JohnC

Curious, was the loss of electricity a weather related issue? What part of the country or world do you live in? I'm a nosy fellow. 😃

I say no. I'm sticking with Quinn and hope that he becomes the player that many of us hoped he would become. I don't want to see any of our own late bloomers on other teams. Patience is a virtue.

What's encouraging is that Lindy is instituting a more responsible two-way style of play that the players are buying into. And if you factor in a healthy Tage and the return of Greenway, you can see a deeper roster. Cozens looked like one of the best players on the ice last night. And Quinn seems to be steadily, although incrementally, playing better. The point being that with the young players there should be even more upswing to their play. If we continue to get consistently good goaltending, then we should be able to get the breakthrough on that tormenting playoff wall. I hope, I hope, I hope. The abused Sabre fans deserve it.

The Sabres won all three games on this trip. On the other hand, all three of these tight games could have just as easily gone the other way. Without Tage, the first line's scoring threat steeply declined. You can see how not having Tage on the ice limited the space and scoring chances for JJP. The question that you seem to be posing is if Tage is on the ice would the Sabres play such a defensive oriented game. Probably not. However, I'm confident that with him there would be more scoring chances. It's a balance. My position is that Tage is our biggest scoring threat and because of that the team would definitely be better with him playing. Ultimately, the difference for the Sabres on this road trip was the superb netminding in all three games. You are not always going to get that level of play from that position. We definitely need Tage back to give our offense more potency. (Just my opinion.)

Byram played well but I wouldn't have given him a star. Giving a star to a hometown player is understandable. I would have given a star to Dahlin instead of Byram. But I can't dispute the fact that Bo played well. And as the games add up it he seems to be getting better and better.

Absolutely not.

The first star of the game without question is Reimer. My second star would be Cozens. What shouldn't be forgotten is that Cozens was winning a lot of draws. For a good portion of all three games on this west coast trip the Sabres were behind. What was encouraging was that the team stuck to its structured game and kept at it. There was no panic---they just kept playing. The defensive stick work is noticeably better than prior years. Also, there is more clutter in front of the opposition's net. The too many men on the ice penalty at the end of the game was foolish. We're fortunate that it didn't come into play in the outcome. Dahlin played well. My only criticism of him is that he is taking too many foolish penalties. That cross-check penalty at the end of the game was not smart. One play that embodied the grittiness of the team was Clifton getting hit with the puck, sticking with the play to reach the puck and then sending it down the ice. That was a tough play by a persistent player at a critical time of the game. It's apparent that what Lindy is preaching is taking effect. Coaching matters. Great road trip. 3 for 3. Eager to get Tage back. Let's keep it going.

My worry isn't whether they will come out as a hungry team or not take the opposition seriously. It's hoping that on a back-to-back game their legs are fresh enough and not too fatigued to play a fast-paced game. With the upcoming second game, you never know whether it will look like they are skating on ice or mush. It's not so much a worry about the players' attitude as it is a physical status for the players.

What's evident in Power's play is his increasing confidence in expanding his offensive game. He's not afraid to jump into the attack and go to the net when the opportunities arise. An example of that is when he went to the net in OT to take a pass from Tuch and get a shot off that ended up rebounding to Kulich who buried it.

More like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. And that may be an overestimation. The organization is at a point where it is starting to fill out its roster and building some depth. Thinning out the roster for one appealing player makes little sense to me. (Not saying you are arguing for that but some here are making that argument.) When there are opportunities to make a trade to improve the roster, it should be done. But in general, the GM has staked out a course and should follow through with it.

We are agreeing. I also need to see more. Let's just see how this plays out. More likely than not, he will be sent down. And no doubt, his experience in the NHL will enhance and accelerate his development. Side note: I see Quinn getting incrementally better. In the first period, I was encouraged when he made a move to the middle to get off a good shot in the danger zone. Let's hope that he becomes the player we thought he would become based on his previous play. Patience is a hard to take virtue.

That's my point! I'm open to all options. I'm not foreclosing anything simply because it is the standard option. As you point out, having a deeper and more talented roster presents tough decisions. Considering this teams feeble recent history, that's a good thing and not something to be tormented over.

