JohnC

You are not a bad person but a person who needs to have someone spank some sense into you. A few taps properly administered will do you some good. ☠️😛🤡 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12257887/video-man-spanking-child-sparks-parenting-debate/

As you smartly noted the Kirby Dach is the model to follow in how Cozens should be handled. You start him off in a limited role and let him get acclimated to the NHL game. By the end of the season Dach's role increased. There is no rush to push a young player beyond what he is capable of. If Cozens is overmatched then you adjust his role downwards. If he demonstrates he can handle more responsibility you increase it. Krueger is experienced in coaching young players in world tournaments. He knows how to bring them along and put them in a position to succeed. Cozens is undoubtedly going to make this roster. It's unlikely that at the start, or maybe even at all this season, that he will be placed on one of the top two lines. As a rookie he is going to have his struggles and he also will have interludes of outstanding play. The playing time he gets and the role he plays will be dictated by how he plays. He's not Mitts when he was at the same juncture. My prediction is that as the season advances he will be a contributing player.

I won't belabor the points that we have already discussed about Mitts in comparison to Cozens. What I do believe is that the best thing to happen to Mitts that advanced his game is playing in the AHL. I just think that Cozens is more advanced than Mitts was at this stage of play and can even contribute in his inaugural NHL season. I agree with you that Mitts wasn't properly handled but I disagree with you on the point that Mitts was ready to play in the NHL in his first season. I understand what you are saying but I'm not fully receptive to it. This is what one would call a friendly disagreement. 🍺

In general our positions are not much different yet slightly different. Where I have a nuanced difference is that there is a stylistic difference in play between the lower lines and the top two lines. To an extent the lower lines play a tighter, more physical and grinding style of play. In my opinion Mitts wasn't ready for that style of play. Maybe he is more ready now than before. I hope so. I'm rooting for him to succeed. But where I do believe that Cozens can handle a lower line now and I didn't see Mitts having the required traits at that point to handle the rigors of a lower line when he first played in the league.

Your response is well reasoned but I disagree with it especially as it relates to Mitts. My take on Mitts is that he simply wasn't ready to play in the NHL even at a lower line. He simply wasn't physically ready and equipped at that point to compete and play the more rugged two way game. When he left college he should have been sent to the AHL and given a lot of playing time to work on his game. While in the NHL he was a boy in a man's league. I don't have the same concern with Cozens. Although he is not fully physically developed he is developed enough to play against NHL players. I also believe that Cozens is more mature at this point than Casey was and because of that maturity beyond his young years he can handle the struggles that he will inevitably face. I agree with you that he should start on a lower line and allow him to work his way up the ranks if he can. My general point is that Cozens and Mitt situations are very different and should be handled differently.

I watched this snippet clip and my juices got activated.

Don't let the Mitts syndrome influence how you would handle Cozens. They are completely two different players and people. Cozens is more mature and physically developed compared to Mitts when he first played in the NHL. Cozens is also more ready to play a two way game then Mitts was when he got early playing time. This is my impression (not necessarily true) but I believe that Cozens has a greater level of maturity where he could handle setbacks than Mitts could.

I think you are being too cautious with Cozens. There are players who are more mature than their age. It appears that he is one of those players. I agree with you that he is not fully physically developed because of his age but he is physically ready enough to play and handle the rigors of NHL play. Krueger isn't going to start him off with a full load of play. He will start him off by limiting his ice time and role and then increase them as he shows what he can handle. Even at a young stage Cozens has little to gain by going by to the lower rungs of the game. If the AHL was starting on time you would have a stronger argument. But that's not the case this season. Even then Cozens would probably be making the NHL roster. On this issue I believe he not only will he be on the roster but as the season advances he will be a contributing player.

It seems that when the former GM's name is mentioned it results in a reflexive negative response. I agree with your assessment that the former GM left this organization in better place than when he took over. As you noted the ROR trade had a lingering negative effect. Not coming close to sufficiently filling that void was very damaging. However, as you noted there are strong suspicions that the owner ordered the departure resulting in not coming close to getting value back. It should also be noted that if J Botts would have agreed to the owners' desire to more thinly reshape the organization he would still be our GM.

Whether a time out was needed to be called or after one of the early three and out series when Kelly was on the sidelines either the HC or the OC should have told Kelly that he needed to adjust to running plays when the defense was in a two or three man front. There was no need to take the play calling away from Kelly. Coaches and players talk during the game. In the K-Gun the qb reads the defense and then calls the play. If he was too stubborn to make the right adjustment then the coaches should have intervened. There were plays at the qb's disposal that not only would have worked against the unusual defensive alignment but actually did work at the end of the game. But the adjustment was made too late. You and I are actually agreeing on what should have been done. When the adjustment was done it was too late. The HC or the OC should have made the adjustment and made the headstrong QB adjust the offense according to what the defense dictated. After the first few series it was obvious that a change in strategy needed to be made. It wasn't. A game that should have been won wasn't. A SB that should have been won wasn't. That's a dam shame.

