mjd1001

I really don't mind the broadcast team. My biggest issue with them is when I'm out and listening on the radio, they often go minutes and minutes without saying the score. But then again, so did RJ. I don't think they are anything special, but I also don't really have a problem.

That was a scoring chance against that. Shouldn't have happened. Don't know if Dahlin just got beat, or if having Gilbert out there He was trying to communicate with him and there was a mix-up

"Trying hard enough" to win I'll agree with you on. Its like he made one push with tank to be good, when that didn't work, add to his ownerhsip of the Bills, and it turned into "sole reason for existence is to win the cup" and went to "how can I try to make this work on a budget"

At the beginning of Pegula's Reign, they were trying to win, so that is the starting point. I was simply bringing it up to say at any given point, what are the statistical odds. Even if some teams are 'better than others so they have a better chance, well, that is the whole point of this. The Sabres are and have not been one of those better teams. So the argument that other teams have better odds because they are better, isn't that the point of just how bad the pure numbers are....because other than the tank years, the sabres were trying to win. Oh, and the "tank" that they went through, that was their attempt to, a few years later (and during the statistical streak), in their minds GUARANTEE they would be making the playoff every year. Take a long enough sample size, and the numbers and circumstances statistically even out. Basically, if you remove the years they 'weren't trying' from the equation, that should actually swing things back in the other direction and even the numbers out a few years later when they are 'enjoying' the benefits of what you got for not trying. Also, I think to say they weren't trying to win most years isn't accurate. 2 years leading up to the McDavid draft yeah, that qualifies. But even the years they drafted Dahlin and Power, I don't think they were full-on 'tank' years. It was just they were bad. And finally, almost every year, there are teams 'not trying to win'. So on the years the Sabres ARE trying to win, there are other teams 'not trying', so that should increase their odds even more in those years. I think it all washes out and the numbers still hold somewhat close to being true. Remember, this is 'Hockey heaven' The reason this franchise exists is to not only make the playoffs but to win the cup.

I like to post this, usually at this point ever year. With regard to your above bolded comment, this seems to be time for this season's version. I posted the math much more in depth in a previous post, but here goes the summary: Statistically, you can say you have a 50% chance of making or missing the playoffs in a given year. For any time, after 2 years, the 'odds' are 25% you miss both years, 25% you make it both years, and 50% chance you miss one year and make it the next...and so on and so on. Now, with expansion, the odds change slightly. It hasn't always been EXACTLY 50%, sometime you had a BETTER chance (beginning of the drought, 8 of 15 teams in the conference made the playoffs, so your odds to make it were even better than they are now. (Not to mention I didn't even add in the Covid year, where the odds increased, so the numbers below actually should be a tad worse) So, what are the pure statistical odds that any hockey team would take a 12 year period and not make the playoffs even once? 0.018% chance. Or, in other words, a 1 in 5,531 chance that, over the last 12 years, any team in the Sabres division/conference would not make the playoffs even ONE single time. If you 'simulated' an average team through 12 seasons, 5,531 times, only ONE of those times, on average, would a team miss 12 years in a row. Missing for 13 years in a row, with half the conference making the playoffs again, the odds of missing 13 years in a row would be 1 in 11,062. Chances of missing 14 years in a row? 1 in about 22,000. Or 0.0045% If you could find a sportsbook to give you odds that ANY team, starting today, would miss the playoffs for the next 14 years.....you would likely win about $2 million dollars on a $100 bet. No team in NHL history has ever had a longer playoff drought, not even close (no one else ever made more than 8 seasons). And they have done that over that time period with no cap troubles. With 20 first round draft picks. 10 of those being top 10 overall. 2 2nd overall and 2 first overall. We aren't talking about not making, or winning the cup with all those assets. Not even MAKING THE PLAYOFFS with all those assets is just...mind blowing.

Not only 'capable' of 100 points but he has done it already. 40 goals and 100 points while being a +16 (technically 39 goals but he missed a couple of games) The question is WHY has his game changed since he signed that contract? He signed that deal last spring. The season before he signed it: 39g, 63 assists, 102 points Last year before he signed: 63 games played, 29g, 46 assists (82 game pace of 38 goals, 60 assists, 98 points) SINCE signing his new deal (including playoffs): 67 games played 16goals 32assists (82 game pace of 20 goals, 39 assists, 59 points)

I know this thread isn't just about Cozens, but the question I cannot solve is...What IS the concept of Cozens? What makes him so valuable that we think he contributes to this teams long term success? I see a player who might have the worst hockey IQ/situational awareness on the team. Someone who hurts your defense by making bad decisions all the time. Someone who is average at best (maybe below average) with making his wingers better (he has little sense of when to pass vs shoot). I see a guy who is a streaky shooter, but by streaky that ceiling is at most 30-35 goals per year, but the floor is 15 goals per yet. He also drags your powerplay into an abyss every time he is out there. I know I'm repeating my Cozens bashing from many threads before, but I see a guy that LONG TERM is going to be below average defensively, below average setting up his wingers, and will average 20-22 goals per year (some years in the teens, maybe some years close to 30). He's almost 24 and in his 5th year, so the excuse of "he's young, give him time" is quickly running out. So again, I'm not taking shots at him for the sake of it, but just what is the concept of Cozens that people don't want to let go of?

