Thorny

It does start to get to me a bit when the expectations get too low. I was down with “meaningful games in march” (which, let’s be real, isn’t an exceptionally extravagant goal), but if you get to march and you..don’t win any of them, they stop being meaningful real quick. It’s ok for the overriding emotion here after losing 6 of 7 to be disappointment and frustration rather than “what a well played game”, but, it’s obviously a ymmv thing I too am glad they lost 2-1 rather than win 4-1

A lot of our best players are in their primes, they know how to play defence. They don’t need to learn how, they already know how. Of course the rookies can be an exception but I think we already *can* play like we did today on a regular basis - it’s just that it comes with a sacrifice of offence. We’ll get better when the talent can accomplish more while playing within either option or a combination or both, ie, a better Quinn will defend as well as today but find a way to get on the scoreboard once, as well). Also, KA can help by improving the roster ie defenders who don’t NEED the system protection a lyubushkin needs. By and large next year Granato can’t just say “ok now do both” and wave a magic wand. Our goal differential has been reflective all year and like they said themselves, they’re tired. Some of the top guys aren’t producing at the clip they were (skinner notwithstanding) because we’ve relied upon them pretty heavily all year + how condensed the schedule is hurts. But if we had a bit more depth they’d probably have a bit more tread on the tires here, again, going with KO’s own admission

Rats ass. maybe we get a meaningful march next year

Certainly picked a bad time to have his longest pointless streak of the season

One lost face off and we essentially don’t touch the puck again for the rest of the game. I don’t understand how 3 vs 3 has a single fan. Horrendous format

I can’t agree with this. “Still need 5 every night.” Even leaving the D exactly the same a really good goalie opposed to a poor goalie will make SOME difference. It’ll get us half way there And yes, fix the D. That’s the other half. anyways...

Last 5 gp: Dahlin: 1p, -4 Lyubushkin: 2p, even

I think Skinner has been in on 89% of the last 100 goals scored

Our new best player Jeff Skinner

That quick pass BACK to Peterka from Quinn was sublime

Dahlin WOW saved a goal What a sick play from Dahlin.

This is the type of game Vesey scores in lol

I hope greenway is up to it b/c Dahlin is on with the Thompson line often and we don’t need that unit hampered Bs no call

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.