GDT Sabres at Canucks 1-25-18 10 PM MSG GR

[Weave]

I wouldn't call it very finely focused. Kane's hockey sense and shot selection were MAJOR reasons many of us wanted him off Jack's line. On the other hand, plenty of us did want him driving his own line. Hell, I still do. Well, if he decides to un-quit on the team, anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure he has mentally divorced himself from this team.  He ain't un-quitting.

Fuggin shame.  He was one of the very few entertaining players on this roster.

[Taro T]

I'm pretty sure he has mentally divorced himself from this team.  He ain't un-quitting.

 

Fuggin shame.  He was one of the very few entertaining players on this roster.

Agreed. Which makes it very difficult to say putting him on the 3rd line, where he belongs, is a mistake. We never saw it while it would've mattered.

[7+6=13]

Hard for me to blame him.  Effort has never been a complaint associated with Kane and I respect him for that.  He did what he needed to do to put up points on a putrid team, made himself valuable to the Sabres and served himself well for his next contract.   He deserves to be traded and I'm hoping we get a stockpile in return.  

[dudacek]

Kane is, as Justin Falk said, selfishly protecting himself as he awaits a trade.

Can’t say I blame him for understanding it’s a business.

Can’t say I respect him either.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Mick O’Manly

[Weave]

Hard for me to blame him.  Effort has never been a complaint associated with Kane and I respect him for that.  He did what he needed to do to put up points on a putrid team, made himself valuable to the Sabres and served himself well for his next contract.   He deserves to be traded and I'm hoping we get a stockpile in return.  

 

I have to seriously consider that he wan'ted to re-sign here.  He did say in an interview that the team never approached him about a contract.  If so, he's got to feel scorned.  He did all he could do on the ice.

[Randall Flagg]

I'm blown away that this didn't get challenged.  All we heard from the lineup critics all season was that Kane needed to be separated from Jack because Kane was too much of a driver and needed to play with passengers to spread the wealth around.

And the first time this season where chemistry has allowed our top two lines to play cohesive hockey at the same time is when Kane got moved to line 3. And then we won two road games in a row. 

 

So maybe the winning formula is more important than Kane needing skill players, and it's a good thing we're trading Kane then, because I don't want to pay a guy as a top 6 who immediately tanks his line's play and is invisible if not by Jack/ROR? That's probably my response to that post. 

[Weave]

And the first time this season where chemistry has allowed our top two lines to play cohesive hockey at the same time is when Kane got moved to line 3. And then we won two road games in a row. 

 

So maybe the winning formula is more important than Kane needing skill players, and it's a good thing we're trading Kane then, because I don't want to pay a guy as a top 6 who immediately tanks his line's play and is invisible if not by Jack/ROR? That's probably my response to that post. 

 

He was productive last season on a 3rd line.  He's just shut it down now.

Edited January 26, 2018 by We've

[Randall Flagg]

OK, Randall and others, here's the deal.

 

I will define "western swing" as a stretch of consecutive road games including and west of Colorado. So, no Winnipeg (or Richards ho ho).

 

How many times has the Sabres franchise won three straight games on a western swing? More than you might expect.

 

(Almost pulled it off in Season One when they went 2-0-1 in LA (tie), California and Vancouver.)

 

78-79: Colorado, Vancouver, LA

 

93-94: Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver

 

97-98: Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton

 

03-04: LA, Anaheim, Colorado

 

11-12: Anaheim, SJ, Vancouver

 

An interesting tidbit is that during the Presidents' Trophy season of 06-07, the Sabres didn't play a game west of Chicago.

So the last time they swept the Alberta-Vancouver trip was 97, and they've done it twice. I don't believe that they've played in all three cities in one season AND done it on separate trips, at least from what I've checked. 

 

Either way, they might do a thing they haven't done since 97-98. 

 

I single that one out because it's notable - has the team ever done three straight games in Anaheim/SJ/Vancouver more than that one time?

He was productive last season on a 3rd line.  He's just shut it down now.

Theeeen those people you were picking on had a point, right? The evidence suggested that that was what should have been done? 

[Weave]

Theeeen those people you were picking on had a point, right? The evidence suggested that that was what should have been done? 

 

I don't see it that way.  If you recall, this was all being discussed while we were still foolishly trying to force Sam to be a center.  We didn't have enough wingers for 2 lines, let alone 3 (still don't, really).  Sam is back where he should be now, which means Jack has a winger not named Kane that can put up points with him.  If Sam is still a center, moving Kane off Jack's line is only going to make Jack less productive.