What would most people say if I told you in the next 2 weeks, The Sabres had to play At Florida, At Tampa, At Vegas, At Colorado, home to Vancouver, and then At Washington. All in less than a 2 week period? Oh, and the Colorado and Tampa games were on the 2nd night of back to backs where you are the traveling team. It might be challenging to find a harder 2 week stretch to play. Well, Montreal just played all those teams over 2 weeks. They beat every single one of them. (Funny the only other game they played was a loss to Chicago)

That proposal is tough. It depends on what the 'high end prospect' is. I personally do not value Cozens much at all. I think his ceiling as a player is alot lower than many others on this board value him at. Quinn though? I still don't know what his ceiling is. So, I probably wouldn't make that trade. I DO think that trade makes the Sabres better right NOW though. Its just for that package, I would rather trade Cozens alone (for a lesser return but see what you can get) while keeping Quinn and the prospect, or see what else I could get for Quinn and that prospect. To me, its not just a matter of "is this package worth it for the return?" yes or no. Its "what else might I be able to get for that package" as the deadline approaches. I don't know, and I do doubt there will be any one player better than Pettersson available this year for trade. Its just what is Pettersson worth attached to that $11m deal?

I'm just surprised Montreal SEEMS to have turned things around so quickly. Most 'experts', media, even myself thought there rebuild was 1-2 years behind Ottawa and Buffalo (and Detroit, but I never really liked Detroit's rebuild myself). About a month into the season the Canadians were 4-11. They had just lost 6 in a row by a combined score of 29-12. The team they played next that was a turning point in their season so far? Buffalo. They beat the Sabres, put up 7 goals, only allowed 18 shots...and from that night they have gone 16-9-1 (playing at a 100+ point pace for over 2 months now) If you dig a bit deeper, the Sabres really are the "get yourself right against" team, at least for Montreal. Even in the last 2 months where they were playing better, they hit another mini-slump. In early December, they had lost 3 of 4, allowing 19 goals in 4 games. Next up? Buffalo. That is the game they blew out the Sabres, 6-1, and since that night Montreal has been 11-2.

Montreal and Columbus are pretty hot right now. Going to be hard for the Sabres to catch anyone, let alone those 2. Montreal has 16 points in the last 10 games, Columbus 15 points in the last 10.

Why Ravens QB Lamar Jackson likely just won third NFL MVP and became the youngest in league history to do so Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson appears to be on the verge of becoming the youngest in NFL history to win a third NFL MVP. The 28-year-old can probably start writing his acceptance speech after Friday's Associated Press All-Pro team announcement. Jackson was named the NFL's First Team All-Pro quarterback for the 2024 season after receiving 30 first-place votes to Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen's 18. The Associated Press is also the body that votes for the NFL MVP, and with a quarterback winning the award every season since 2013, it's safe to say Jackson will be taking home MVP hardware for the third time in his career after winning the award in 2019 and 2023. full article: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/why-ravens-qb-lamar-jackson-likely-just-won-third-nfl-mvp-and-became-the-youngest-in-league-history-to-do-so/

My overall point is he was making more of those saves last year than he is this year. By quite a bit. And while I may agree with your point that SOME shooters should score at that high of a rate, He is not only allowing goals to guys who shoot like Draisaitl, Matthews or Reinhart. There are some pretty 'average' guy scoring on him from those points (Like a Dylan Cozen level shooter who 1 out of every 2 shots, no matter from where they are taken, the goalie only has to move an inch or two to save.)

I like UPL, but I'm going to partially disagree with you. I agree he has had a handful of good games where he was the reason they won, or were 'in' it, but I think I have seen more goals this year from him where I said "he needs to make that save" than I had the entire year last year. Way too many. He has had good, sometimes great games. But he has also had more games where both they eye test (watching replays of goals allowed) AND the stats (save percentage) show he was below average. On many nights when you watch the replay of the goals allowed, its not all on the defense. Again, many times this year I'd watch a replay of a goal allowed, and the shooter is 10-15 feet out, no screen, and UPL was set for the shot, and he just isn't making some saves he made last year. From Christmas on last season, he had 3 total games with a save percentage under .850 over 38 games played. This year he has 7 games under .850 in just 30 games played. Yeah, I get the Defense isn't always great in front of him, but it wasn't last year either. He stood on his head to bail out the team in front of him a lot last season. The difference to me is there are way too many soft goals getting let in when he has a bad game. Again, not to repeat myself, but myself and others have posted in GDT's as they happen, there will be a shooter, not screened, not tipped, that UPL is set and facing and the shot still goes in too many times. For the majority of last year (except for the first 2 months) in UPL I saw a guy who was a top 5 goalie in the league most nights...that on a small handful of occasions had a bad game. This year in him I am seeing a below average starting goalie in the league most nights, that on occasion can have a great game. (last night was one of those great games obviously) Again, I like him and I think they should play him every game he is able to play, but to me this team is as low as they are in the standings for 2 reasons: Total black hole in production and overall play from a '2nd line' for most of the year, and substandard goaltending play.

