JohnC

The scrimmage, especially for the goaltenders, tell you little about how they will perform. In that setting the play is loose and hitting is rare. You don't need to wait until tomorrow about what is going to happen. There will be no trade for a deal. We are going with what we got.

I don't want to futilely go back and forth on the Hutton issue. Evidently the HC and organization believe for the immediate time Hutton is an acceptable backup. Did the organization have options to replace him? Probably so, but apparently weren't willing to give up assets to consummate a deal. I know I'm in the minority here but I'm not as bothered with Hutton as a backup as most others are. A bigger issue for me is Skinner returning to form and how he is used. We'll just have to see how this plays out.

With Krueger he will have to get back to the defense first mentality in order to stay up with the big club. When the AHL starts playing games it would best for him to play in Rochester and get a lot of playing time.

Power play #1 is dynamite. Dynamite Explosions compilation 2016 - Bing video

Marty Biron has repeatedly stated that the most important reason why the Sabres struggled last year was due to its inability to score. I'm hoping that with the addition of Hall and Staal and with Skinner returning to form or near form that will resolve that major deficiency. Hutton is a backup and nothing beyond that. If he is adequate then he is a sufficient backup. It was reported last year that the struggling netminder had eye issues. Was that the primary reason why he struggled? I don't know. As I stated before the bigger issue is whether Ullmark can be a consistent #1 caliber backstop. I think he can but again can't say with much confidence. For me the play of Ullmark is the biggest factor determining success or failure for this team. As I said before if Hutton falters a serviceable replacement can be made in season. If Ullmark falters it will be more difficult to find an acceptable replacement. My recommendation to you is to put more attention on Ullmark and less on Hutton. If you do that it will save you a lot of stomach agitation.

Thanks for the quote. I'm upbeat about Ullmark. As you and others have noted there has been a steady progression to Ullmark's development. Whenever he makes a jump up the ladder he at first struggles. And then predictably he adapts and establishes himself until he moves up the ranks. The pattern has been consistent. That is encouraging. The point of my post is while there is a lamenting fixation on Hutton the more important issue is Ullmark. If Hutton falters a replacement can more easily be found in season. If Ullmark falters this team is sunk. I'm more encouraged than not about our starter.

I agree that there was a repetitive nature to his commentary. But the truth is there was a repetitive nature to the team's play that brought on that same and tiresome commentary.

The more important issue than Hutton, the backup, is whether Ullmark as a starter can play as a solid to good #1 goalie and handle the load. I think he can but I can't say for sure. Marty Biron has often stated that if Hutton is not overused his play is more than adequate. It's a legitimate question to ask if Hutton's eye issue affected his play or has he reached the point where he just can't play well enough any longer. I'm simply not sure. There are those who strenuously advocate for Hutton to be dispatched before the season begins. It's not going to happen. The tandem we have is the tandem we are going to go with.

What's the sarcasm emoji? Just an observation but often it is often difficult to distinguish the difference between sarcasm and seriousness when reading the page. On the other hand it is easier to detect sarcasm when in the presence of the commentator where tone and facial expression/body language are more evident.

What's a dishonest question? 🤡

His attempt at humor escaped me. I guess I'm a humorless guy. 🤡

The writer sounds like an economist. On the one hand this and on the other hand that. What the writer is saying is that I could be wrong and I could be right. The illumination is very dim.

Skinner is not a bad guy or negative influence. I have never said that. I don't believe that he is unwilling to change. But the bottom line is what you do on ice. And apparently it isn't satisfactory to what the coach expects. Until it is demonstrated on the ice that he can adjust his game to a greater degree that conforms to what the coach wants his role and playing time will be diminished. The coach has a system that he believes in. He has a talented offensive player who is playing outside of it. There needs to be an adjustment on the part of the player. Maybe the question comes down to not is the player willing to make the adjustment but is he capable of doing it. He needs to demonstrate that capability on the ice. So far it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of the coach.

I live in a Maryland suburb of DC so I followed the team. The transition for Ovi wasn't perfectly smooth and did have some resistance. But Ovi did, and still has, adjusted his game. Trotz wasn't a fool. He recognized what Ovi's strengths and weaknesses were and to what degree he could get him to modify his game to fall within the coach's structure. There is no question that Ovi did tame his freewheeling offensive game for the benefit of the team. And as you noted the team finally won the cup with Trotz's. And when the coach went to the Island the team rather quickly transformed into a consistently good team.

Skinner's current role on a lower line speaks for itself. How Skinner is being used speaks louder than words.

