bob_sauve28 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 I'm pretty impressed with Nathan Patsche so far. Yes he makes all sorts of mistakes and has a lot to learn, but the physical skills are there and he seems like a right smart youngin. So my question is, will he grow--say 3 or 4 years from now-- into a defenseman who is better than Jay McKee was? I think he has the potential to be that good. If you don't like the McKee comparison, just choose someone else, I'm ok with that And Happy New Year to all of you in Sabre Nation! :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 I haven't seen lots of mistakes from Nathan. Maybe it's the cautious amount of ice time he's had, but then again he's averaged around 14 minutes, so it's not like Lindy has "Carded/Funked" the guy. I'm very comfortable with Paetsch. In fact, when I think of horrendous turnovers, Lydman or Spacek spring to mind first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 This is two days in a row, so I am getting a little nervous, but I agree with PA. Lydman and Spacek (and you can throw Kalinin in that mix, as well) have had some horrible turnovers this year. But Paetsch has been pretty steady, aside from the Caps game at the start of the last road trip. Aside from that game I really can't remember him having a serious misplay or bad pinch or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 Good to see that you're coming around. Stick with me pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 I guess there are worse people to agree with... :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePolishSabre Posted December 31, 2006 Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 I haven't seen lots of mistakes from Nathan. You watching the same game??? He's a really good 7th defenseman. I'm sure next year he'll be our 6th, but i don't see him getting any better then that. It's all depends on who's ahead of him on the team too. If he goes to like a TB, then he'd be like #3 over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Paetsch has the tools to be a top 4 d-man on this team. I'm actually hopeing for some more minor injuries (flu, the runs, anything that gets some d-man out of the lineup for 1 or 2 games at a time) to get him some more game experience. Give him some time and don't drop everything in his lap to soon and he will be a keeper. On the giveaways. Maybe are d-man are giveing it away more cause they are handling the puck so much more then the other team? Cause I don't see us giving it away all the time not even Spacek or Lydman. I see us haveing the puck more then the other team and cause of that we have more giveaways then them. Does the NHL keep track of time of possesion? Cause I'd bet we have the puck more often then are opponents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 If you don't like the McKee comparison, just choose someone else, I'm ok with that I don't see him as the next Denis Potvin... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 I will he grow--say 3 or 4 years from now-- into a defenseman who is better than Jay McKee was? I think he has the potential to be that good. If you don't like the McKee comparison, just choose someone else, I'm ok with that Well, we can't really choose someone else if you already used McKee as the benchmark. I don't think Paetsch will be a defenseman on McKee's level, but that's a pretty high level in my mind. McKee is a top-pair defenseman on any team in the league other than the team located in suburban L.A., which is why Saint Louis spent the big bucks on the guy. It would be a lot to expect any young defenseman to grow to McKee's level--the guy really is that good--and I'm sorry, but I just don't think Paetsch has it. Paetsch will be a regular NHL starter. Hopefully with the Sabres, and hopefully a top-four D-man here or else. But regardless, he will make it in the league. Plus, if he plays for Vancouver someday, maybe he'll become an All-Star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Paetsch right now is a lot better than Campbell was in his first 50 games. Not to say he'll be better than Soupy, but look at what Soupy's doing right now after looking so bad early on. Give the kid a break. I think Paetscher will play today in place of Spacek. I'd be surprised if he can be mobile enough so soon after getting drilled with that shot. Then again, I've never been given a Xylocaine injection before taking the ice, so maybe Spacek will play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 Well, we can't really choose someone else if you already used McKee as the benchmark. I don't think Paetsch will be a defenseman on McKee's level, but that's a pretty high level in my mind. McKee is a top-pair defenseman on any team in the league other than the team located in suburban L.A., which is why Saint Louis spent the big bucks on the guy. It would be a lot to expect any young defenseman to grow to McKee's level--the guy really is that good--and I'm sorry, but I just don't think Paetsch has it. Paetsch will be a regular NHL starter. Hopefully with the Sabres, and hopefully a top-four D-man here or else. But regardless, he will make it in the league. Plus, if he plays for Vancouver someday, maybe he'll become an All-Star. I like McKee, but this is an overstatement, IMHO. He wasn't on our top pairing last year (it was Tallinder and Lydman) and frequently got the least ice time of all of the defensemen. I don't think I would put him in our top 4 this year. I'd say he's top 2 on 10 teams or so and top 4 on 26 or so. Also, just b/c STL spent big money on McKee doesn't necessarily mean he's that good of a player. The flip side of that is that Darcy, who at this stage is clearly a better GM than John Davidson, chose not to spend big money on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 I think Paetsch has been okay. He had one game where he was absolutely terrible and directly responsible for 3 goals, but overall I have been pleasantly surprised. I think he has some offensive skills that will come to the surface once he gains some confidence in his defensive zone play. Also good to see him play a little physical and not afraid to drop the gloves when needed. I think he could be a 2nd pairing defenseman down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 I don't see him as the next Denis Potvin... ;) LOL, no, me either, but I think the kid is gonna be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 I don't see him as the next Denis Potvin... ;) Well, maybe not, but right now he IS better than Potvin. Of course, Potvin's 53 years old. ;) But I WOULD take Nathan straight up over Potvin