JohnC

There isn't much to figure out. Play hard and play a simpler and more basic game. Instead of trying to dazzle on offense by hanging on to the puck and dangling, just shoot the freaking puck. The Sabres have to be one of the worst team in the leagues in positioning players in front of the net to obstruct the goalie when we shoot. Our two best players in that tough area are Benson and Greenway. It's not about outsmarting anyone. Just play tougher and harder throughout.

It's a tough juggling act for a young goalie when he doesn't regularly play. I can't fault a coach for mostly sticking with the hot goalie. https://www.nhl.com/sabres/video/don-granato-postgame-at-lak-6345542462112

I didn't watch the game but saw the recap this morning so it would be fraudulent of me to act as if I knew what transpired. Based on the recap, it looked like Mitts was on a line with Quinn and Peterka. In one of the goals I saw Mitts make a subtle move and nice pass to Quinn for his score. It seems to me not putting Mitts on a line with scorers is wasting his set-up talents. I really liked the sequence on Tuch's goal. Krebs fought for the puck in the corner, got it to Robinson, who down low made a nice pass to Tuch who quickly got the shot off in tight quarters. Robinson made a nice pass to Tuch for the conversion. One positive takeaway is that although the Sabres were down, they kept at it. They were not deflated. At least they showed some fight. Why didn't they do that the previous night against an inferior opponent? I would appreciate it if those who watched the game could give me an assessment on the play of Levi. If the Sabres beat the Sharks would this be considered a successful road trip? I would say no because in the first game of the trip they lost an opportunity against a lesser opponent. This team is not in a position to squander any opportunities.

The issue I am bringing up doesn't deal with the variety of companies that draw their electricity from the Texas grid. The issue is that the Texas grid is a separate/independent grid that doesn't have the ability to draw from the national grid when part of its system goes down. This is by design. So, when part of its system is damaged/shut down due to weather, tornados etc. it takes longer to get back on-line in comparison to other regions that are tied to the national system and temporally can get electricity from outside sources.

What choice does the customer have regarding the inflated bills due to an outdated system? They signed the agreement because there was no other choice. As @Doohickie pointed out, the problem isn't that Texas has their own grid system so much as they don't have an ability to draw from another system when theirs is down. Another reason why there is a refusal to join a national system is that they don't want to pay for a system that has higher quality standards. Sometimes when you try to save a penny you end up paying a $$$. The people who end up paying the piper are the customers who had no other choice.

I think it was a couple of years ago when the grid was badly damaged that it resulted in people getting utility bills in the $ 1000s. Texas may be the only state or one of the few states that are tied into the national grid. That makes no sense to me.

There are certain categories of behavior that even by insinuating certain things associated with one's reputation you are behaving inappropriately. My point is by insinuating when there is no trace of supporting evidence you are acting irresponsibly.

Could you explain to me why Texas refuses to be part of the national grid so when nature causes breakage in the grid there is no ability to bring in power from the other parts of the grid until the lines are restored? The people who are affected end up paying humongous bills until the lines are repaired because there is a supply/demand cost system.

I'm just stating that's what the announcers stated. On the other hand, even if it was called by our HC who was not aware of the 10 men on the field, it wasn't an unreasonable call under the circumstances. (My opinion) Our coach took a calculated gamble. It didn't work. But in the end it was not a factor in the outcome. It was a calculated gamble that didn't work. So what? In the end, the risk taking didn't affect the outcome. I have no problem with the call.

Accusing a player or even suggesting a player is using PEDs when there is not a scintilla of evidence of it is crossing the ethical line, even on a bulletin board where there is a loose standard in presenting one's opinions. The participants here give good and bad takes. There is nothing unusual about that in this type of setting. But making a scurrilous comment questioning the integrity of a player by even suggesting that he is cheating is not acceptable, especially when there is nothing to indicate the behavior. I don't want to come off as a sanctimonious moralizer but in my opinion you crossed the line here. Just because you don't necessarily like the poster who called you out doesn't mean that the substance of what he said doesn't have merit.

As explained by the announcers, the fake punt was called at the line because KC only had ten men on the field. It was a good (understandable) call that didn't work.

This was a great game. Two very good teams with elite qbs. As others have said, the difference in this game was our drops. The Diggs drop was a pivotal play. It was a well thrown ball and the coverage was good. If would have been a tough catch but the big-play opportunity was not seized. We also caught a potential game-changing break when their back fumbled the ball into the end-zone when they were on the doorstep of closing this game out. It was apparent to me that the accumulation of injuries on defense took a toll. KC was smart to control the clock by running it at the end of the game. You have to give Mahomes his due. He arguably is the best qb in the game. Although Lamar Jackson is the MVP in this season. In the end: It was wide-right all over again. Where did I see that before?

I'm not into excuses about how this season has disappointingly transpired. But the biggest difference between success and failure has been the play of our PP. Teams have adjusted to what we do the PP. We haven't sufficiently adjusted to their adjustments. (As others have pointed out.) As I said in a prior post, the difference between most teams in this league is small. From my view, I thought this was an evenly played game. Some teams are more proficient in their attention to detail. We made a few glaring errors in trying to get the puck out of our zone; they capitalized on them.

TT probably does have a nagging injury but so do a lot of players. In all sports, the opposition makes adjustments to players, especially to the best players. What TT wants to do is being taken away from him. That's why teams scout. What he has to do is make an adjustment to the adjustment. Compared to last year, when he had a breakout year, he has less time and space to work with. He needs to handle the puck less by passing it more quickly and stop trying to go through the defense when it is clogged. What he needs to do is be less cute with the puck (too much dangling) and get back to basics i.e. more quickly shoot and pass. He needs to simplify his game, as do a lot of his teammates.

