mjd1001

-2 times in the past 3 years 30 goal scorer (36). -Big time Plus player on a minus team. -One of the single best forcheckers in the league (my opinion). -Led league in shorthanded goals last year. -Injury issues have mostly gone away as he played a full 82 games last year and 75+ his other 2 years. -Plays all phases of the game. -Loved by the majority of the fanbase. 29 years old so 'right now' in the prime of his career. -6'4, 220 AND an above average skater. -When I watch goals against, he is rarely the problem. He skates back hard into his zone. He rarely chases the puck and leave guys wide open. Basically, he's sound defensively (at least compared to the Quinns, Cozens, Peterkas of this forward group) Get it done. If its a 6+ year deal and looks bad at the end of it when he is in his mid 30's, I'll worry about it then.

Ok, there isn't much new on this forum in the last week or two, so I thought I'd try a poll. My cousin and me were discussing the teams we would least like to see win the cup. I think on this Forum Toronto, Boston, and Philly would lead the way, but maybe a poll would be fun to see what the split is. So, what team would you least like to see win the cup ever. (of course, Sabres not included in any results) I thought Boston and Toronto would be the top choices, Philly and the Rangers for some. I threw Florida in there because maybe people are getting sick of them (although we we more talking about long term, not just this year) I thought of adding Dallas or Montreal or Ottawa, but I don't see much hatred for them anymore. For me, I'm going with the Rangers. Yeah, there are times they play the Leafs and I want the Rangers to win, but for the most part, they are the most annoying fanbase when they are good in my eyes (worse than Toronto and MUCH worse than Boston.)

That all has occured through 3 different coaching staffs, so a lot of it I think comes 'from above'. There is a lot of evidence that Cozens was well favored by Pegula.

My previous favorite topic, Cozens and how he hurt the Sabres so much. As far as helping the PP, Getting rid of Cozens is step #1. In the 20 or so games after he was traded, the Sabres were 13 for 52 on the PP without him (25%, which would have ranked about 6th or 7th in the entire league). In the time he WAS with the team, they were about 16.9% with him (5th worse in the league). Finding a guy who can score more than him, or at least someone who isn't a black hole out there (once the puck goes in to Cozens, it never comes back out.) How much did he hurt the Sabres PP? Well the eye test tells me he didn't have vision or passing ability to set up anyone (not all, but many of his PP assists were incidental, not intentional), and many of us think he doesn't see the ice well. As for the stats? -In his time with the Sabres, he is 2nd among forward in PP time (only Tage has more), so he has had tons of opportunity. Most of it on PP unit #1. -In almost 760 minutes of PP ice time with the Sabres over 5 years, he had a total of 12 PP goals. He averages about 2.5 PP goals per year. There are about 180 other forwards in the league with more than 12 PP goals over the same time, many with LESS ice time than Cozens had on the PP. -He averaged 0.95 goals per 60 on the PP for his career. Who on the team is better than that? Benson, Quinn, Greenway, Tuch, Thompson, Zucker...along with a bunch of guys no longer with the team (Reinhart, Okposo, VO, Skinner, Peterka, and Mitts to name the most prominent ones) BTW, Josh Norris in a pretty big 200+ game sample size is at 2.8 goals per 60 on the PP, scoring at almost 3 times the rate of Cozens. -107 guys over the time Cozens has been in the NHL have had over 750 minutes of ice time on the PP. Where does Cozens rank in terms of goals among those 107 guys? 106th. 2nd last. The only guy who scored less PP goals than him with that much ice time was Ryan Strome, but he only had 1 less goal than Cozens but had 16 more assists, as he spent some time on the point. -Go back a season to him getting hurt in the fight vs Philly for one additional example: In the In the 4 games BEFORE he got hurt Cozens was on the powerplay. The sabres scored ZERO PP goals in any of those 4 games. In the 2 games Cozens missed, the Sabres scored PP goals in both of those games. When he came back he went right back on PP#1 and they went another 4 games without scoring a PP goal. -In the past decade, 10 forwards have over 500 minutes PP time for the Sabres (Cozens is one of them). Cozens PP shooting percentage? 9.6%. The rest of the forwards combined? 16.3% (none of the other ones are under 10%, just Cozens.) Needless to say, since he has been in the NHL, Cozens is likely the worst forward in the entire league in PP production that got used on a regular basis. Zucker had 11 PP goals in one season with the Sabres, 1 less than Cozens had his entire career here.