I'm not arguing to keep him or not. My basic point is that his play should be the determining factor. It's not an issue of rushing his development and ultimately hurting it. The fundamental issue is whether he helps the team on a sustained basis or not. All teams have to face the same young player considerations. What I prefer not to do is to rule out options because that is the norm. Sometimes what is not the norm materializes and makes your team better. I'm open to all options.

If he shines and demonstrably outperforms other players, then why ship him out? There are a variety of options to consider accommodating a player who is playing well. You can keep an extra forward and one less defenseman. You can waive a Lafferty, Malenstyn or Aubel-Kubel etc. Having a player who is playing well is not a problem to lament over. It's a good sign that the roster is filling out with more talent resulting in tough roster decisions. All teams deal with the issue of roster composition and juggling players and making in tough roster decisions. I'm simply not overly concerned about this particular issue.

Whether he is a rookie or not is not the critical issue. If his play dictates that he stays up with the big club, then he should stay up. If his play slides or he is not given sufficient playing time, then send him down. The issue for keeping a player up or down is simple: Does he make the team better and help them win more than the player he is replacing? It's about the now!

Even if you want me to use a "lesser" physical term such as moving players out of the dangerous areas, he is not going to be able to do that at a high level at this point in his physical development. For him, it's more about positioning than muscling players out. At this stage of his career, he is a puck mover who can skate. The muscle game is not his forte and never will be. No player is beyond criticism for his play. But the pleasant reality is that he is now a good player who is going to get better and become one of our core and essential players.

I was also very wrong on evaluating Justin Bailey. He was a player who possessed impressive physical traits. The physical traits simply didn't translate into production on ice. The effort was there but the instincts for the game didn't match his physical talents. In football, there is a pre-draft combine. Some people have impressive measurables. But for whatever reasons, those physical talents don't translate into productive output. This is a case where watching game tape is much more valuable than combine tests.

I understand your position but disagree with it. In my view, there should be one overriding consideration: Does the deal make your team better? If you believe it does, then pull the trigger. How it impacts the other team shouldn't be a disqualifying factor for the team trading a player. Just my opinion.

Owen Powers is not going to be the type of defenseman who will knock people around in front of the net. That's not his game and will never be. In this game, he was one of the better players on the ice. He's solid to good now and as he matures he is going to be an upper tier player in this league. What's encouraging is that steadily he is getting more active on offense. That was demonstrated in the OT when Tuch possessed the puck in open ice, Power caught up for the pass to him near the net. His shot rebounded for the Kulich winner.

I watched the recaps of both games and the first period of last night's game. What I have observed that is a common thread in the last number of games is that there is a greater consistency in responsible two-way play throughout. Even when the team is down, there appears to be a belief that if the players stick to their "principles/basics" that it will eventually work out in their favor. In the recent games, and especially noticed on this west coast trip, is that the play is consistently tighter both ways. It's less freewheeling offensively but is a tougher style of NHL play. No question it is less entertaining because the offense is stifled but the results W/L record will be better. This is the Lindy effect. Coaching matters.

I do. Hard no! Again, hard no!

porno fat women 😁

As you noted, the individual line time in this game was chopped up due to the PK. But what is noticeable with Lindy is that he is very willing to limit ice time based on how a player is playing compared to his predecessor. The experienced HC is also not afraid to sit out players who he feels are underachieving. The simple term for this approach is "holding players accountable" for their play. In my view, Granato was the right coach to bring the young players along while Ruff is the more suitable NHL coach for competing in the league for the playoffs.

I just watch a summary of the game. So I don't want to give the impression that I was in touch with the tenor of the game. But from the five minute clip it seemed that both teams were playing with a lot of intensity recognizing that a single goal was going to be very decisive. To say the least, it was apparent that this was not going to be a shootout where there were going to be any big comebacks.

The vicissitudes of life. The longer you hang in there eventually you will hit the up cycle. Within the required period of patience you will be subjected to frequent bouts of agitation. Eventually it will settle down. Hang in there. There definitely are some good signs to cling to. One of them is having a coach who knows how to work in this challenging environment. 😷