Thorner

check your pm

the two we need most

In seriousness, we've got their backup, still got a good shot in this one maybe that proves your point

Bear would have blocked one of our guys OUr guys couldn't block him there though

I found enjoyment in that goal against. Thompson didn't look too bad on it. Granato has developed him well. If you can't find enjoyment in a goal against, and only goals for, what are we even doing here?

More less agree, with a few caveats I don't think anyone is suggesting trading high quality picks and prospects for quick fixes. If you are saying you don't believe we should be making any trades at all for players who will help us win now, and better the process, should they be available for reasonable hockey trades, hard disagree. It's not in the name of filling holes, ie "ah, NOW we are a contender", as I agree we can't know all the holes yet, it's in the name of continuing to add talent. There is no ordained path by simply doing nothing. As for the last bit, your "comes down to it", I suppose it depends what you mean by "good enough". If our current group has the makings of developing into a good team, yes, I actually do believe the difference between good and great will come down to the work of the GM from there - that's kinda my whole point. If you mean they aren't "good enough" to amount to even a good team, ya, we can't save it with trades.

And we remain relatively healthy. Gonna need a lot from the top 2 lines tonight I think but I will go out on a limb and GUARANTEE a victory. should we lose, feel free to blame this jinx, but I truly believe we shall emerge. Victorious.

I guess the disagreement I'm finding with posts like this and others I'm responding to currently is this idea we are nearing some sort of Stanley Cup contender, critical-mass tipping point, or nearing it. It's just not the case, I'm sorry, not at all - what we are nearing is a critical mass tipping point, maybe, for being a *reasonable* team. We are seeing signs of putting that together. I honestly feel like an entire level, really several, are being entirely skipped. We aren't even a *playoff* team right now. Other teams also will be drafting and developing players - the mere development of Cozens and Power and Quinn, et all, is not the launching point to contender: if our prospects are really good, they will be the launching point to *good team*. The amount of ground we need to cover that people see evaporating away in 2 years merely by the development of the players we have here right now, and the addition of the propects we have coming, is a bridge severely too far, imo. If the development our current players undergo is par for the course for what you'd expect for well-drafted players, we will be good. If we are looking at the current in-house talent, both on roster and below, and foresee it developing into a cup contender, in a matter of a few seasons...we need our development success with what we have to be an anomaly - we need everyone just going ceiling, ceiling ceiling. Again, other teams also incorporate good young players they draft. - - - What we may soon have, hopefully, is a window opening up where (To his credit!) Adams will have the tools needed to have a *chance at* assembling a contender. That is when the work begins. What we are working towards is that window - getting on the dance floor - then we shall see how Kevyn Adams and his team can Waltz. The window to CONTRUCT what we have, into a contender, might be opening. Actually BEING a contender isn't a situation that's opening up, on the way, it's the chance to gain a *seat* at the chessboard that seems to be on the way. Then we see what kind of player Adams is, and his team.

Two teams that sucked stayed bad, what could Adams have even done? Bit of a notable straw-man

This assumes Dahlin and Power are on the same pair, no?* A situation that necessitates a rook playing 25 mins a game is an ill-advised situation to enter into willingly *Edit - no it doesn't. Derp thorny. I don't think we'll need to limit the 2nd pair too thoroughly with Power on it, though

I already agreed with you it wasn't an answer, though. "It's early enough that the "he's been unlucky" thing does have merit" I do believe that "his advanced stats stink" DOES represent the answer, at some point - it's just not yet. To your point.

