Archie Lee

I would personally separate the current Sabres off-ice leadership group (Adams, Karmanos, Granato, etc.) from the failings of the past decade. Whether we get this turned around is still in question, but the current regime (less ownership) can't be faulted for what their predecessors did or didn't do. I also don't know enough about what happened in the locker room to fault Gionta. Perhaps he failed as a leader and perhaps there were young players who were not interested in being led. What I do agree with though is the sentiment that this is not Jack Eichel's fault (at least, it is largely not his fault). What we saw with the Sabres post-Regier and pre-Adams was a complete failure of leadership and competency at the GM position and head coaching positions. Tim Murray perhaps deserves a bit of slack as he, it appears, tried to keep the clowns from running the circus when he drew a line at firing Bylsma.

The Johnson hit on Dahlin was a clear penalty (interference or high-sticking or both). I didn't think it was particularly violent, but it was a penalty and both teams knew it (after the hit, the game proceeds in slow motion for a few seconds as the players on both teams seem to be anticipating a whistle). Then there is a relatively weak make-up call against the Avs and Dahlin gets away with what I think was clearly a retaliatory hit that most Sabre fans would have been angry about had it gone the other way; I think the Dahlin hit was actually a bit worse than the Johnson one. It seems that NHL referees are mostly just present to randomly call a few penalties a game as a reminder to players that the game is being officiated. In other words, players should be mindful of breaking the rules as it is always possible that the referee will decide that a particular random infraction warrants a penalty based on game situation. I should add that I don't think the Sabres come out on the short-end of these calls. We are just not as good as most teams and therefore it is more difficult for us to overcome the bad calls that go against us and, conversely, we don't capitalize on the bad calls that go against other teams.

It’s an arbitrary cut-off to be sure, but in the two calendar years prior to last night’s game, Eichel had only played 32 NHL games. In that stretch he was always hurt/injured and produced only 6 goals, 17 assists and 23 points. It has been 2 full years since Eichel was Eichel, so to speak. It may take some time for him to again reach the top levels of his game.

I think it is entirely reasonable that Adams and his management team placed a value on Ullmark and stuck with it. Giving a player an extra year or an extra million in AAV or a NMC (or all 3) is how you get in trouble. That the Sabres don't have cap issues this year and won't next year doesn't mean they won't have issues in 2-3 years. Giving a player more than his determined value just sets a precedent for other players to demand the same. It might be a pipe dream that we will eventually be a team like the Bruins or the Lightning where players will want to be here and will accept slightly below market value in order to stay with or come to the Sabres; I don't think you get there though by setting the precedent that you will overpay. That said, I personally valued Ullmark at the same level as Demko, 5x5, and would have tried to get him at that before free agency. I don't like the NMC he got from the Bruins, but would have given him some trade protection. Also, I don't think the above references to the respective save %'s of Ullmark and UPL this season make an argument for not signing Ullmark. Unless you have a Vasilevskiy, you need 2 goalies. Having Ullmark at a .916 save % as a 1A who transitions to a 1B or 2A over the course of a 5 year contract would have been a solid use of $5 million in cap space in my view. Losing Ullmark has left us needing two goalies instead of one.

Houser and Dell getting it done, mostly. Credit where it’s due. Since we had to turn it over to that duo, goaltending has not been an issue.

I saw somewhere else this morning a similar chart that went back over a decade. It showed the Sabres were middle of the pack and not that they were injury prone over a 10+ year period. One other thing that might be a factor: the Sabres are out of contention early. Perhaps they have some players with injuries that they might play through in different circumstances. I'm not saying that any specific injured player on the team could have played or could now play with their injury; but in this of all seasons, there is no great reason to play hurt.

Krebs may have just become an NHL player.

Not that anyone here doesn't already know this, but coaching matters.

Basically, once the puck crossed the line it was not touched by Olofsson until after Dahlin touched up.

Interesting that Biron shows why it was not offside.

First I just want to say that this thread is precisely the reason that I frequent this site. Some of the commentary and analysis, from all points of view, is simply more thoughtful and more well written than what you will ever read in a newspaper or on a sports blog. It's just well done. So, thanks to everyone for that. To add my $0.02, I am firmly in the pro-Adams camp. While I don't agree with all of his decisions, I think his moves thus far have ranged from good to not terrible. I recognize that some will view this as damning with faint praise, but after the last two GM's I find it refreshing that Adams is both consistent and calm in his decision making and mostly effective as a communicator. I do worry about a plan that is seeing us have yet another "lost" season and where the intention is to have us, in-time, add what will be a 3rd wave of young, talented players to an environment where losing has been the norm. At some point a core group needs to emerge that you can win with and who you augment with trades, free-agents and your own entry-level players. I really like our young NHL players (Dahlin, Joker, Bryson, Thompson, Mitts, Cozens, Asplund) but it does not seem to me that they are near ready to be the core that the organization simply augments in order to become a playoff team. Do we just replace the so-called Jags with the Rochester crew and Power next year? That seems like a near certain bottom 10 finish again. On the specific topic of goaltending, while I fully support Adams I think that it is to risk credibility to argue that he has not messed this up at least a bit. If Luukkonen was clearly NHL ready as even a 2A then the off-season decisions would be at least somewhat understandable. At present though, we don't have a single true NHL goalie. I would not advocate for making a trade like the one that Colorado made to get Kuemper, but we need an NHL goalie or this is going to be a lose-fest for the foreseeable future.

I agree with this too, except it is not an easy or quick fix once you get past day one of free agency.

