy to measure success or failure. Your record is the basis for making a judgment. It shouldn't be a surprise that when you hire incompetents and then don't hold them accountable, the end result is predictable. When you continue to fail and then continue doing what you are doing, you don't have to be a clairvoyant to guess what the outcome will be. Isn't a generation of this foolishness originating from the owner's box enough? Excuses no longer resonate with me. 

[#freejame]

47 minutes ago, kas23 said:

This is goalie interference. 

This isn’t goalie interference either. It was just against the rules at the time. 

[7+6=13]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The owner can spend as much or as little as he wants. The owner can hire whoever he wants. He can have a hands off or hands on approach to ownership. He can care or not. Those issues are all his prerogatives. In business, profitability is the measure of success or failure. In the sports endeavor, it is easy to measure success or failure. Your record is the basis for making a judgment. It shouldn't be a surprise that when you hire incompetents and then don't hold them accountable, the end result is predictable. When you continue to fail and then continue doing what you are doing, you don't have to be a clairvoyant to guess what the outcome will be. Isn't a generation of this foolishness originating from the owner's box enough? Excuses no longer resonate with me. 

I honestly have no idea why you wrote this in response to my post unless you're just trying to read your own posts as a get off.  Enough for what?  I made no excuses and didn't insinuate any.

[#freejame]

Football figured it out. Points equal fun. Baseball figured it out. Runs equal fun.
Hockey needs to get on the bandwagon when it comes to these silly overturned goals.

 

 

 

 

*Basketball thought it figured it out with points equaling fun but this may or may not be the case. 

[Taro T]

23 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Football figured it out. Points equal fun. Baseball figured it out. Runs equal fun.
Hockey needs to get on the bandwagon when it comes to these silly overturned goals.

 

 

 

 

*Basketball thought it figured it out with points equaling fun but this may or may not be the case. 

Eh, with Bounceyball, the question isn't points equalling fun, it's WHAT points equal fun.  Is it the ones going up when a team puts the bouncey ball through the big metal ring multiple times a game or the ones the players/refs decided to make sure they shave off the line to assist their friendly neighborhood gambling syndicate make large amounts of money?  😉 

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, 7+6=13 said:

I agree that it's difficult to know what Pegula thinks.