either on ice or in the broadcast booth (where Denis is BRUTAL). There is no way Nathan would be a worse broadcaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 McKee was and still is a fine defenseman.......................... but a top pair one? I mean come on he has great defensive instincts plays it tough, and blocks shots but has very little to any offensive prowness and to me you gotta have the offensive awarness to be a elite defenseman. Also he is not a great passer. He is a off the glass passer. I love Mckee and would put him in a top 4 most days but he is not a top pair guy imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 I like McKee, but this is an overstatement, IMHO. He wasn't on our top pairing last year (it was Tallinder and Lydman) and frequently got the least ice time of all of the defensemen. I don't think I would put him in our top 4 this year. I'd say he's top 2 on 10 teams or so and top 4 on 26 or so. Also, just b/c STL spent big money on McKee doesn't necessarily mean he's that good of a player. The flip side of that is that Darcy, who at this stage is clearly a better GM than John Davidson, chose not to spend big money on him. Well, we do disagree. Our top pairing definitely was Tallinder/Lydman last year; you are right on there. But McKee was paired with Campbell for so long, and I think mostly for educational purposes (I don't fondly remember Campbell from two seasons ago). Regier does outperform Davidson so far, and made the smart decision to not pay $4M US for McKee. But I still don't see how he's not a top-two on most teams. Your point of view is reasonable, too, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Paetsch has the tools to be a top 4 d-man on this team. I'm actually hopeing for some more minor injuries (flu, the runs, anything that gets some d-man out of the lineup for 1 or 2 games at a time) to get him some more game experience. Give him some time and don't drop everything in his lap to soon and he will be a keeper. On the giveaways. Maybe are d-man are giveing it away more cause they are handling the puck so much more then the other team? Cause I don't see us giving it away all the time not even Spacek or Lydman. I see us haveing the puck more then the other team and cause of that we have more giveaways then them. Does the NHL keep track of time of possesion? Cause I'd bet we have the puck more often then are opponents Doubtful. By the time he develops those tools, Sekera and Persson will be ready to play. What i have been mostly impressed with Nate is his vison with the puck and his speed carrying the puck. In his own zone or with no time to think, i think he made many mistakes and in the "comeback" game in Boston, i think he is mostly responsible for us getting into a huge hole and not only that but he almost cost us the comeback. However, every player (atleast recently) that has played a sagificant time under Ruff and then who had to go back to Rochester or just the press box because of no room, has come back twice the player he was before, so we'll see when Nate gets his chance again how much he has improved from his expierence for playing for Tallinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 There is a lot to like about Nathan's game - he is a good skater, has good speed and a good shot, and for the most part, makes decent decisions with the puck and in his own end. Defensemen usually take the longest to develop at the NHL level, so I am glad he is getting some sporadic PT as the no.7 D, and I am more than happy to wait for him to develop into a top-6 or top-4 defenseman. As Lindy trusts him more, you may see him start to see some PT on the PP, as we still lack a true PP quarterback. While we may see more of Sekera later this year and probably starts pushing guys like Teppo, Kalinin and Paetsch in training camp next season, I wouldn't expect to see Persson anytime soon - he isn't even 19 yet, and is still playing in Sweden. I would guess two, maybe three years from now for him. Even if Paetsch isn't the answer for us, he has enough upside that we should be able to deal him off for something substantial, either individually or as part of a package. As for the Boston comeback game - I assume you are referring to the Nov. 2 game where we scored three late in the third to force OT and won in the shootout? If so, I think you might be thinking of a different bad game by Paetsch - he was a +2 in that game and was on the ice for only 1 Boston goal. Maybe it was the Florida game (Buff 5-4 SO win a week later) where he was on the ice for three of Florida's four goals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 I haven't seen lots of mistakes from Nathan. Maybe it's the cautious amount of ice time he's had, but then again he's averaged around 14 minutes, so it's not like Lindy has "Carded/Funked" the guy. I'm very comfortable with Paetsch. In fact, when I think of horrendous turnovers, Lydman or Spacek spring to mind first. Exactly. As much as I LOVE the Jaro accusition... I have dubbed it a "Spacek Moment". The Sabres are almost guarnteed ONE "Spacek Moment" per game or so... The agony is... You just never know when it will happen! :blink: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted January 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Even if Paetsch isn't the answer for us, he has enough upside that we should be able to deal him off for something substantial, either individually or as part of a package. [ No, I think it would be a big mistake to trade this kid. He is going to be a good one. Saying that, I am also a big proponet of going out at trade deadline and getting help. You have to give to recieve, but I would take Paetsch off the table. No way do I trade him. I see him being here for years. But WTF do I know? :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Bob, I should clarify. Assuming Teppo retires and/or the Sabres trade a defenseman like Kalinin (not necessarily him) to free up cap space/improve depth somewhere else/whatever - then a couple spots would open up. If at that point the team doesn't feel he is going to be part of their long-term "D" corps, then I wouldn't have a problem trading him, either as part of a package or even individually. I guess what I am saying is if some combo of Card/Funk/Sekera/Persson/whomever were to make huge strides developmentally and blow past him on the depth chart, we should still be able to get something good for him. Personally I like Paetsch and his game, so I don't mind seeing him in the lineup as much as possible, so he will be experienced for the playoff run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.