You answered your own question about the player/coach relationship and the need for flexibility. In the Washington example Ovie bought into the structure that Trotz demanded. In fact that was his priority when he took over the job. Ovie didn't reluctantly conform to the coach's more disciplined precepts----he embraced them. Make no mistake that Ovie is an offensive juggernaut more than a defensive demon but to his credit it was evident that he was sincerely putting in the effort to be a more responsible two-way player. That is not the case with Skinner. What I find disturbing is Krueger's tighter philosophy of play is well known to all the players. It's not something new. He was emphasizing it the moment he took over. It seems that everyone but Skinner is trying to abide by it. Jack is our best player and most prominent leader on our team. Why is it that he bought in and Skinner seems to continue to meander in his stubborn world? Skinner is Skinner and will never be a tenacious two way player. Even the erudite coach knows that and accepts it. But when the player plays as a solo act separate from the unit and shows little willingness to adjust his game then his demotion should not be surprising. You and I both agree that we want to see Skinner on the second line. Where we diverge is that I believe that the player has to earn that second line role. He is acting as if he is entitled to it. That's why he is where he is.

The corollary to Adams earning the Exec of the Year for trading Skinner and his anchor contract is that the GM who trades for him would earn the worst Exec of the Year for making that deal. 🤡

Cozens can be a boy but that doesn't mean that he can't play like a man. If he can keep up and earn his way to playing time and role then why be so concerned about his age? No doubt he is going to get better but you got to start somewhere. He's a young player that not only am I not worried about so much as I am excited about.

If Skinner were to waive his NMC who would be interested in him with his long term baggage contract? That contract consideration becomes even more pronounced in this Covid induced decline in revenue that is going to last beyond this season. I disagree with how Krueger is handling Skinner. However, as others have pointedly stated the onus for the apparent lack of effort is on the player. The player can't control how the coach uses him, but certainly he is in control how he plays. When down in the ranks play harder and work yourself up the ranks. Bootstraps 101!

I appreciate your observations and comments. You and I are in accord that he should be on a second line with Staal and Rheinhart. Where I veer from your view is that even if the coach is not putting him in an elevated role that we both believe not only best serves the player but also serves the team the appropriate response for the demotion is to play with more effort and determination that would force a higher role. My fear, and I think you have the same sensation, is that Skinner is simply not a Krueger type of player. Krueger seems to favor players who have a tighter and more responsible two way style of play. That more rigid and disciplined style of play does not permeate his game. If this observation is true I just wish Krueger would be more flexible and make a greater effort to put Skinner in a better position to succeed. In my opinion putting him on a lower line doesn't do that.

I didn't watch the scrimmage so I can't specifically comment about it . But I'm bothered by the same observation by a few viewers that it looked like Skinner's play reflected a disinterest and that he seems lost. The thing that I am troubled about the Skinner saga is that one thing that is noticeable about his game even when not scoring is his skating talents. It just seems that he is struggling with his game and role and is going through the motions. For those who watched the scrimmage is this a fair concern?

The line that will benefit him and the team the most is the second line. I agree with you that from an individual statistical standpoint he will benefit the most playing on the Jack line. Most people would agree with that judgment. But I'm not making my judgment on Skinner in a vacuum. Hall, a not so long ago MVP, was added to the roster. So the next obvious question is how do you apportion the players to maximize their talents. Krueger deciding to put Hall on the first line is fine by me. It makes sense. But not putting Skinner on the second line with Staal and Reinhart doesn't seem to me to either benefit this highly cost player nor maximize his biggest asset which is scoring goals. Many people make the reasonable argument that it is better to disperse the talent along all the lines (mostly top three lines) to get better balanced scoring. I disagree with that concept. I'm more inclined to put your top six players on the top two lines with the caveat that there has to be a consideration of the pieces fitting well.

Skinner will play on any line he is assigned to. But that begs the question of which line will he be most effective i.e. score goals. As a third liner regardless how it is constituted his production potential relative to his contract is severely devalued. My sense (opinion) is that Skinner is not a Krueger guy for a variety of reasons. Skinner has a tendency to float and not play a disciplined and responsible style of play entering and in the defensive zone. That is contrary to Krueger's tighter and cover for your mates philosophy. Skinner is a veteran who has for the most part been a productive player. I just wish the coach would be more flexible and require less structure with him on a line. I just think that if he is not on the second line (at least) his desperately needed asset of scoring goals is being diminished and squandered.

No he is not. @GASabresIUFAN is first in line extolling his virtue. I'm in the same refusing to give up on him line but a lot farther back in the line. I would be ecstatic if he did play beyond my expectation. 🙂

I don't want to belabor a point and get involved in a useless tug of war. On the one hand you say you don't want to make a prediction and then you follow that word by saying my assumption is until he says he isn't. That's a prediction. The reality is that he won't say that he is leaving because this smart fellow is not going to say that because it would foreclose his options. As I said in a prior post I don't know what he is going to do after his one year contract. If he has an exceptional season and his stats are impressively high he is going to attempt to parlay his recorded play into a more lucrative and longer term contract. If the Sabres are not in a cap position to come close to matching other offers I'm sure that Hall will be unsentimental when making a business decision that will be in his best interest. If our views are different they really aren't much different. We are basically quibbling around the edges. 🙂