Tank 3.0

[Crusader1969]

 im also huge into the draft and when I think there are guys who I think can really help the Sabres (Laine, Tckachuk, Dubois) I want the Sabres to be in a position to grab one of them. If this means they lose some meaningless games - so be it. I don`t believe in the `learning to win`` when there is no pressure. Turn up the pressure - playoff games or late season games with play-off implications can be a learning experience. When the Sabres are playing in these type of pressure games - thats when my tune will change.

 

and yes i will be hopeful that the Canadians win tonight but at the same time I like to Eichel and Reinhart continue to produce. I don`t outwardly cheer either way (unless its eichel or reinhart), unlike last year when it was life or death when it came to winning v losing.

[LGR4GM]

'Deep dicked'  :lol:  :lol:

 

He's not the only guy on that team. 

Yea but Reinhart is consistent. ROR is well ROR. Risto has ice veins. Larsson is steadying out.  I just don't see how going 5-7 or 6-6 will really matter that much. They aren't going to curl into a ball and cry.  I bet after missing the playoffs we will see them work hard this summer. We have to many winners on this team for them to get comfortable losing.

[Thorner]

winning the last 12 games of the season is less important then winning the first 12 games of the season.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Being in 25th and winning the last 12 games of a season is less important than being tied with everyone and winning the first 12 games of a season. 

 

When you qualify it like this, then yup.

 

 im also huge into the draft and when I think there are guys who I think can really help the Sabres (Laine, Tckachuk, Dubois) I want the Sabres to be in a position to grab one of them. If this means they lose some meaningless games - so be it. I don`t believe in the `learning to win`` when there is no pressure. Turn up the pressure - playoff games or late season games with play-off implications can be a learning experience. When the Sabres are playing in these type of pressure games - thats when my tune will change.

 

and yes i will be hopeful that the Canadians win tonight but at the same time I like to Eichel and Reinhart continue to produce. I don`t outwardly cheer either way (unless its eichel or reinhart), unlike last year when it was life or death when it came to winning v losing.

 

I think there is a huge discrepancy going on here between causation, and correlation. Late wins don't actually cause anything meaningful going forward, they are meaningless in the sense that they aren't going to advance us anywhere this year. But with a young team that is consistently growing, there can be correlation between late wins and improved performance next year. As late wins this year would point to improved growth from the kids .

 

Again, it's a fundamental difference in how I and potentially others see it: at some point it's about winning games. If we lose, so be it, but wins are what we want now, in my opinion. The losing will get to a point of diminishing returns, sooner or later. See: Edmonton. I think that time is now, for us.

[dudacek]

Given the current standings and the number of games left, wins and losses are pretty much irrelevant to where we pick in the draft.

It's going to be the luck of the three lottery balls drawn.

 

And I'd like to remind you pessimists I have been on record for months that this year we will be getting a lucky ball.

[WildCard]

Given the current standings and the number of games left, wins and losses are pretty much irrelevant to where we pick in the draft.

It's going to be the luck of the three lottery balls drawn.

 

And I'd like to remind you pessimists I have been on record for months that this year we will be getting a lucky ball.

It would be fitting if we did, and I wouldn't be that shocked. Rather I'd probably just laugh. The options available to us though if we do win it...this place will go into a frenzy for months

[Thorner]

Given the current standings and the number of games left, wins and losses are pretty much irrelevant to where we pick in the draft.

It's going to be the luck of the three lottery balls drawn.

 

And I'd like to remind you pessimists I have been on record for months that this year we will be getting a lucky ball.

 

Hmm..."a" lucky lottery ball or "the" lucky lottery ball?

[TrueBlueGED]

Not necessarily.

 

 

When you qualify it like this, then yup.

 

 

I think there is a huge discrepancy going on here between causation, and correlation. Late wins don't actually cause anything meaningful going forward, they are meaningless in the sense that they aren't going to advance us anywhere this year. But with a young team that is consistently growing, there can be correlation between late wins and improved performance next year. As late wins this year would point to improved growth from the kids .

 

Again, it's a fundamental difference in how I and potentially others see it: at some point it's about winning games. If we lose, so be it, but wins are what we want now, in my opinion. The losing will get to a point of diminishing returns, sooner or later. See: Edmonton. I think that time is now, for us.

