JohnC

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. 🙂

Hall is going to do what any former elite player on a one year deal who for a variety of reasons (injuries etc) fell off from his previous high level of play. Of course he is going to be motivated this year in his prove it year. And from a business and strategic standpoint going to Buffalo and playing on a Jack line improves his chances of significantly improving his stats in order to make him more marketable for his next contract. Will doing well in Buffalo give us an inside track in signing him? Maybe? But if another team offers him a long term bonanza deal that Buffalo won't come close to matching it will be adios for him. I'm not disagreeing with your take. What I am saying is that he is going to act in his best interest mostly from a contract standpoint. Hall is a relatively young player yet he is playing for his fourth team. He knows very well that this is a business and he will treat it that way.

Rumor had it that you were publicly exposing your asset! 🤡

I hope the youngster doesn't play like a hot dog. 🤡

If Risto is going to play on the second PP unit I would rather see him play down low in front of the net instead of the point. The few times he played that role on the PP he was difficult to move out and obstructed the goalie. The Sabres have had glaring deficiencies over the past number of years. One of the glaring deficiencies is not having net presence to make it more difficult for the goalie. Reinhart has been our best player at doing that dirty and punishing job.

Why not put VO on the first line? You have a quality second line with Skinner/Staal/Reinhart. Then on the third line as you suggest you can have a youngster line with a combination drawn from the youngsters in Cozens/Mitts/Thompson/Arttu.

If you go to Sabres.com it will get you there. And it will provide some other short interesting segments. You can also try: Official Buffalo Sabres Website | NHL.com That first PP unit looks potent. If I'm not mistake was Krueger reluctant last year to use Skinner on any of the PP units?

This is a 4 minute plus clip of a scrimmage with Staal mic'd up. Staal is a talker. The GM clearly added veteran leadership. This clip was taken from Sabres.com. Mic'd Up: Eric Staal | NHL.com