Thorner

Agree. The kid is decent right now- that he’s indisputably one of our top few forwards is sad We were supposed to be at a stage where we benefitted from cheap ELC players to aid our established core. The cheap ELC guys are still the core We still lack nhl players We lack established talent, same as the last 10 years

Playoff odds for your Buffalo Sabres

He doesn’t compare very favourably to our other 2 goalies in expected goals marks, if you care about advanced stats. He’s consistently letting in more than what the numbers indicate would be “expected”, actually, and the other 2, especially UPL I believe, have not. All 3 playing behind the same team

Though, “winning season” can’t rightfully be considered synonymous with “good” anymore, necessarily: our winning season was good for 20th out of 32: so, in essence, a below average result. So perhaps “winning season” is ultimately semantics in this case

Sir, this is a Wendy’s

Last year can’t rightfully be called a losing year considering we were above .500

Like I said, my point was more so that the statement had it backwards. The issue wasn’t proclaiming the expectations too high, it’s that, if we don’t make it, we didn’t ice a team that lived up to the (properly set) expectations. Playoffs remain the line. It’s not criminal to ice the youngest team but it’s by choice and doesn’t change expectations, and a few savvy moves for veteran players in areas of need would presumably bump the age up a bit. I’m not going to haggle with with you about “who even was there?” the line is playoffs, the expectations weren’t incorrectly set

Does the team have a 4 game win streak in them? That gets their pace over 82 to 93 and right in mix for playoffs. It’s certainly do able. I guess the issue with that is a 4 game streak means it’s not a 5 gamer so the next game is a necessitated loss. So a 4 game streak really has us on an 89 point pace haha. But still, a short string and things can change quickly. Really, they’ll need a couple streaks, when you think about the math

I wouldn’t use a term as extreme as criminal and it’s too early to pass judgment but, if we do miss, yes, being a young team doesn’t count as an excuse

No, it was criminal to ice the youngest team in the league when the expectation is playoffs

Sarcastic taro is odd. I guess B/c it’s so infrequent

Ya, totally dude! The cracks of doom are right over there. Go ahead…throw it in.

If he’s one of the best he should stay. Maybe I’m just not paying close enough attention. To me, none of them stand out or meaningfully differentiate. They are the subway sandwich goalie trio

it’s not about any one specific lack of save. It’s not about which unlikely save he should have made. It’s about not snagging one among a total of 4. Each save could be unlikely and yet it still unlikely he stops not one

I think in general players don’t do what they are supposed to do because..they can’t. I think effort levels over 82 games 23 guys 32 teams generally even out / law of averages. These guys aren’t “refusing” to be good enough or unwilling to try the results are generally, at least mostly based on the aptitude assembled. It’s the person constructing the team that has the most input on whether a team succeeds or not

I struggle a lot with this too people may or may not notice but considering I post quite a bit..I almost never talk about Granato. I find it hard to judge and analyze what a coach even *does*, never mind construct a competent analysis on whether they are doing it well or not. It’s so much easier to look at the GM. In the end you notice a coach most when they take over a new team and the team goes on a run. A lot of that could just be new team spark or whatever I think you win and lose based on the guys you have on the team and that’s down to the GM. I’m sure there are inns and outs that better articulate what a coach facilitates I’m just not well versed enough to do it. So I just avoid it.

Ah ok so ~ 1/4 odds

Right. The very furthest I got was “hella risky, but he could conceivably play around 40 if we go out and get a Swayman level guy to play the other 40.” It was risky *with* a vet backup added - without, it just seems folly. I do think most questioned it thoroughly. Some thought the rookie of the year was his to lose and he’d hit the ground running and start 50 I kept saying: it takes time to adjust to NHL shots. Way different than College shots I done made a little joke with my edit

Right that’s more along the lines of what I was thinking. It’s hard to do, but it’s more along the lines mathematically of flipping a coin heads 3x in a row Around 1/8

He was over ambitious in his belief that he was ready to be a bonafide 1. Lots of people were. even I succumbed to the idea with the caveat we rostered him with a capable vet backup, in case. Which we of course didn’t do Thing is, Adams is the *GM*. He can’t be so thoroughly wrong especially betting everything on it. It’s his foooooourth yeeeeear every farmer and their mom knew it was exceptionally risky to enter the season with the goalies we had. We wanted to believe, but hindsight need not apply. Adams is amendable to it and the results of it. It was a bonkers decision

So only 3 teams in the history of time out at thanksgiving made the playoffs? Still don’t believe it. The Sabres made it (yes, the Sabres actually once made the playoffs!) and they were out of it on Jan 1 TAROOO! @Taro T

Fixed, ffs

Omg I beg you, stop with the hasek thing it’s not “hasek and everyone else” there are *varying levels of goaltending play* Levi has contributed heavily to some losses, but even a goalie who just “isn’t the main reason we lost” every night *isn’t good enough.* “Dahlin wasn’t the main reason we lost, can’t blame him” ”Tage wasn’t the main reason we lost, can’t blame him” Absurd, when you hear it with other positions besides goalies. Those guys have to be sometimes the reason we win. Same goes for the goalie