Thorner

While not mathematically eliminated, by any stretch of the imagination, it would be a significantly uphill battle at this point given it doesn’t appear to be their focus: which I’d guess would be a requirement for achieving a goal that challenging.

Honestly, I have no idea. A not-insignificant number, though, I’d imagine - and especially given our documented ability to score goals, it’s not a number we want to underestimate. It’s not like in years past where hypothetical good goaltending would just result in closer losses. The bold: I mean, ya, but that’s kinda the obvious part, no? I think the point being made is that there’s a school of thought that says it’s ok to vary how you approach the addressing of each individual position, depending on their varying needs. Clearly, goalie was a need more so than at F. Perhaps he could have varied his approach - particularly in light of losing out on retaining a goalie he himself seemed to think we could really use. I agree with the rest, though. At the end of the day I think it comes down to a difference of opinion on how highly to prioritize GT for this season and last: ultimately I see it like you and have mentioned before that there’s some cap space dry to take a bigger swing at a G in the case that Levi doesn’t pan out. Levi timeline still makes the most sense. Though I truly hope the expectation next season is playoffs.

I think there’s a very real possibility the types of goalie adds Adams has been making, if par for the course moving forward, do end up being some sort of version of “good enough” considering the apparent looming depth of the other positions. But I have a funny feeling if we do get good enough, to make a run, we’ll be left wanting and needing better than good enough, in net. Maybe Adams really doesn’t have any choice at this point but to hope Levi is that guy while focusing on building an overall team with the ability to mask a good enough option in net while they take swings at buy low aim high moneyball options or whatever. It makes the Ullmark failure worse but I know that’s not supposed to be mentioned

No? I wasn’t really sure. My first thought was the implication was we may not even need a roster addition at the position potentially. The replies on the tweet seem to take it that way too, that’s part of the confusion on my end. Ie “we aren’t a goalie away, we just need to develop the system more!” It certainly frames the “we give up a lot of chances” thing under the goalie conversation. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t making any assertion about goalie at all, or else why frame it that way

When choosing-your-own-board-adventure, if you find you’ve reached the common “what could Kevyn Adams have even done?” brick-wall ending, you need to start over 😉 - - - Kevyn Adams has done a promising job thus far in my estimation: full stop. I think the distinction you’ll find at large is that it’s supposed he simply *could not* have done a better one. I don’t think there’s an environment present here that facilitates discussion on those topics: you’ll either get the “you are just one of those fans that can’t see the bigger picture” refrain or the altogether more common favourite designation of being a whiner who just wants to complain and focus on the negative (like the “you’ll just shift to saying playoffs isn’t enough once we make it!” talking points being dished at @PerreaultForeverin the other thread.) If the perception is that we are on the right track, any deviation from what we’ve actually seen Adams do is dismissed/can be dismissed on its face under the basis of “couldn’t have been wise as then it would have been in the plan”. I don’t believe the position that you can take issue with individual aspects of the plan while still having an appreciation for the overall totality of it is considered an allowable one.

Oh so Adams has just been acquiring goalies for the system we’ll one day have, instead of the one we have now. Or is it just that no goalie could have worked in this system, until perfected, and that we won’t be seeing any roster additions to the position, going forward, beyond the fringe options expected to carry the load ala the Carolina system back in the day? Is the point of the tweet that we don’t actually need to acquire goaltending or that it’s going to be incorporated in time?

Someone who’ll be more ready to contribute towards winning would be my play And im a big Savoie guy and not one of those down on his pedestrian numbers this season

Eichel / Reinhart / Ullmark

3 on 3 OT is a sham dear lord the worst hockey bar none

This is the kind of stuff that lets me KNOW there’s no goodwill in me discussing this anymore I appreciate it

That was just the one I posted 😂 There is a ton of data out there, plenty of analysts takes up, even on NHL.com, right now, paid analysts, that are placing Jack on these lists. Go look at his advanced metrics in 19-20. Hell, even peep the GDTs. Please, I cannot stress this enough: don’t take my word for it. But, with all due respect - and this isn’t directed specifically at you - I’m not that interested in doing the work for people, anymore. It’s not that interesting to me anymore- this particular conversion sort of rose up organically so that’s good fun, but.. I want to tap out of it, now, if that’s fair. I’ve tried before to link bits in the GDTs* from that year, for one example, clips of Eichel being a great leader towards Dahlin..people aren’t really interested in it. It doesn’t gain traction. Don’t blame ‘em. *part of why the even further improvement to his D game this year doesn’t surprise me is because I remember, and am not afraid to acknowledge, that *WE* were all saying the same things, in 19-20. But there’s no point in me waging this war if even the clearest bits of info are met with skepticism. Eichel is having a great season - he’s having a great season defensively: the numbers and metrics are in fact out there, and do in fact speak for themselves: anyone that doesn’t want to hear them, doesn’t believe them, or has a healthy degree of skepticism in them, ain’t going to be convinced by me, anyways.