And McLeod is doing that with 2 less minutes of ice time per game, with lesser/less talented linemates for the majority of the season, and with almost 100 minutes less PP ice time this year than Cozens (Cozens has almost 2.5 minutes of PowerPlay time per game, McLeod has 6 seconds per game)

Yeah, I agree. Its easy to say "if they didn't lose 13 in a row" but they did. There is a reason they did. The NHL didn't just add 13 losses to their total while telling the team to take a couple weeks off. Almost every team has stretches where the can say "look where we would be if we didn't lose 7 in a row" or "if only we didn't lose 6 out of 9" The games you win, ALL of the, and the games you lose, ALL of them, make you the team that you are. Right now by record they are tied for the 28th best team in the league out of 32 teams. By goal differential they are the 20th best team in the league out of 32. There are very few meaningful metric where they aren't not only in the bottom half of the league, but toward the bottom. They earned that, that is who they are.

Pettersson is not a perfect player. He hasn't played like an $11m player since he signed his extension. But he is a big time playmaker who can score also. When you watch him play, he can skate through traffic with his head up, he sees the entire offensive zone, he knows where his teamates are and is great at setting them up. He has 137 assists over the past 2.5 seasons. The BEST player on the Sabres over that time has 89 assists. Cozens has played more games than Pettersson and only has 78. I'd be worried about his contract and his drop in production recently, but I would be SO interested to see this current team with a legit playmaker/distributor at center unlike anyone we have seen in at least a few years.

In the past 2-4 weeks, I have thought he has played 'better' without the puck. Still not good, but there have been less glaring and costly errors. Still, he is in his 5th year now and making $7m. He has 3 goals and 5 assists in his last 11 games and is a -6 in those games. BETTER than the beginning of the year, but still not good enough. He's gone from being, in my opinion, one of the worst forward without the puck in the league to now someone who is just average. That is a big improvement for him. He either has to keep getting better, or he has to start scoring more. If he was 20 or 21 years old and in his 2nd or 3rd season, I'd be OK with 9 goals and 20 points in half a season with. But hes in his 5th season and turning 24 next month. It certainly is not "early". And his play lately has been better, but its been better than "bad". Other than a particular game here or there, I would not describe his play as "good" or use words like "well". If he is going to be here fine, but he still has to improve a LOT.

Here is a good one.... Toronto losing with 2 minutes left to Carolina. Austin Matthews with a goal, but he is a minus 6 tonight (-6). Stuff like that doesn't happen all that much. Also he only has just over 15 minutes of ice time tonight. since he came back from Injury, he's been over 20 minutes per game the last few games.

I like that the Sabres are winning, but for people wondering why or why they can't do this all the time.... They are playing a team that has some young guys that aren't the best without the puck (just like the Sabres), and the don't have their #1 goalie behind them to bail them out.

Quinn, Quinn and Cozens for the 3 goals? Sabres with a 3-0 lead? This is the bizarro game of the season so far.

I'm with you almost 100% there. UPL has shaken my confidence a bit with his play this year, but that is the nature of goalies.

Here is a good example of the '7 points back' thing being worse than it sounds. Just last night...in ONE Night, The Ottawa played Detroit and it ended in OT (3 points awarded), Columbus and Pittsburg went to overtime (3 points awarded) and even the Rangers lost but it went to OT and they got a point. 5 teams above them, including 4 that played each other, ALL got points.

I agree with you. 7 points out doesn't look bad on the surface, but you have to remember that the team(s) 7 points up is going to win games along the way. And its not one team, it is several, and those teams play each other so all the teams above you are going to make up points. Add to that the fact that there are going to be 'loser points' awarded along the way, and yeah, 7 points is a lot, espeically when the sabres have less games in hand to make up those points. I have started to think of it differently and I posted it a few times in the past month. Right now, 8th in the confrence is .512 point percentage (which is historically VERY low and if history is any guide, by the end of the year that number will be higher). To get to .523, they have to win 9 games in a row. That just gets you to that level. Boston, Montreal, C-bus, Pittsburgh, and Detroit are all a LOT closer to that level, and you would need NONE of them to pass that level at the same time. And in addition to them, Detroit, Philly, NYR and NYI are all ahead of you and statistically have a better chance of getting there than you do. So realistically when looking at the standings, an immediate 9 game winning streak only gets you to where 8th is now..but it would likely take a 10-12 game winning streak to GET you into that 8th spot (and then you'd have to hold onto it.) The 'points back' hill to climb isn't as linear as it appears. Being 8 points out of a playoff spot is MORE than twice as hard to make up as being 4 points out, for example. As far as the 13 game losing streak, lets say the team ends on on in immediate 13 game win streak. That would put them at .556 point percentage (91 point pace). Historically, that usually still misses the playoffs.

I singled him out because the person I was replying to was saying him being 'decent' was a good point of his game.