Thorner

Is there a Sabres specific feed or just the Rangers one. I’m on the rangers one

Very complimentary of Dahlin on broadcast

That’s a bad d zone give away from TT

Stillman 61 in goat heads I can ONLY see max

Tired: Lafreniere wired : LaFontaine

Brian’s Song 2: The Duffman Dance

This reminds me of what SS legend darksabre used to say about goaltending. Having great GT for so long...goalie purgatory just feels wrong

I buy the idea these kids by and large come in to the NHL far more developed on the offensive side of the equation, I guess I’m just not sold on the idea that, should defence be the first area of attention once player is in the pros, that that would result in the stunting of offensive growth. Why can’t the attention to offence be second? It particularly needs to be first? It was the use of “permanently” re: stunted offensive growth that caught my eye. like, (reading up, it appears to be a myth?) but say the old idea: you add a ton of muscle mass before your growth spurt, you can stunt your growth. The operating thought at least was that you could actively hamper future growth. I’m not sure why rounding out your D game before the offensive game at the pro level* would necessarily stunt the potential for offensive growth - it very well might, I just don’t see the connection *If it’s coach mandated that’s more a case of being pigeonholed, I’d argue, rather than any kind of “permanence” ymmv

I’m curious about the “stunting offensive growth” thing, in the case where you learn D first. Can you elaborate on the theory being expressed by the hockey people in question? As mentioned I don’t have a stance here on if/why/when teams would do this

I agree. Part of the reason we’ve been scoring 5 goals is because we’ve been willing to give up 5 goals

Yes. They are. You don’t just isolate one stat and call it a day - this is exactly the point of my post. the exact same people who are coming up with the stat that tells you Comrie is facing more high danger shots than others, break down the same numbers to tell you Comrie is saving WELL below expected *on those chances*. And on the chances that aren’t high danger. You don’t get to cherry pick one stat. it’s both. It’s definitively both. No, a good goalie won’t make them instant contenders on his own. No one is saying this, though - maybe we can bury that particular straw man

The bold is SUCH a salient point. I hope people really think about this it’s so, so much easier to succeed when the endgame is merely development, because the opposing team *isnt actively out to hamper the development of the Sabres*. This is so, so key. When you are just trying to “get better” and “evaluate”, the opposing team isn’t in opposition to that! Hell, they’ll *actively learn ya!” Transitioning to winning is so hard because the other teams aren’t PLAYING in a development league. They are actively targeting your weaknesses to achieve a result. Until we choose to prioritize the RESULT, we won’t learn to *achieve* said result with consistency thank you for that head clearing post, in sincerity Absolutely needs to transition to a stated goal next season.

1

Like others have said, I think it’s by choice. We are scoring among the very top of the league’s teams - we aren’t among the league’s best teams. Other teams don’t have to sacrifice so much D to put up the offence they do. Coaching has seemed to actively prioritize enhancing our goal scoring even to the detriment of play the other way. I have no idea why, others can field answers, but I do think it’s happening this is why I kept pointing to the goal differential, which is closer to mid pack, when others kept saying our F group was set: some of the raw offence is in effect a mirage in the sense we need to play an unsustainable system to achieve it. The differential is a better overall indicator: we are much improved, but still ~ middle, roster wise. Internal growth, as well as outside additions, will be what we need to climb further up the ranks

It’s still uncommon for goalies of Levi’s size to start consistently in the nhl. The lion’s share are bigger dudes. He can absolutely be the exception to the rule, just like Saros. His talent suggests it. It’s becoming more common, like you said - but he’d still be bucking a significant trend. I’m sure analysts that see less of him especially simply acknowledge this battle and default to some sort of an odds-play re: “I’ll believe it when I see it at the nhl level since goalies of his size aren’t commonly starters“ if they used this logic they’d be right 8/10 times, without looking at any numbers. Personally, looking more in depth at Levi makes me think he’s going to carve out a solid nhl career. For me re: prospects that’s actually a significant endorsement as for beyond that, we’ll just have to see. So much potential landing ground, timeline a huge question mark

Don’t really get what people mean when they say no goalie can “succeed” here without upgrading the D. What does that mean? They can’t put up Vezina numbers? Well, ya, I agree. But like... rosters... players.. teams..they don’t operate on an “all or nothing” plane. our goalies aren’t “good”. They aren’t even “average”. Bringing in a “good” or “great” goalie wouldn’t represent a magic wand that solves all the issues - but since when is getting *more* saves and a few *more* points a bad thing? Since when is good the enemy of great? Even after upgrading the D, we’d be looking at needing better goaltending. The numbers clearly suggest we had below average tending made terrible by team D, not good GT made terrible just upgrade both

I forgot the fact a goalie can only be bad if EVERY goal is directly his fault It’s both lol The, “Oh, so you are saying the defence is great?!” is getting to “oh, I was told steph curry couldn’t shooot?!l levels of absurdity

Will we win? Well that’s pretty simple: Dahlin has a point in 1 of the last 6 Sabres games played. The Sabres have won 1 of the last 6 games played Three guesses which

Nope, today we’re going to.. (queued up)

It’s a size bias. But they’d probably freely admit that.

Like I said, he’s my favourite prospect - if we could acquire a guy like Saros and keep him, all the better. But, you’re right: you don’t, often, see a team move their top prospect. Which is to say, presumably if we need to, we could beat any competing offer and avoid the “well, we tried” fallback and instead get our guy, then, by dealing it. What a fortunate position to be in then! Near the top of the league in goals scored. A position of such strength. Boston is having one of the best seasons of all time. Of all time. We have 2 less goals. We don’t actually need more goals. And what with our cap, so optimally positioned to make that move, if necessary. Im honestly glad you said the “don’t usually see top prospect move” thing cause it helped me wrap my head around it even further. “What could KA have even done?” Need not apply again, really, no? If we have that tradeable asset other teams just won’t trade / don’t have. like you said hopefully the deal doesn’t take a Savoie. I do feel, though, that Savoie shouldn’t be an obstacle that prevents a deal for a player of that caliber SHOULD they become available

Dunno who was running him out but yes

And I’m 36 so I think my statement is fair 🤪 Man typing out your age on a hockey message board makes you feel WAY older wow haha. Just seeing it in the same font where “36” represents “old ass player” is a trip

I feel..... young old

Like him too, watch his show a lot. He’s right about Dahlin but not Tage (unless things changed and we got into a playoff spot). Hart never goes to a non playoff team even if McDavid wasn’t playing