I believe in today's NHL the statistical prime is roughly ages 22-26. @Brawndoor @LGR4GM who're better than me at that kind of stuff can update if they like, but last I looked it was a little younger than one might think. That's just an average though - like you point out, everyone has their own curve. I'm not really making a statement that Thompson won't be as good at 29/30, merely that it's only a few years away, it would technically buck a statistical trend, and that the thing to keep in mind here is the context that he's our 1C. On a team, in 3 years, where the expectations are presumably *winning* while in the playoffs, right? We know we will need a very good 1C for that. Again, not saying Tage won't be that. Not all all. Merely saying that the idea he may not be producing like he is now is not a Thorny concern - it's a very valid potential likelihood. It's certainly not lost on me at all that even having a player who *might* be that for us, with Thompson is a very positive development. Leads me to wanting to sacrifice as little of this awesome-thompson-production as possible. My only point in saying this, is to point out we have a few players who are in this realm, where we don't exactly know where they'll be in 3 years. Some of the talk often seems to give off the vive (should be "vibe", maybe, Vaive?) that, "well, hold on now, we've got our top line in Skinner-Thompson-Tuch, just wait for the prospects to come along, THEN we will be great." GREAT being the functional word, there. I'm leaving aside the prospects thing, granting that they indeed WILL be what we need, for the sake of argument. But that still leaves the guys who ARE producing now - it's not just Thompson who we *might*be seeing close to their best from, already. What I am pointing out is that the chances ALL of these guys maintain form, for when all these prospects join up (surely seamlessly, right?) is very unlikely. That simply means that Adams IS going to have have to get into a bit of roster construction and team building beyond that thing a computer can do, ya know, draft and develop (this is a joke, draft nuts don't get mad). And my only point in pointing out that Adams is assuredly going to have to get into some serious team building down the line, is that where it all ends up can only be unknown. Again, I think we will be a good team one day, but I'd actually argue we objectively cannot know beyond that. Way way too early. TLDR - see @Curt's post. But, yes, it's not simply as easy as "waiting" for Levi. There *are* in fact merits to pushing for more wins sooner than later. I also witnessed this first hand with the Jets, who thought it was all on the horizon, until, suddenly, it was on the back burner. No, I do not think they are for real this year.

I don't think we should be playing him 25 mins a game at this stage. Might even make injury more likely. 25 is what I'd have him play in the playoffs, basically

The advances metrics will gain more prominence, as with regular stats, with an increase in sample size. Basically, once the sample size gets large enough, law of averages takes over. Ie. just hypothetically, if Comrie is sitting near the bottom of the expected goals list after 82 games, the chances that he just happened to suffer a significant amount more "odd" deflections than other goalies, just randomly, so often and for so long, is almost impossible. Like, you can spin red 5 times in a row by chance, if you spin red 100 times in a row, that's not luck. Something is up with the wheel. It's early enough that the "he's been unlucky" thing does have merit - the runway is shrinking, though.

Touch on a very interesting point here about waiting for Levi, especially in combined with the listing of the bolded players above. People aren't going to want to hear this, but Tage is in his statistical prime..right now. Right right now. I'm not saying he's going to evaporate at 30, but we are talking a context of contending playoff team here, right? By the time Levi is ready, Thompson will very likely not be in his prime anymore. He's our best player, right? That..could be an issue. How is Skinner going to look in 3 years when Levi is ready for prime time? Tuch? Hearing Tuch is merely a "complimentary" piece is a little disconcerting. Why? The context he was mentioned under was that he's filling the role of a necessary complimentary piece towards making the playoffs. That we need better (not saying I think we need a better complimentary piece than Tuch, myself). But my point here: if we finding ourselves in the position of needing to bring in that player, the means through which we achieved Tuch gives quite a lot of pause: how many franchise C's do we have to trade? I have a lot of faith in our young players. But I do preach caution towards the "waiting for 2-3 years down the road" timeline. We may find ourselves in a spot where we are lacking veteran component, and then what, is it the next wave of prospects we are waiting for, to complement the ascended? Could be, but if Thompson and Tuch aren't the centerpieces of that roster anymore, dunno how many years we are talking at this point. Adams can make moves to adjust the complimentary pieces. It could all go really well - but, if we are talking 2-3 years down the road, we definitely, definitely will be needing, likely, plenty of the team building moves we haven't had a chance to see yet, from Adams, as he has so far been more content with the building from within strategy. Makes sense. But until we see how he manages the step of moulding a team that, hopefully, becomes good into a GREAT team, we really have no solitary idea what kind of ceiling we have a shot at achieving here, with this team behind the helm.

