Next Season’s Big Challenge

[TageMVP]

6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

This is my last post to you, because I can't stand repeating the same point over and over again.

In 3 of our 4 losses to Montreal we would have NEEDED 6 or 7 GOALS TO WIN.  If you want to win those games,  you have two options, score more goals than the opponent or prevent more goals. It seems like your solution is just to lose because you think the defense is elite already and it's not necessary to score more than the opponent.

It's like trying to debate a brick wall. 

 

Thats because K-9 is poor at debate. He picks one thing a person says out of a potential 50 points made by that person in a post, then keeps saying the same thing over and over against that point. Or makes up what he thinks your point means and invents a narrative 

Strawman arguing 

[Nacho Libre]

1 hour ago, TageMVP said:

Thats because K-9 is poor at debate. He picks one thing a person says out of a potential 50 points made by that person in a post, then keeps saying the same thing over and over against that point. Or makes up what he thinks your point means and invents a narrative 

Strawman arguing 

How long were you reading the board before joining did you say?

[K-9]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

This is my last post to you, because I can't stand repeating the same point over and over again.

In 3 of our 4 losses to Montreal we would have NEEDED 6 or 7 GOALS TO WIN.  If you want to win those games,  you have two options, score more goals than the opponent or prevent more goals. It seems like your solution is just to lose because you think the defense is elite already and it's not necessary to score more than the opponent.

It's like trying to debate a brick wall. 

 

But we DIDN’T NEED 6 OR 7 GOALS TO WIN EVERY GAME as you have asserted we might need because our defense isn’t good enough. AGAIN you conveniently ignore the games we won WITHOUT the need go score 6 or 7 so you can cherry pick the numbers to better shoe-horn your absurd argument that our defense isn’t good enough. 

Brick wall indeed. 

[mjd1001]

On 5/23/2026 at 6:51 PM, Pimlach said:

It will be  big challenge to get 109 points again.  

With Florida coming back into the fold the just getting a top 3 spot in the division will be hard to do, they will have to be healthy and stay committed over the long 84 game grind.  

-  Goaltending and overall team defense (GAA) should be tageted to improve upon.  

-  Power Play must improve. 

-  Due to salary cap constraints they may be relying on more youth next , that could be a factor.  

109 points next year is a TALL order for this team.  

-Goaltending will need to repeat (or be better) than this year, where they were 3rd overall in the league in save percentage. (I don't see it)

-Youth as you say. The young guys have to step in AND improve.  The forward group has to actually be BETTER than they were this year.  You aren't getting (much) improvement from Tage, or re-signing Tuch, or Zucker, or McLeod. They are who they are.  The young guys have to make this team better if you want to approach 109 points again.

 

[TageMVP]

50 minutes ago, Nacho Libre said:

How long were you reading the board before joining did you say?

Lol 

I like the attempt at a ruse here 

Im speculating based on arguments ive had with K-9 the last few months. Hes not a strong debator. Usually goes for the ad-hominem or deliberately misunderstanding something style instead of debating the point. 

Eg. 

"You know nothing about hockey" 

"Oh you like UPL, so that means you think he's the best goalie in the league?" 

Thats his style 

[Nacho Libre]

54 minutes ago, TageMVP said:

Lol 

I like the attempt at a ruse here 

Im speculating based on arguments ive had with K-9 the last few months. Hes not a strong debator. Usually goes for the ad-hominem or deliberately misunderstanding something style instead of debating the point. 

Eg. 

"You know nothing about hockey" 

"Oh you like UPL, so that means you think he's the best goalie in the league?" 

Thats his style 

Ya I mean I was actually asking 

[TageMVP]

5 minutes ago, Nacho Libre said:

Ya I mean I was actually asking 

I looked up forums when the Sabres had that potential playoffs season in 22-23. It was the first time I felt good about being a Sabres fan in a very long time lol 

I couldn't think of a name or didn't care that much thats why I picked TageMVP because he had 38 goals the previous year out of complete nowhere then got even better the next year (47 goals) hence why I picked the name during that year 

[Pimlach]

On 5/23/2026 at 3:48 PM, BullBuchanan said:

Cool, so what I'm suggesting is to be better by using our strength on defense to shore up our weakness on defense. If we can do that without "gutting the defense", what's not to like?

What you continually miss in your argument is you think that "better defense" is all about the defenseman when the forwards and the goaltender have a big part in the team defense as well. 

The Sabres became good this year because they finally committed to team defense and made it a priority.   Once that light turned on they started winning close games and closing out one goal games.  