I'm not a Canadian, but I live right near the border (less than 5 minutes from the River), and we have some Canadian friends that we got to know over the years from visiting for a day or weekend at the cottage. This is strictly my experience and certainaly anecdotal, but I agree with your comments above. No serious conversations specifically about this topic, but over the last 6 months or so having a casual call or message with them, I didn't hear any stories about any of them having a problem crossing the border. What they have said, however, is they don't like/appreciate the way Canada is talked about by the USA now and they just don't care to come across the border and 'support' the US businesses like they did before this started. If there is a specific reason to cross the border, I get the impression they will, but the casual trips, the vacations, I think those have been put on hold by most of them. (again, I'm talking about only a handful of couples/familes from Canada that I am friends with)

I agree. it seems a lot of people here are more interested in constructing lines based on 'fantasy hockey' or the NHL series video game than real life. Sometimes your '3rd best' winger might be a better fit, style wise, to play with your 'best' center. It might not always be about the best 3 players are 'first liners' and the next 3 best are '2nd liners', its about who fits best with who.

For me, I view this topic differently than many others. Now, I'm not saying I am happy with the team the past decade plus. I'm not saying losing is better than winning. I want wins, and I want this team to not be viewed as one of the NHL doormats. However, I have more fun as a fan in any sport when 'my team' is going through the building process. I like the discussion about the moves being made. I like following the development of players. "Whats next" is just as important to get me to follow a team as the ultimate record. I understand once you get to the point where the Bills are with Josh Allen, or the Oilers are with McDavid and Draisaitl....that there are a lot more wins. I understand you have the 'core' and its just a matter of tweaking around the edges. Ultimately, you are closer to the big goal of a championship....but that just doesn't draw me into the day-to-day, the conversations about the team...as much.

I think TD Garden in Boston is actually older than the Arena in Buffalo, and it too, blows it away. It isn't the best place I have ever been, it it looks like a concrete box from the outside. However, they keep up with the condition of the seats much better, it just seems more loud/active in the arena bowl, the South entrance is really cool going into the arena, Its NICE that if you take a train to the arena it actually stops inside the arena (you don't have to go outside), and it just seems a lot more 'upscale' yet approachable. Again, I'm pretty sure its older tool.

The easiest single 'change' from last year would be to get better play from the goalie(s). In terms of 'saving' the team, the non-goalie that can have the greatest impace on improving the team would be Norris. Sure, he could get hurt and not play much. But he also has the ability to give you 10-20 more goals AND Better defensive play that you got from Cozens in a similar position/role.

I agree with almost everything you said above. As for the last point...if they ever built a new Arena, where would it go? Let me say to start that I have always been a 'downtown guy'. On the surface I think the football stadium should have been downtown, I want money spent to develop downtown. HOWEVER, the reality is, a football stadium or a new arena isn't going to pull Downtown 'up' with it. You want the best atmosphere for the fans, AND ammenities that the players and their families will want? A suburban Arena i THINK is where things are going. If you have a very vibrant downtown area, VERY vibrant (Boston, NY City), a downtown Arena works. I have doubts whether or not this team ever gets a new Arena (at least in the forseeable future), but if It did...for the first time in my life I would start to consider the idea of something in a nice area in the Suburbs. Almost as the centerpiece of a 'lifestyle and sports' center.

I'm still in the same spot I was 2-3 weeks ago with this topic, despite some thought to it. Instead of a #1 or #2 or #3 line(s), I want 3 balanced lines with my 9 best forwards, the remaining 3 on a 4th line that gets less ice time. In the first 3 lines, they can all 'average' about the same equal strength ice time, but on an individual game, one line may get more or less depending on matchups. Its about who plays best with who, not about putting together the 'best' #1 line. With that said, I still want to see: Doan-Kulich-Tage. Benson-Norris-Tuch. Quinn-McLeod-Zucker. Doan is the wildcard there. Maybe you can swap him and Benson...or maybe someone else steps up and takes that roll from him. I'd lalso have a quick hook to get Quinn out of there if he doesn't show signes of stepping up since last year. I think that gives you 3 fairly balanced top lines, the 4th line will get a lot less ice time and be used situationally.

The language that seems to be more and more common in public: -About a month ago, my wife and I were out to eat a quick-service mexican place (kinda like Chipotle but a local one). We sat in a booth, and right next to us 4 guys (probably 30-40 years old) sat down. No problem, no issue. I think they worked together...maybe security, maybe corrections, maybe even law enforcement. Again, no problem..yet. Then they started talking...one guy, its seemed like every single adjective and adverb was replaced by a version of f**k. When he talked it was something like..." It was f****n strange. I got out of my f*****n truck and I went him and the f*****n door wasn't locked so I f*****n pulled out my f*****n phone to call my wife, and she said everything was f****n OK she was just in the f*****n backyard." The guy wasn't mad, wasn't angry, but that is just how he talked, about everything. Now earlier this week it was a little cooler so we were out to eat again, this time we sat outside at a place on picnic tables, and the people next to us, probably a group of 5 or 6 poeple...mix of men and women probably 25-35 years old...and a different guy from above is talking the same way. Not angry, not talking about an emotional topic...just that is how he talked. And we are right outside on the sidewalk, there are families and little kids going by occasionally, but this is just how he talked. I'm noticing it more and more often in recent years. I guess we can complain about things about everyone, but this just seems....out of place and happening more and more often.