Like you, I am not a pessimist re: the team's future. I am somewhat worried about the impact of continuous losing on our current crop of young players (especially Dahlin, who seems to wear every loss). I'm further worried that we are about to add a 3rd wave of young players with several of Samuelsson, Power, Krebs, Quinn, Peterka and Luukkonen joining the team in the next 4 to 10 months. I think it is unrealistic that this 3rd wave can just replace the likes of Hagg, Miller, Eakin, Caggiula, Hinostroza and Tokarski and have us take a step forward in the W/L columns. Experience does matter and my guess is that some of the "JAGS" are currently better hockey players than are the young players we are exited about.

I agree with this. Without Dell in net our save % is .908. If we had a .908 in the games that Dell played that would be a difference of 8 goals; factor in the empty net goals that occur when you are trailing late and it perhaps works out to a 10-11 goal swing in the positive direction. That likely makes us around a .500 points % team or slightly better. I don't think it makes us a playoff team. The reasonable debate is over what impact losing has on a team and in particular on young players. We do have some experience with this. Is the development of young players negatively impacted by losing? In the long run, will the high draft pick we get this year because of losing have a more positive impact than the impact that could be gained from us being a more competitive team now (if not a playoff team)? I suspect it has more to do with the leaders in charge (Adams/Granato v. Murray/Blysma v. Botts/Housley/Krueger) than with the short-term win/loss outcomes. Here is hoping Adams, Granato and the rest of the hierarchy know what they are doing.

Ullmark is fine. I think, as with lots of things NHL related, there is overreaction to the early part of the season. Ullmark has a .914 save % which is ok but not great. The Bruins signed him to be their 1A or 1B, with Swayman, for the next 4 years and nothing that has happened so far suggests that was a bad move. Vladar is having a great start to the season, but the fact that Markstrom is also having a huge positive save% spike suggests pretty strongly that their #'s are partially related to the team they are playing in front of. My guess is that if you flipped Ullmark/Swayman to the Flames and Markstom\Vladar to the Bruins the save %'s would stay with the teams, more or less, and not with the individual goalies. If the Bruins are having regrets on Ullmark, and I highly doubt they are, then I would take him back in a second.

It's probably too soon to state he would be a first rounder if a re-draft were held today. I'm not sure the height thing would factor in too much though. In a re-draft, which is not an actual thing, you're just re-ordering the players based on how good they are now. Juuse Saros is 5'11" and he definitely goes in round 1 in a re-draft of 2013.

The only game that Tokarski has been outright terrible in was the Blue Jacket game. I don't know what happened to him in that one. I wonder sometimes about just how insecure guys like Tokarski and Dell must feel. I realize that they are not making big NHL money, but the difference between their NHL salaries and their minor league salaries is life-changing. Of course you need your goalie to be mentally strong, but I wonder if Tokaski was negatively impacted by Granato's decision to go with Dell in the Ranger game. Tokarski had been playing well, then gets run out of the game against Calgary (no real fault of his own in that one), Dell comes in and plays one solid period against the Flames and then gets the next start. Tokarski might have been feeling the pressure in the Blue Jackets game and maybe it got to him momentarily. Hopefully he is back. I hope we show a little faith in him and don't over react when he has a bad outing or a great game.

If Dell had Tokarski’s .904 save % it would mean 4.5 fewer goals against in the games Dell has played. Maybe that equals 2-4 points in the standings from the Leaf and Ranger games. Jonas Johansson currently has a .905 save %.

I’ve watched a ton of hockey for more years than I care to say, and I have zero idea what gets a guy tossed from a face off circle.

This game fits entirely with what I thought the Sabres will be this year. I think we will be an NHL .500ish team that finishes 24thish overall. Over a long 82 game season we will have some games where we sneak up on good teams who are not at their best. We will also have games against good veteran teams that are near the top of their games and when those nights happen we will struggle to keep it from being bad. Last night was one of those bad nights. There will be more. A reasonable goal for the team is to finish 5th in the Atlantic. To be the best of the bad bottom half of the division. To pass Mtl, Ott and Det. To be a bad but young NHL team that is on the rise.

It might be how it goes, but I think you keep Skinner with the players he is producing with. We have a good potential line coming off injury over the next 6 weeks (hopefully) in Olofsson, Mitts and Tuch.

I don’t think this is accurate. What Adams is doing is setting a value for a player and then not exceeding it. Paying more than value for a player is how you end up with Skinner and his contract. Adams has decided that he is not going to unnecessarily handcuff himself by giving out contracts now that will hinder his ability to re-sign Dahlin, Power, Cozens, etc. 3-4 years from now. This is also the reason why they did not consider retaining on Eichel. None of this means it is guaranteed to workout, but they have a plan/philosophy that they are currently committed to.

I’m not suggesting Dahlin, or any public figure, is above criticism. Just that words like “dumb” are unnecessarily provocative and possibly harmful. Particularly in the thread title of a home team fan forum. I understand you and others would disagree. Since you asked, my thread title for this topic would be something like: “Can we expect Dahlin to figure it out?” or “Will Dahlin ever become the player we drafted?

I thought Cozens looked good last night, save for one bad turnover at the opposition blue-line that led to a breakaway. While I would not object to him going to Rochester for a period, my first preference would be to let him play with Mitts and Olofsson when they come back (hopefully this week). Let him have a stretch playing with two players with offensive skills that match his and who are predictable in what they do on the ice.

I'm not trying to "fix the internet" here, but I just want to say that I think the title of this thread is terrible and should be changed. I think it reflects poorly not just on the OP and the site but on all of us who post here. There are ways to express concerns about a player's skills, effort or Hockey IQ without using words like dumb or garbage or trash; particularly on a home team forum. Recent events inform us that players may have things going on off the ice that can impact how they perform. It would be good if we tried to be mindful of that when we post.