Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Sam's skating is definitely good enough to be an NHL player, because of his vision/IQ. If he was lacking in those areas, I doubt he's an NHLer, but he excels at them. It's some amount below average, but ultimately playing his style with the right wingers can likely make that fairly irrelevant. Griffin makes Sam look like McDavid. And Max makes Sam look like Bo Jackson. Alright, so I live in the Houston area and have been more involved with watching this Astros this summer than I have been with paying attention to the Sabres. I've seen the additions we've made (Scandella, Pominville, Beaulieu and Antipin) and the (hopefully steal of the draft) Casey Mittlestadt. Obviously Mittlestadt won't be in Buffalo this season, but what is the projected lineup looking like right now? Basically I know about the additions the team has made but I don't know how that affects the lineup. Kane-Eichel-Reinhart Pouliot-O'Reilly-Okposo Girgensons-Larsson-Pominville --Who cares-- Scandella-Risto Beaulieu-Antipin McCabe-Bogo Yup I've got the same lineup if Nylander isn't in, switching Kane and Pouliot notwithstanding.
LGR4GM Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 I don't. I just can't see how Kane works with Eichel when both demand the puck.
Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 I don't. I just can't see how Kane works with Eichel when both demand the puck. I have him with ROR.
LGR4GM Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 I have him with ROR.I think Kane with ROR works. I also think Okposo work Eichel could work.
Randall Flagg Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Kane and Eichel scored a LOT together last year, and got scored on even more. The only fits I've ever liked with Eichel are ROR, Zemgus, and Sam. And Jack-Sam got worse as last year went on.
Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) I've never noticed good chemistry between Girgensons and Eichel, but I wouldn't be opposed to them giving it a meaningful look. I do believe Jack and Sam's chemistry seemingly getting worse towards the end of the year was more of an anomaly. If Reinhart isn't at C, I'd be good with seeing him get time with Eichel. It would be a little odd to see 2 players who were building great chemistry suddenly lose it, so I'm hoping they can still harness what they were developing. Edited August 29, 2017 by Thorny
Randall Flagg Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Well, I just went to go get Eichel & Zemgus's numbers with and without each other, and puckalytics is donezo. .
Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Well, I just went to go get Eichel & Zemgus's numbers with and without each other, and puckalytics is donezo. ######. That's crappy. I guess I win the argument :p I'll take your word for it their numbers were analytically nice looking, but was it a large sample size? I can't remember them combining on very many goals. More to the point, I don't remember Girgs chipping in on many goals at all.
Taro T Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 I've never noticed good chemistry between Girgensons and Eichel, but I wouldn't be opposed to them giving it a meaningful look. I do believe Jack and Sam's chemistry seemingly getting worse towards the end of the year was more of an anomaly. If Reinhart isn't at C, I'd be good with seeing him get time with Eichel. It would be a little odd to see 2 players who were building great chemistry suddenly lose it, so I'm hoping they can still harness what they were developing. Not sure 'bout analytics but the binary occular exam showed that Girgensons would carry the puck into the offensive zone when playing w/ Eichel. Which meant that when they were playing together there were actually 2 forwards that didn't dump the puck (out of 12). F### Bylsma.
Randall Flagg Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 That's crappy. I guess I win the argument :P I'll take your word for it their numbers were analytically nice looking, but was it a large sample size? I can't remember them combining on very many goals. More to the point, I don't remember Girgs chipping in on many goals at all. It definitely wasn't a huge sample size because we were all furious we never got to see more of it. Two seasons ago, the very first game it was tried was the last time Zemgus scored twice in one game, both with primary assists from Jeichel. And the last time I checked puckalytics for those two, they each raised each other's scoring and lowered each other's GA by a notable amount in the small sample size. Looking at another chart I found, it looks like Zemgus got about 20 games with Jack in 2015-16. He did not play more than a couple minutes with Jack for a few games at ES at all last season, despite their previous success and the general idea that the pesky, fast space-maker might help out the all-world puck moving phenom center (and bury some of his feeds). To be exact, according to HockeyViz they had 27 minutes together in 61 games in 16-17, as opposed to over 250 in 15-16. And I finally found some numbers from 15-16 - Jack Eichel without Zemgus: 47.32% CF%, 40.54% GF% Zemgus without Jack: 47.97% CF%, 42.31% GF% the two together: 49.33% CF%, 59.09% GF% Some luck played a role, but Zemgus helped to a degree with Jack's defensive deficiencies and the two meshed well stylistically, and we never saw them again.
Taro T Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 It definitely wasn't a huge sample size because we were all furious we never got to see more of it. Two seasons ago, the very first game it was tried was the last time Zemgus scored twice in one game, both with primary assists from Jeichel. And the last time I checked puckalytics for those two, they each raised each other's scoring and lowered each other's GA by a notable amount in the small sample size. Looking at another chart I found, it looks like Zemgus got about 20 games with Jack in 2015-16. He did not play more than a couple minutes with Jack for a few games at ES at all last season, despite their previous success and the general idea that the pesky, fast space-maker might help out the all-world puck moving phenom center (and bury some of his feeds). To be exact, according to HockeyViz they had 27 minutes together in 61 games in 16-17, as opposed to over 250 in 15-16. And I finally found some numbers from 15-16 - Jack Eichel without Zemgus: 47.32% CF%, 40.54% GF% Zemgus without Jack: 47.97% CF%, 42.31% GF% the two together: 49.33% CF%, 59.09% GF% Some luck played a role, but Zemgus helped to a degree with Jack's defensive deficiencies and the two meshed well stylistically, and we never saw them again. So, basically, you're saying that Eichel & Girgensons didn't just LOOK good. They were good. Cool.
Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 It definitely wasn't a huge sample size because we were all furious we never got to see more of it. Two seasons ago, the very first game it was tried was the last time Zemgus scored twice in one game, both with primary assists from Jeichel. And the last time I checked puckalytics for those two, they each raised each other's scoring and lowered each other's GA by a notable amount in the small sample size. Looking at another chart I found, it looks like Zemgus got about 20 games with Jack in 2015-16. He did not play more than a couple minutes with Jack for a few games at ES at all last season, despite their previous success and the general idea that the pesky, fast space-maker might help out the all-world puck moving phenom center (and bury some of his feeds). To be exact, according to HockeyViz they had 27 minutes together in 61 games in 16-17, as opposed to over 250 in 15-16. And I finally found some numbers from 15-16 - Jack Eichel without Zemgus: 47.32% CF%, 40.54% GF% Zemgus without Jack: 47.97% CF%, 42.31% GF% the two together: 49.33% CF%, 59.09% GF% Some luck played a role, but Zemgus helped to a degree with Jack's defensive deficiencies and the two meshed well stylistically, and we never saw them again. Good stuff. It's weird they only were ever played together such a small amount. I'd like to see them give Eich and Girgs another shot together to see if there's something sustainable there.
Taro T Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Good stuff. It's weird they only were ever played together such a small amount. I'd like to see them give Eich and Girgs another shot together to see if there's something sustainable there.Not weird. Bylsma was an idjit. Why would he keep guys that played well together together?
WildCard Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Right. I just don't think being asked to be the third best, complimentary player on a line is a pivotal role. Being the least important person in one of the most important parts of something still makes you important
Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) Being the least important person in one of the most important parts of something still makes you important Well ya, everyone is important that is on the roster, and needs to contribute. And if we are running at least 3 balanced lines, it would be more realistic that a rookie winger is able to hold their own, whichever line they are on. High talent rookies play on scoring lines all the time. Nylander is/was an 8th overall, blue chip prospect, who when ready for the NHL, will be playing on a scoring line. To phrase it another way, Nylander won't be playing in Buffalo until he's ready to play on a skill line. Certainly up for debate if he's ready, and we'll have to wait and see. But that's where he'll be when he's here. Edited August 29, 2017 by Thorny
WildCard Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Nylander - O'Reilly - Okposo Kane - Eichel - Reinhart Pouliot - Larsson - Pominville Girgensons - Josefson - Bailey Scandella - Ristolainen McCabe - Bogosian Beaulieu - Antipin Lehner Johnson (Moulson, Deslauriers, Gorges) -- Something like that. These are not 3 balanced lines though Well ya, everyone is important that is on the roster, and needs to contribute. And if we are running at least 3 balanced lines, it'd be even easier for a winger to hold his own. There are clearly varying degrees of importance in players, the minutes they get, and the competition they face
Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 These are not 3 balanced lines though There are clearly varying degrees of importance in players, the minutes they get, and the competition they face Of course, didn't say there wasn't. Like I said in the edit to my previous post: Nylander will be put in a position to succeed when he's here, on a scoring line. If you think he necessarily needs to be broken in on line 3 or 4, we'll agree to disagree.
WildCard Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Well ya, everyone is important that is on the roster, and needs to contribute. And if we are running at least 3 balanced lines, it would be more realistic that a rookie winger is able to hold their own, whichever line they are on. High talent rookies play on scoring lines all the time. Nylander is/was an 8th overall, blue chip prospect, who when ready for the NHL, will be playing on a scoring line. To phrase it another way, Nylander won't be playing in Buffalo until he's ready to play on a skill line. Certainly up for debate if he's ready, and we'll have to wait and see. But that's where he'll be when he's here. I haven't been arguing against this stance, I've been arguing that he shouldn't play there this year
Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 I haven't been arguing against this stance, I've been arguing that he shouldn't play there this year I supppse it's a small distinction between our viewpoints then. You are saying he shouldn't play there this year, and I'm saying he shouldn't play there this season, unless he's ready for the NHL. We won't really know what his prospects look like till training camp.
WildCard Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 I supppse it's a small distinction between our viewpoints then. You are saying he shouldn't play there this year, and I'm saying he shouldn't play there this season, unless he's ready for the NHL. We won't really know what his prospects look like till training camp. Fair enough
Thorner Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 I put him in one of my projected lineups because I subscribe to "Fool's Hope".
Doohicksie Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 We won't really know what his prospects look like till training camp. Face it, folks: With several new players, a new coach, and a new system, training camp is going to be a shootout. You'll have young bucks trying to crack the NHL roster, and vets competing to grab the top spots (and a few defending their roster spots).
nfreeman Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 My 2 cents on Nylander: - I do not expect him to play much in the NHL this year. He's only one year removed from his draft year, he did nada in Rochester last year, and he wasn't drafted by the JBott/Howie regime, so they are not invested in him. I suppose it's possible that he could have a tremendous preseason and force his way onto the roster, but we have no reason to expect this to occur. - If he somehow does make the roster, I could see him on the 3rd line if the Sabres go with 3 scoring lines as they did in the Roy-Max-Vanek days. So if their 3rd line includes, say, Reino and Kane, I could see Nylander as the RW on that line.
Doohicksie Posted August 29, 2017 Report Posted August 29, 2017 Without seeing how the players fit into the new system, and who become Housley's favorites, predicting the roster (and line combos) is a crap shoot. (This should be fun to watch.)
Recommended Posts