You don't need to call in plays from the sidelines. You call a timeout and tell the headstrong qb that when the defense has three or even two players on the line you run the ball and gobble up yardage until the defense adjusts. In the K-gun you are not mandated to throw the ball when there are 8 players in the backside. In the K-gun the qb reads the defense and then adjusts to a more suitable play. Continuous forcing the ball without adjusting was stupid. When belatedly the qb called running plays for Thurman and Davis the offense was rolling. But it was too late. This was freaking stupid!

If there is a one on one exchange I would consider it. But if the requirement was Reino plus anything more I say absolutely not.

Levy was the HC. He should have acted like a HC instead of an impotent delegator who cluelessly stood on the sidelines as this debacle was occurring. You don't have to be a brilliant HC to know in advance that Belichick, who was considered to be one of the best defensive tacticians in the game, was going to design a defense to take away from the offense what they usually do. From a failed strategy standpoint in this game I blame the HC and also our headstrong HOF qb who got caught up trying to shine on the big stage.

I would not. Sometimes the issue isn't whether a player is better or not as it is with the fit for a team. I'm a Reinhart fan who believes he is undervalued because his subtleties on the ice are not always recognized. By no means am I diminishing Dubois.

When I talk about the future I'm also referring to the near future which includes this year. I think that his play this season will indicate how good he is and can be.

I don't agree that his current value is at its highest level. If he turns out to be the player that some of us believe his value will increase even more. For me, he is a no touch player. In addition, as a player on his entry contract his value increases for the Sabres.

I understand your very well reasoned response. I respectfully disagree with it. I wouldn't trade Cozens under any circumstances. As far as Eichel's happiness or not I'm not worried about it to the extent of allowing it to be a determining factor for any deal.

If the Bills would have run the ball more in the SB game with the Giants the Bills would now have a SB trophy in their trophy case. In that SB game the Giants invited the Bills and Jim Kelly to run the ball with their three and two line fronts. Kelly was determined to throw it into an 8 man coverage. In that game we were out coached and strategized by Belichick who was the DC.

I wouldn't. A prospect such as Cozens plus additional assets would most likely be part of a deal for Dubois. That type of deal would put the organization in a cap bind when the Dahlin and other contracts come up. If Hall regains his MVP form there would be little chance to sign him if another expensive trade was made. It's not unreasonable to believe that Cozens in another year or so will be a second line caliber player who would also be playing on a first contract cost basis. Dubois certainly would be an appealing player but the ramifications for dealing for him would result in precluding later personnel options.

I agree with your perceptive comments about the importance of adding veteran leadership to the group. However, I have a slight variation with your view on leadership. I believe what makes the Staal attribute of leadership more influential is that as a 2C rather than a lower line and fringe player he commands more influence because he will be more of an instrumental player. Okposo is an acknowledged leader in the room. Without question he is a character guy who is listened to. If he were more of a top tier player on this team I think his status as a voice in the room would even be more potent. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. In general we are in accord. But my sense is that in most cases (not always) the higher contributor is in a better position to have his voiced heard. If even at his age Staal can maintain the level of play that he had at Minnesota this would be a tremendous addition.

Bingo. You hit the core problem of not enough scoring being one of the primary causes for the team's struggles. If the addition of Staal and the possible inclusion of Reinhart to second line result in Skinner returning to scoring form then the Staal addition positively reverberates beyond the addition of the second line center. It's stating the obvious that the Sabres lacked talent. But it was its lack of depth that sunk this team once it hit the inevitable injuries and struggles of players. An inability to fill the gaps when they arose made its early season success unsustainable. There is no question that this team has more depth and will be better able to handle players being sidelined.

That's not true. @PromoTheRobotwould want to see the MAC in one of the playoff rounds.

Looking at the lineup you posted the two players I am interested to follow in camp and learn what their roles will be are Ruotsalainen and Thompson. We sure could use some pleasant surprises.

I have been arguing to keep Samson on the first line with Jack. But if he moves to the Staal line and it results in him becoming more aggressive by shooting more and driving play then that expansion in role will not only serve him better but it will help to create a genuine second caliber line, something we haven't had in a long time. One of the keys to having a successful season is putting Skinnner in a position to succeed. Putting Reinhart on a line with Skinner does that. And adding Staal to the line also puts Skinner in a position to thrive. It's early yet to come to a judgment but the Staal acquisition was a terrific addition from a talent and leadership standpoint.

When you go against the family the blood will flow. The Godfather: Part 2 (7/8) Movie CLIP - Fredo's Death (1974) HD - YouTube