 

 

[TageMVP]

7 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

What you continually miss in your argument is you think that "better defense" is all about the defenseman when the forwards and the goaltender have a big part in the team defense as well. 

The Sabres became good this year because they finally committed to team defense and made it a priority.   Once that light turned on they started winning close games and closing out one goal games.  

 

 

Team defense was awful against Montreal for the most part and yes, it was due to the defenseman. They stopped getting huge stops all the time from the goalies which happened more in the regular season. I dont blame the goalies for the Montreal loss.

Were they worse, yes, but actual defending from the defense was terrible. All series. 

Sabres heavily outplayed the Canadiens the last two games and should have won game 7. Those two games had nothing to with playing better defensively, because it didn't happen. I lost count how many times a defenseman lost track of a Montreal forward alone in the slot. ALL SERIES.  Doesnt matter if you only have 10 shots on net when 5 go in due to prime scoring chances. 

Sabres got goalied. Dobes was insane outside of one game. 

If you're having trouble scoring, you'd better defend. The Sabres failed defensively 

[Pimlach]

26 minutes ago, TageMVP said:

Team defense was awful against Montreal for the most part and yes, it was due to the defenseman. They stopped getting huge stops all the time from the goalies which happened more in the regular season. I dont blame the goalies for the Montreal loss.

Were they worse, yes, but actual defending from the defense was terrible. All series. 

Sabres heavily outplayed the Canadiens the last two games and should have won game 7. Those two games had nothing to with playing better defensively, because it didn't happen. I lost count how many times a defenseman lost track of a Montreal forward alone in the slot. ALL SERIES.  Doesnt matter if you only have 10 shots on net when 5 go in due to prime scoring chances. 

Sabres got goalied. Dobes was insane outside of one game. 

If you're having trouble scoring, you'd better defend. The Sabres failed defensively 

Agree that Team Defense was bad against Montreal in 3 games, all losses.  Disagree that it was all on the defenders. It was not.  

The goaltending was bad in all 3 of those games.  The forwards were not helping out enough and Lindy talked about the lack of defensive structure in those games at length.  

For example:  Tage, a forward, gave up 2 goals by turnovers in one game in which he finished -4.   

Not only were the defensemen not a problem, but they scored 10 goals and actually kept us in the series.  

Every single analyst pointed out the play of the Sabres top 4 defenders.  Not perfect play, but overall very good by those 4 guys.  The strength of the team.  

It was not all on the defenders.  That is a lazy take.   It was a team loss.   And yes, Dobes was the difference in the series.  

Edited May 26 by Pimlach

[K-9]

1 hour ago, TageMVP said:

Lol 

I like the attempt at a ruse here 

Im speculating based on arguments ive had with K-9 the last few months. Hes not a strong debator. Usually goes for the ad-hominem or deliberately misunderstanding something style instead of debating the point. 

Eg. 

"You know nothing about hockey" 

"Oh you like UPL, so that means you think he's the best goalie in the league?" 

Thats his style 

I don’t waste my time arguing with organ grinder monkey punks like you because you are completely bereft of intellectual honesty. So again, yet another one of your posts is complete and utter bull$hit. 

[...]

24 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Agree that Team Defense was bad against Montreal in 3 games, all losses.  Disagree that it was all on the defenders. It was not.  

The goaltending was bad in all 3 of those games.  The forwards were not helping out enough and Lindy talked about the lack of defensive structure in those games at length.  

@TageMVP did not type that it was "all on the defenders". @TageMVP typed "actual defending from the defense was terrible. All series."

It's great the defense got a lot of looks, but they are called "defense" for a reason. When the D activates, they're stepping away from their primary function to play "offense". Since 3 of the top 4 are "offensive defense men", they pushed too hard on the offense part.

Of course, the Sabres rely on activated D, but I would guess that because the D were routinely dropping the primary function to push for offense, and the offense was pushing to try and provide more offense, then entire defensive structure broke down.

Hence, the D really needed to chill out more and let the offense do their thing when the games were tight.  Again, though, with the Sabres system all of that is a delicate balance. The lack of experience in these high-stakes scenarios ultimately was the killer. And, looking at it this way, Bo Byram, out of all of them, should have known better.

The Habs, especially, executed a smart, mature offense where they took advantage of the Sabres tendency to chase squirrels down low. A man would come late and hover on the opposite side below the dot and wait for the puck. Habs offense was always targeting that man. The Sabres should have picked up on that.

Edited May 26 by ...
cleanup in aisle ...