You did in fact “like“ the post I made acknowledging exactly this:

I mean... It’s what people in the know are saying. Those that know way more than me. I believe his coaches are also waxing poetic about his defensive aptitude this season. People forget 19-20 around these parts, I will say that. I suppose the lasting perception of it was so thoroughly eclipsed by what came after for Jack it makes total sense. But that was the year we were all collectively marveling in the GDTs about how much better Jack’s two way game had become, and how much more leader-like he sounded in interviews. At the time, this wasn’t surprising to people, because we used to understand that players Jack’s age DO tend to improve their all around game at such the young age he was still at. People don’t really want to talk about that now, and I get it. But he finished 8th in mvp voting that year: his D *was* way better. And it’s appeared to take another gigantic step. Unless you think everyone is just lying because they hate buffalo, and really only buffalo fans *know*. We Sabres fans tend to view Jack, now, as the sum totality of all he was as a Sabre: and that’s fine. But it’s no good to deny the fact of the perspective under which we viewed him before: a player that was still improving and developing.

Overall, yes, and I agree: but the idea here for why having a few really good scorers rather than hypothetically just a couple more points would be the preferred scenario is that we aren’t a finished product yet. We can add to the parts that are working. Finished product? Ya, give me the team with more points in the standings, full stop

Not this people.

I think the idea is that, while there are certainly obstacles in signing any *one* player, your hope that, over a time period of several years, a GM would be able to snag even one from the entire pool, be it trade or FA, to substantially address the position. Just for clarification, you aren’t making the argument that there’s nothing better we could have reasonably done, this whole time, to address the position, right?

Better offensive numbers, slightly: but even here, Tage’s current per-game pace doesn’t scratch the surface of the marks Jack put up in per-game numbers at this point in a couple of his Sabres seasons. During the year he finished top 10 in mvp voting, Jack was pacing for 130 I believe at one point. Will have to see how Tage ends up Like I say, playing the pace game is dangerous. But, from a straight up, purely offensive production standpoint this season, it’s pretty close, with Tage so far actually being ahead, to your point - - - Basically, while you and GA are acknowledging the 2-way game thing, it’s not just something that is mentioned then quickly bypassed, because we want to, in favour of the guy who’s a Sabre just b/c he’s a year younger: it’s a substantial consideration and it’s why, until further notice, it’s Eichel being listed by all the analysts and “early voting” as in the top 10 for both Hart AND *Selke* right now, and not yet Tage. It’s not *me* ranking JE above him on these lists, either, obviously. Tage can round that out, not saying he can’t, but, assuming they stay pretty equal offensively, until he does that Eichel is the better overall player. I suppose Tage could blow by him offensively to make up the gap, too, but I dunno how likely that is

Yes I definitely would. 1 year of age gap doesn’t make a difference, and the contract doesn’t offset how much better Jack is two-way right now. I also don’t think Tage matches Jack’s point total this year, when all is said and done. Of course, this is all disregarding team fit and just looking at things in a vacuum. I don’t really agree with the idea of placing very much weight on contract when determining value, re: straight up player comparisons. There’s a reason contracts don’t factor into the Hart trophy voting: ie most VALUABLE player. It’s never weighted vs contract - salary is a team issue and players getting paid more don’t need to do more to earn an MVP than a player earning less: that wouldn’t make sense. Scheifele at 6 mil would have been in the mvp consideration for years if that was the case Still, Tage is still seemingly improving (though, apparently Jack is, too) so that book isn’t closed. This can be revisited. The fact it can even be discussed is pretty cool on it’s own.

The guy who berated the team and every member of this board on his way out lol

Think about it. Think again. What do you think? Just think!

@bob_sauve28 sounds like you are basically saying we have 7 guys who can succeed in that top 6, not that inserting VO necessarily avoids somewhat of a potential drop-off, but the key point being that whichever of the 7, in this case VO, isn’t in the top 6 will be left to twist in the wind shackled to someone like Mittelstadt and his black hole third line Correct me if I’m wrong

Agree. Mid 80s is a fine result

I think most teams 4th lines, really, are populated by dudes that can’t crack higher ground: so I suppose I disagree they can’t be construed as solid role players. Asplund/Jost/Girgensons/Okposo I’d argue do fit that criteria Ya, I like VO and do think he’d look better there

I always see a little bit of Keanu in Doan, ymmv - - - Imo, I was on record saying the bare minimum result that could be even *argued* to be a successful result is 82 points (and that was being nice) and the surpassing of the 15-16 total of 7 years ago, a total that Murray never surpassed, that, as a high-water mark, got him fired. It’s a .500 club. It’s not hard to do and this is the GM’s 3rd season, and it’s the second in the “new plan”, where we had 76 last year. I can’t see how failing to even improve by ~3 wins, when we are supposed to be seeing progress, could be deemed an acceptable result, especially considering it would be quite disingenuous to discount the fact people were, almost to a man, touting the finish and supposedly valuable sample size to end last season where they played WELL beyond an 82 point pace, as something that could/should carry over, at least somewhat. A 76 point finish, followed by, say, a 79 point finish, is more less treading water re:results and I think it’s ok to expect more progress than that. No, this isn’t the same as saying it would be indicative of a failed build and a need for KA to get canned