There is one single thing I think size/height helps you with....without regard to any other talent or ability: Penalty Killing. In all the years I have watched hockey, the #1 issue when killing penalties for the guys on the ice (not counting goaltending) is when they 'break the box' and start chasing. If you maintain discipline, you are likely to have a very good penalty killing unit.. Being tall with a good reach allows these guys to stand in the same spot and cover a lot of ground...get in the passing lanes with just their reach without having to move too much. A Tall guy with a big-time reach, with just a little bit of basic coaching and discipline, is likely to be a good penalty killer.

Goaltending. Had the sabers got ten the gold tenny from 2 years ago Last year they would have been in the playoffs. If I have to pick something besides goaltending... Second would be no major injuries, and third would be luck. But after last year I can't say anything else other than goaltending.

Is there a way to search this forum and gather analytics... Which month... Or better yet, week of the year, over the past 20 years, has the most and least posts and replies?

I just no longer believe in labels like "first line" or "2c". I guess I can get behind a '4th line' for the role they may have and the fact they are getting the least ice time. But beyond that, in your top 9, you play where you play the best, with who you play the best with. If that means Benson (or anyone else) plays the best with Tage, that doesn't make him your 'best' winger and therefore he should get the label as the 1st line winger. Is he a top 9 guy? Is Tuch a top 9 guy? Is ANYONE not on the 4th line getting '4th line minutes' a a top 9 guy? Yep, most of these guys will. At that point its less about slotting them as "1st line, 2nd line, etc" and more about just seeing who plays the best with who in your top 9. As far as who gets the most ice time....current play and matchups can dictate that. Benson is, and should be, a 'top 9' forward on this team. Who he plays with and how many points he gets will determine his ice time, not where he is 'slotted' on a dept chart. Personally, I would expect mid-teens in goals, close to 40 points from him. 15-16 minutes per game, without much time on the PP or PK (yet). If he gets a minute or two more, or a minute or two less, it should be more about who he is playing with and HOW that LINE is currently playing. IF he ends up playing mostly with Tage and Kulich, AND that line is as good as it was in the last 1/4 of the season....AND they stick together for most of the year, he MAY end up with 60+ points and 17 minutes of ice time per game. IF he gets moved to a different line (with McLeod as his center), he may end up with a minute or two less ice time per game and only 30-40 points. That doesn't mean he was 'demoted' or had a worse year. Its about who you play best with and situations.

For the harder core fans, you are correct. For many of the casual fans, and kids who go to the games that might be bored of staring at the action on the ice, that stuff matters. Ideally you get both. Winning is MORE improtant, but the other stuff matters to many of the casual fans.

Mcdonald's. Other than last year stopping to get one of their ice cream sundaes, I hadn't been in a McDonald's for years until a few days ago. I was driving back from work and stopped at the McDonald's in Medina, New York. First of all, the bathroom was bordering on disgusting. Next, I don't know what kind of tile floors they have, but the floor had just been mopped and it was like walking on ice. Even when I got to a dry part of the floor, Even the tiniest residual moisture on the bottom of my shoes made it where I was about ready to fall and slide again. I looked at the breakfast menu, they have combo meals that cost almost $10. Really? Finally, I'm not a big coffee drinker but the graphic they have showing their coffees looked interesting so I tried one. Some sort of iced coffee...but it was very bitter, and they put caramel syrup in it where the syrup was dripping down the inside of the cup and the outside of the cup where it was sticky when I grabbed it. Then it said at the bottom of the cup and when I had some through the straw I was getting weird chunks of caramel.. it never fully mixed with the coffee. If this is representative of what McDonald's are like these days, I can't see why they are remotely doing as well as a company as they actually are.