[Pimlach]

Just now, ... said:

@TageMVP did not type that it was "all on the defenders". @TageMVP typed "actual defending from the defense was terrible. All series."

It's great the defense got a lot of looks, but they are called "defense" for a reason. When the D activates, they're stepping away from their primary function to play "offense". Since 3 of the top 4 are "offensive defense men", they pushed too hard on the offense part.

Of course, the Sabres rely on activated D, but I would guess that because the D were routinely dropping the primary function to push for offense, and the offense was pushing to try and provide more offense, then entire defensive structure broke down.

Hence, the D really needed to chill out more and let the offense do their thing when the games were tight.  Again, though, with the Sabres system all of that is a delicate balance. The lack of experience in these high-stakes scenarios ultimately was the killer. And, looking at it this way, Bo Byram, out of all of them, should have known better.

The Habs, especially, executed a smart, mature offense where they took advantage of the Sabres tendency to chase squirrels down low. A man would come late an hover on opposite side below the dot and wait for the puck. Habs offense was always targeting that man. The Sabres should have picked up on that.

First he said "for the most part" on the defenders.    Then he went on to say the defenders were "terrible.  All series". 

You really gonna split hairs?    WTF (smh).  

Now, if you believe that the defense jumps into the offense zone too much, and it sounds like you might,  that is a whole different conversation.  

[...]

11 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

First he said "for the most part" on the defenders.    Then he went on to say the defenders were "terrible.  All series". 

You really gonna split hairs?    WTF (smh).  

Now, if you believe that the defense jumps into the offense zone too much, and it sounds like you might,  that is a whole different conversation.  

These statements are consistent with each other:

"Team defense was awful against Montreal for the most part and yes, it was due to the defenseman. "

"actual defending from the defense was terrible. All series."

Those statements acknowledge that team defense was "awful" and argues that the reason for "awful" team defense was due to the defenders.

That's different from saying it's "all on the defenders" and pivoting off of that to argue that "the defensemen [were] not a problem".

It's not splitting hairs, it's being accurate. We'd like an accurate foundation for a conversation, no? If it's going to be productive?

---

Now, I don't think the D jumps up too much, generally. I think in certain particular instances of these playoff games they may have pressed too hard while the offense was pressing too hard. Somewhere between the O that needs to cover for the jumping D the overall defensive rig broke down. That's O zone stuff.

In the D zone, I don't know who was supposed to be watching the low area of the dot opposite where the play was happening, but all of the Sabres focused on puck retrievals or something left that guy open too much.

 

 

Edited May 26 by ...
ugh.

[Pimlach]

11 minutes ago, ... said:

These statements are consistent with each other:

"Team defense was awful against Montreal for the most part and yes, it was due to the defenseman. "

"actual defending from the defense was terrible. All series."

Those statements acknowledge that team defense was "awful" and argues that the reason for "awful" team defense was due to the defenders.

That's different from saying it's "all on the defenders" and pivoting off of that to argue that "the defensemen [were] not a problem".

It's not splitting hairs, it's being accurate. We'd like an accurate foundation for a conversation, no? If it's going to be productive?

---

Now, I don't think the D jumps up too much, generally. I think in certain particular instances of these playoff games they may have pressed too hard while the offense was pressing too hard. Somewhere between the O that needs to cover for the jumping D the overall defensive rig broke down. That's O zone stuff.

In the D zone, I don't know who was supposed to be watching the low area of the dot opposite where the play was happening, but all of the Sabres focused on puck retrievals or something left that guy open too much.

 

 

I’ll take a page from TageMVP and admit I didn’t read the top half.  The attorney like dissection of words is not what I want to talk about. 

The second half is an interesting discussion, probably worthy of a thread.  

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, TageMVP said:

Team defense was awful against Montreal for the most part and yes, it was due to the defenseman. They stopped getting huge stops all the time from the goalies which happened more in the regular season. I dont blame the goalies for the Montreal loss.

Were they worse, yes, but actual defending from the defense was terrible. All series. 

Sabres heavily outplayed the Canadiens the last two games and should have won game 7. Those two games had nothing to with playing better defensively, because it didn't happen. I lost count how many times a defenseman lost track of a Montreal forward alone in the slot. ALL SERIES.  Doesnt matter if you only have 10 shots on net when 5 go in due to prime scoring chances. 

Sabres got goalied. Dobes was insane outside of one game. 

If you're having trouble scoring, you'd better defend. The Sabres failed defensively 

I actually agree with the majority of this post, especially the bolded parts.