 

While I concur with the general thrust of your argument, I read the exact relationship somewhat differently. I agree there's huge value in the kids continuing to grow, and that will correlate to more wins next season...I just don't think that that growth translating to wins this year means much so long as the growth in a win or loss is equal. For purely illustrative purposes, if the kids get 5% better I think that 5% matters the same for next season whether it results in a win or a loss.

[Thorner]

While I concur with the general thrust of your argument, I read the exact relationship somewhat differently. I agree there's huge value in the kids continuing to grow, and that will correlate to more wins next season...I just don't think that that growth translating to wins this year means much so long as the growth in a win or loss is equal. For purely illustrative purposes, if the kids get 5% better I think that 5% matters the same for next season whether it results in a win or a loss.

 

Yup that's true, it's perfectly possible for there to be as much growth in a loss as a win. Certainly that is the case. But if I had to guess, I would say that wins in a general way would be more likely to point to more growth, in the sense that - a game where we won would be more likely to be one in which our young guys, being key pieces, performed well, leading to that win. Of course that wouldn't always be the case, but if presented with 2 scenarios, one in which in the remaining 11 games we went 8-3, and the other being that we went 3-8, I would say it's more likely more growth took place in the first scenario.

 

I would rather have losses in spite of growth, than wins in spite of stagnation, yes. The priority is the growth of the kids, win or lose. I just think that positive growth may very likely result in more wins. The wins themselves wouldn't mean anything for next year, what could be significant for next year is how they came about.

 

Bottom line for me is: if Jack and Sam lighting it up the next few games results in wins, I won't be in a position where I would be wishing to take those wins back, if it means losing that production, even if by-so-doing that it guaranteed us a higher pick. If we get the production and we still lose, cool beans. But the wins/losses are of secondary concern.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Thorny

[MattPie]

I think there is a huge discrepancy going on here between causation, and correlation. Late wins don't actually cause anything meaningful going forward, they are meaningless in the sense that they aren't going to advance us anywhere this year. But with a young team that is consistently growing, there can be correlation between late wins and improved performance next year. As late wins this year would point to improved growth from the kids .

 

Again, it's a fundamental difference in how I and potentially others see it: at some point it's about winning games. If we lose, so be it, but wins are what we want now, in my opinion. The losing will get to a point of diminishing returns, sooner or later. See: Edmonton. I think that time is now, for us.

 

I think we're painting with a broad brush here and it comes down to the individual player to a certain degree. There will be players that think, "man, going 3-8 sucked, maybe I'm no good" and there will be players that say, "3-8 sucks, I NEVER want to be in that situation again, I'm working my ass off this summer to make sure of it". The difference will be the leadership next year that whips them into shape.

[jsb]

I don't think it's as important for the young guys to have to win as opposed to lose for their development going forward but it may be important that the opinion of the team is as positive as possible for potential UFA's to want to come here. If the money is close enough to not make a difference, you do want the impression that this is a team on a skyward mission and not another Oilers mess.

[Derrico]

last time Jack Eichel got demoralized he turned around and deep dicked the next 2 teams he played.  These are not DR fragile little Sabres.

I really like this point.  So true.

[Thorner]

I think we're painting with a broad brush here and it comes down to the individual player to a certain degree. There will be players that think, "man, going 3-8 sucked, maybe I'm no good" and there will be players that say, "3-8 sucks, I NEVER want to be in that situation again, I'm working my ass off this summer to make sure of it". The difference will be the leadership next year that whips them into shape.

 

Oh I agree completely. But what I was trying to get across is that I'm not hoping for wins because I think it will build some sort of winning attitude and against losses because I think it could cause the opposite. I simply am hoping for tangible performance improvements from the young players which, win or lose, would mean good things for next year.

[inkman]

After tonight's game, the Sabres have a damn good chance finishing bottom 5 and an outside chance of bottom 3.

[TrueBlueGED]

Edmonton lost. Again. They're currently in 28th with 65 points and 3 more games played than Winnipeg (64 points) and 4 more games played than Toronto (61 points). They can absolutely still finish in last place, which is almost unbelievable. Losing McDavid, RNH, and Klefbom (maybe even especially Klefbom) for extended periods of time has killed them.

[WildCard]

Edmonton lost. Again. They're currently in 28th with 65 points and 3 more games played than Winnipeg (64 points) and 4 more games played than Toronto (61 points). They can absolutely still finish in last place, which is almost unbelievable. Losing McDavid, RNH, and Klefbom (maybe even especially Klefbom) for extended periods of time has killed them.