Good shooters get to the good spots? Good shooters also are more ACCURATE from the good spots. Every point you make, there is an equal counterpoint to. And doesn't GF% take into consideration where the shots are taken from, regardless of whether the shooter is good or not? I think so. Xgf takes into account the defensive side of things...as does GF%. I'm not arguing that xgf is a terrible stat. I'm just saying it is just one peice of the puzzle, just like gf%. I tend to SLIGHTLY like gf% over xgf% when looked at over the course of a few seasons. But again, I'm not going to evaluate a player on gf% alone, xgf% alone....I think you need to look at them with context to each other...AND the other stats, and over a course of time WITH looking at their teammates comparison. The only major problem I have with xGF% is when people just throw it out there and use it as the best stat to judge a player. When someone says "They are good because they have a better xGF% than the next guy", I tend to think that only tells 10% of the story, or less. In the past we have had some posts were people supported their opinion of whether someone was good, or not good, based on xgf% and little else.

Actually, that is my point...why do I want to evaluate an individual player based on 'league average shooting percentage', when that player may be quite a bit higher or lower? Yeah, there may be 'noise' in actual goals, but to me at least it takes into account the difference BETWEEN the league average shooting percentage and that actual player I am evaluating. That 'noise' will, statistically, likely 'even out' when you look at the actual goal numbers over a long period of time. I get looking at a partial season, or a half season, may not be helpful, but if a guy is below 50 year after year, vs a guy above 50 year after year, the trend is your friend. Again, If Cozens is, for his career, a 10% or below shooter, and a guy like Tage is 15% or higher....XGF might be the same for both of them but in reality it vastly over-rates Cozens and under-rates Thompson.

Agreed. I actually prefer ACTUAL goals for/vs against, as it takes into account shooting percentage (from what I can tell, xGF% does not take individual shooting percentage, so it doesn't really take into account that a player like Tage is a 50% more accurate shooter than a guy like Cozens). Plus-minus is not a stat that can tell you everything about a player, I admit that, but it shouldn't be totally thrown away either. I think the key with the 'advanced stats' is to use them in combination with each other. A guy has a good xGF%? Well, what is the competition he faces, or is he on a line/paring with a guy who is a super accurate shooter or a terrible one? For me, you have to look at the advanced stats, all of them...if you see anything that stands out (good or bad), think to yourself...why? Is there something that accounts for this? Is this something that is a one time/one year thing or a long term thing. By using all the advanced stats in combination with each other, and asking 'why' when presenting them....you can get a somewhat more accurate guage of how good a player is rather than just using your single favorite one. Many people on here may know my favorite 'whipping boy' for Sabres problems over the years has been Cozens. And that isn't because of one or two stats. Its because many/most of his advanced stats are below average (not just one of them), AND they have been for years (even his really good year), and more often than now other players advanced stats are worse when they are playing with him and get better when they are with anyone else, AND simply watching him, the eye test backs all that up. Personally I usually use the eye test first, form an opinion of a player, and then see if the advanced stats/analytics back up that initial opinion. The only time I really work backwards (analytics first) is when the Sabres trade for someone/acquire someone that I haven't seen play all that much.

Addition by subtraction. To me its not simply taking someone away, but what you replace them with. With that said I have always thought that getting rid of Cozens fits the term 'addition by subtraction'...simply because without him at Center, The added minutes that McLeod, Krebs and Kulich got after he left served the team better than the minutes Cozens had. They 'helped' the team just about as much offensively, and they hurt the team a lot less. That is not to say Cozens doesn't have talent, but His 16-17 minutes per game going to 0 for the Sabres, and those other guys getting the extra minutes were a bonus. Basically, would I rather have Cozens getting 18 min per game, McLeod getting 12-14, Krebs getting 10, and Kulich not having a big role at all? -OR- Cozens getting zero (subtraction from the team), Mcleod getting his 16, Krebs getting 12, and Kulich getting 12-14? <--- I'll take this one. The productivity/score is just as good (last year maybe better with McLeods and Kulich's game toward the end of the season) and those guys, even Kulich as a rookie, make/made a LOT less costly mistakes than Cozens did in his minutes. I would expect that to accelerate this year with Norris getting any productivity. As for the rest of the guys, they didn't play enough of a role on the team for me to care about.

My point was: 1.) it wasn't a failed plan 5 years in a row. 2.) UPL has only had 2 seasons as a 'starter' (more than half the games) and in terms of being very good vs. very bad, hes at 50%. I'm not saying he is going to be good, but I'm not writing him off as 100% bad. His "good" year he was just as 'good' as he was 'bad' last season.

Maybe not, but that 'strategy' in goal was pretty successful just 2 seasons ago. It has not failed 5 years in a row. UPL had a great year, and, if I remember correctly, was the best or 2nd best goalie in the league in many/most metrics the 2nd half of the season.

But you know, the only way the Sabres goaltending gets better is if we talk about in every single chance we get.