Your comments about the reluctance to get the puck down low is the center piece of DG's post-game comments. This tendency to instead throw the puck back to the defensemen is taking the opposite approach that what the coach wants them to do. (as you point out )You can't always shoot the puck behind the net because there are many times when carrying/passing the puck is the right thing to do to attack the offensive zone. But if the play is not there, then shoot the puck in low and chase it. The problem is that battling for the puck behind the net requires tenacity and grit. This group is more comfortable with perimeter play that requires less physical play. What bothered me about the post-game comments by the coach is that it was apparent that the down-low strategy was supposed to be a focus of attention. Yet, the coach's instructions weren't adequately followed. Hockey has a rapid back and forth flow to it where it is impossible strictly follow a game plan. However, when a pre-game strategy is emphasized and the players don't follow it, then there is both a coaching and player problem. The word that comes to me that fits this situation is accountability. Where is it? Look back, in all three games we lost, I can't objectively say that we were outplayed. The margin of error between us and some of the better teams in the league is small. The difference is the attention to detail throughout the game. You have to be able to play smart and tough. We just seem incapable of keeping these two basic attributes up throughout the game. In this game, I thought that the Benson penalty at a critical juncture was atrocious. I'm not saying that it was a reason why we lost. It just seemed like a poor judgment and weird call. https://www.nhl.com/sabres/video/don-granato-postgame-vs-tb-6345267850112

I don't like people who don't return their carts to the return area. What this car narc fool doesn't understand is that there are too many angry and volatile people who carry guns and react in a manner that can be deadly. People get shot for accidently bumping into others in a variety of settings. This car narc fool is too clueless to understand that he could be putting himself in danger by dealing with people he doesn't know.

If the Sabres win this game, their homestand record will be 4-2. I would consider it a success even though I would have hoped for a loser point from one of the losses. If they lose, this team will be spinning its wheels and fall back. Not moving forward in the congested eastern conference means falling back. Although it is a cliche----this is a big game for us. Play hard/play simple/and shoot the freaking puck!

I have no problem using a 2nd round pick to pair with him or using the pick for another solid NHL player. On the other hand, I disagree with you regarding his value to cap ratio. This was a solid deal that benefited this team. He adds a style of strong play and big presence that was lacking on this team. It should be noted that it was the HC who worked with him prior to the pros who pushed for this deal. And breaking away from the topic on hand, I would say that the Clifton and Johnson deal have proved out to be solid deals that helped shore up this problematic blue line unit. I realize that it took some time for Clifton to find his comfort level.

I agree with you that this particular "rumor" thread was based on nothing factual. On the other hand, the issue of Greenway's value to the team is worth discussing. Is the value issue more appropriate in another thread? Maybe so? How many Mitts trade scenarios have been discussed here when there were no factual indications that the organization had any interest in dealing him? Some people are sticklers to adhering to the topic as written. I'm not one of them. I see nothing wrong with taking a topic and expanding it a little.

I disagree that he doesn't play to his size. He's certainly not a thumper but he is a big player who plays strong. He doesn't get bumped off the puck or his position. I don't want to overrate his talents but as you have acknowledged he gives us a physical/big presence that this roster lacks. And, as you have also noted his PK is more than solid. KA gets a lot of justifiable criticisms. However, the acquisition of Greenway for a second-round pick that was acquired in the Eichel deal was a good value deal that better rounded out our roster.

It is an issue with me. As the season advances, injuries happen. Especially for teams in the playoff hunt, he would be a backup to consider that would cost you nothing because he would be a waiver acquisition. I don't want to over-rate his value but having three NHL goalies who have played in the league is worth keeping in our system.

My understanding is that Comrie is out of options. In the attempt to bring him up there is a chance that he can be claimed. UPL is on a good run. However, he is vulnerable to getting injured (as all goalies are). Stay the course.

Your deep doghouse has rehabilitated a number of players on this team. Mitts was chained to the house, and due to your constant whipping, he successfully rehabbed. Clinton was chained to your punishing shack house for a spell, and then he seemed to recover his game. UPL is a big fellow who required a bigger dog- house to get in. Your rehab tools (whip?) seemed to have worked on him. Who is your next candidate to occupy your rehabilitation facility? It's working. Keep up the good work. The old school stern schoolmaster is a catholic school tradition. It works. I got the scars to prove it. 😃

Obviously, UPL gets the first star. The Sabres played a simplified game, mostly north/south. Nothing fancy, mostly workmanlike. Girgs plays a hard and fast game. He's one of the hardest workers on the team. I like Benson's game. He gives us more offensive net presence than anyone else on the team. When Dahlin got a deflection off of a Hawk stick for a goal, Benson was in front of the net. There isn't too much to analyze in this game. The superior team controlled the play. When the Hawks shot there wasn't much follow-up. One and done with our defense retrieving the puck. A win is a win. The biggest takeaway is that UPL seems to have solidified his position as our #1 goalie. He's a big goalie who plays big with an economy of motion. He's well position and is playing under control with no scrambling. Right now, he is a very confident goalie. We need to finish this extended homestand with a win against a team that is much superior to the team we played tonight. I will consider this homestand a success if we beat Tampa.

No. Injuries are a factor for all teams. We're just more aware of them for the home team.