I wonder what the actual reaction of the league would be if they won it again. I honestly don't think they would be able to deny them the pick should they win

[bunomatic]

I hate to say it but if the oilers win the lottery again and ever get things straightened out they could become a dynasty once again and if there is anything this league loves its dynasties. Maybe they aren't in such a rush to put a stop to this just yet ? 

 

 

 

 

;) 

Edited March 21, 2016 by bunomatic

[thewookie1]

I'm furious when they lose, yet ok with it within a couple days. Aside from the Columbus game, which I'm going too they can go about 500 and I'd be happy.

[pi2000]

Realistically, which games do you expect them to win down the stretch?

 

@CAR

WPG

@DET*

@PIT*

TOR

@NYR*

@NJD

CBJ

@NYI*

 

...only 3 home games remaining.   

 

* - playoff team

 

I see maybe 8 more points at most.    Giving them 76 on the season.  

 

With 76 points they have a 59% chance of finishing in the bottom 5.     

 

As they get closer to the finish line I'm hoping for more losses.

[Brawndo]

There is this gem from Toronto

 

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/942043?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[LGR4GM]

There is this gem from Toronto

 

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/942043?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I love how it came out days after that loss but makes no mention of Jack Eichel not even playing in that game or the fact Buffalo played the night before, or the fact Lehner was out.  I mean, yes we lost a game I think we should win but if that is the metric the leafs are using for their rebuild, the Sabres, I think they are literally doing it wrong. Also we are up on them 2-1 so far in the season series and ahead of them in the standings.  I feel bad for Toronto, denial is not a river in Egypt.

[pi2000]

I love how it came out days after that loss but makes no mention of Jack Eichel not even playing in that game or the fact Buffalo played the night before, or the fact Lehner was out.  I mean, yes we lost a game I think we should win but if that is the metric the leafs are using for their rebuild, the Sabres, I think they are literally doing it wrong. Also we are up on them 2-1 so far in the season series and ahead of them in the standings.  I feel bad for Toronto, denial is not a river in Egypt.

 

I don't know.   They have a point tho, their farm club is much better than Buffalo's... wether or not that translate to success at the NHL level... only time will tell.

[LGR4GM]

I don't know.   They have a point tho, their farm club is much better than Buffalo's... wether or not that translate to success at the NHL level... only time will tell.

Well if I put Reinhart, Zemgus, Risto, Eichel, and McCabe back on the Amerks they would be a lot better too. Toronto basically has a good portion of their younger players playing in the AHL. We promoted everyone.  We won't see a good Amerks team before we see a good Sabres team. The Sabres being good means more good young players will have to play 1-3 years in Rochester before forcing their way into our lineup. Right now Rochester has a player vacuum because if you are good there you end up in Buffalo lickity split.  Next year Fasching and Bailey could both be up in Buffalo when in a normal setting they would stay down with Eichel, Sam and probably Jake. Detroit rarely promotes guys before they are 22. 

[pi2000]

Well if I put Reinhart, Zemgus, Risto, Eichel, and McCabe back on the Amerks they would be a lot better too. Toronto basically has a good portion of their younger players playing in the AHL. We promoted everyone.  We won't see a good Amerks team before we see a good Sabres team. The Sabres being good means more good young players will have to play 1-3 years in Rochester before forcing their way into our lineup. Right now Rochester has a player vacuum because if you are good there you end up in Buffalo lickity split.  Next year Fasching and Bailey could both be up in Buffalo when in a normal setting they would stay down with Eichel, Sam and probably Jake. Detroit rarely promotes guys before they are 22. 

 

Good point.   Although Detroit making the playoffs every season means they're never picking near the top the draft, so it takes more time for their picks to develop.    Now that Toronto will be picking near the top of the draft, I expect they won't have as many players baking for very long in the minors as they have in the past. 

[WildCard]

There is this gem from Toronto

 

http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/942043?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

This is just hilarious. I don't give a who wins the lottery, as long as the Leafs pick 4th

[TrueBlueGED]

This is just hilarious. I don't give a ###### who wins the lottery, as long as the Leafs pick 4th

 

Remember when some people wanted McDavid in Toronto for the sake of rivalry? F that!