If I said I had even a good theory, after theorizing to no avail for a decade +, it would be hubris. Who facking knows at this point. - - - The fact there's such a spotlight now on the franchise, such a hot spotlight, might make it hard enough as it is. Beyond all the usual difficult-to-navigate mechanisms that go into team building, that are clearly hard enough, the simple overcoming of a earth-wide narrative that, like or not, surrounds the team, undoubtedly enters into the minds of those running / participating in the franchise, adds, maybe, an unmeasurable layer of difficulty.

OH the "draw the line here" thing, is that an allusion to Picard? (not the show, the man, and his quote in, can't remember which film, Insurrection?) This was such a good post haha 4-1 against Canadian teams this season so far I like our chances

Well put Object at rest remains at rest

Adams is committed enough to a slow, safe process that, I dunno when it will be, maybe years, but I do think we will become a good team. Predicting based on what we've seen that we have a sure-fire cup-contender on the way would be absurd, though. There's so, so much ground to cover before anything like that is on the horizon. Would be absurd to think we have enough info to consider ourselves on that sure-fire path. Become a good team, become a team that can win half of it's games, become a team that can fight for a playoff spot in March, become a team that can make the playoffs...see where we are at after that. These "why watch?" posts need to go the way of Eichel They just need to go away

They did this with the Jets too. They were the Cup champs in 2019. What a jinx.

It should. The stat is supposed to account for things like luck. It makes an effort to do so - that's not to say it's perfect or close to - but it would take some pretty good fudging of the numbers to see Comrie's standing near the bottom of the expected goals list as a nothing burger. If the counting stats are bad, and the advanced stats are bad, and the results are bad, and there is no sample size of positive results in the past.... I mean I dunno How much of a defence would you be amounting for this player, if he wasn't a Buffalo Sabre. That's the question I'd ask to anyone claiming he's been fine, if anyone is

Ya, I don't think those posters should be criticized either. I only entered into the discussion to defend a stance (which I'm sure you noticed, and which is also what you are saying, here, that we shouldn't "go after" posters) and not to take issue with those taking the opposite I think balance makes the most sense, being on a "team" is just more of what creates the division we see so much of today - - - If there are ppl calling out other posters for being too "positive" for pointing out the good things in a losing effort, there are also posters acting derisively to those upset by all the losing. Plenty of posts to the tune of "of course there's bitching and moaning, they just don't see the big picture" and "oh of course it's all doom and gloom in here" ie "I know better, we shouldn't be upset with losing" You have several of those posts, yourself, tbh It's ok and believe it or not, logical to root for/even only find real enjoyment in wins, when winning isn't that hard. It's a 50/50 proposition. As with anything in life, the struggles and the pain make the good moments better, no? It's ok to find disappointment in the losses, such disappointment, in any regular earthly case, are what make the highs of the highs all the much better. We've really only found ourselves in the stage where we almost *need* to find happiness in losses because we've witnessed a truly, truly abnormal lack of winning over a very long stretch of time. In any reasonable case, living and dying by winning and losing makes sense: it's freaking sports. Over time, plenty of Sabres fans have indulged in the process for their kicks instead, which is also totally fine, and logical. Even if we never get good, there will always be a process going on, right? Both are fine.

Yup, they should be. They are still ahead - I simply said they were "further ahead" and you took issue with it for some reason. Or else, please direct me to where I said they were "wow way further ahead they are so awesome!" or that "the Devils are THE model of how to do a turnaround, hat tip for sure" My point was merely a comment on how long it's taking the Sabres ie we've taken longer than a team you've just explained has, in isolation, taken way longer than it should. Ie even a team that has struggled mightily, mightily, to get things turned around, STILL figured out how to do it sooner. That's EXACTLY the original point I was making. Your argument..doesn't change what I said, at all. It serves to make my point

We face more backups than starters. Tage’s Sh% will retain its grey area wiggle room until further notice

I caught the LOTR and Dark Knight references, not sure if there were more Easter eggs