[Stoner]

Kane is, as Justin Falk said, selfishly protecting himself as he awaits a trade.

Can’t say I blame him for understanding it’s a business.

Can’t say Imrespect him either.

You wonder if you open yourself up for injury when you start playing the way Kane is apparently playing. I'm not sure that makes sense, but it sounds good lol.

[Randall Flagg]

I don't see it that way.  If you recall, this was all being discussed while we were still foolishly trying to force Sam to be a center.  We didn't have enough wingers for 2 lines, let alone 3 (still don't, really).  Sam is back where he should be now, which means Jack has a winger not named Kane that can put up points with him.  If Sam is still a center, moving Kane off Jack's line is only going to make Jack less productive.

There might have been people whose reasoning was as you suggest. Sam and Kane were very much separate issues for me, and for many of the board. I've never wanted Kane with Jack since the game in Florida in Oct/Nov of 2015. I started wanting to get looks at Sam at C last year, and stopped caring when he didn't look the part this season.

 

Sam being at wing has nothing to do with the fact that these people are correct that both top six lines have gained chemistry and played better without Evander. If you go read the trade threads on hfboards, Jets fans said the exact same thing over, and over, and over again. Don't play him in your top six, make him your third line. 

 

And like it or not, even the coaches had to see Sam at the position he was drafted in longer than you did, which was simply never, because of the Patrick Sharp comparison you liked, so I don't think it was "foolish" for fans to have that idea too. It was abandoned after 15-20 games, and hardly anyone has said anything about it since, so it's not as if there's some bizarre obsession for it that is completely unwarranted. You can't change the fact that he played C his entire development period up to the NHL, got broken into the NHL at wing like thousands of young centers have in NHL history, and was tried there for, heaven forbid, a quarter of a season combined over the stretch of two seasons. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[Huckleberry]

To be honest I still want to see Samson at C, I liked it last year when he had kane next to him for a short period.

[Stoner]

So the last time they swept the Alberta-Vancouver trip was 97, and they've done it twice. I don't believe that they've played in all three cities in one season AND done it on separate trips, at least from what I've checked. 

 

Either way, they might do a thing they haven't done since 97-98. 

 

I single that one out because it's notable - has the team ever done three straight games in Anaheim/SJ/Vancouver more than that one time?

I like you, but I'm not going back into that media guide!

[7+6=13]

I have to seriously consider that he wan'ted to re-sign here.  He did say in an interview that the team never approached him about a contract.  If so, he's got to feel scorned.  He did all he could do on the ice.

 

I'm inclined to agree.  Conjecture of course on my part, but reading into his comments to the BN Monday - didn't strike me as a player thinking "get me out of here and on a playoff team".

[SwampD]

I miss chew too.

 

 

I mean not put nasty tobacco in my mouth, although it does make me wonder if they could make a cannibus pouch for dipping, with oil I suppose, I'd be down.

Interesting. It would have to be decarbed first. Just chewing on raw weed doesn't give you anything but a stomach ache.

[inkman]

Interesting. It would have to be decarbed first. Just chewing on raw weed doesn't give you anything but a stomach ache.

Hence putting the cannibus oil inro a pouch. Not sure if it would work but it's intriguing.

[Mustache of God]

Hence putting the cannibus oil inro a pouch. Not sure if it would work but it's intriguing.

 

I'd volunteer to try this...for science.

[SwampD]

Hence putting the cannibus oil inro a pouch. Not sure if it would work but it's intriguing.

It probably needs to be decarbed, as well.

[Ogre]

Interesting. It would have to be decarbed first. Just chewing on raw weed doesn't give you anything but a stomach ache.

The only way I know of to decarb involves heat. I’ve read that dog’s digestive tract can decarb enough for the active ingredient to become psychoactive but I have no idea what’s going on there. Or if it’s really true. Regardless of that, why would you chew on it when you could just eat a delicious cookie instead?

[3putt]

Wtf no feed on nhl.tv?

[darksabre]

Wtf no feed on nhl.tv?

Not for another hour...

[3putt]

I have been working way too much lately I thought it was 10/9 my time already. Need a beer. Nevermind.

[SwampD]

The only way I know of to decarb involves heat. I’ve read that dog’s digestive tract can decarb enough for the active ingredient to become psychoactive but I have no idea what’s going on there. Or if it’s really true. Regardless of that, why would you chew on it when you could just eat a delicious cookie instead?

Or. um, just smoke it. I'm not eating dog poo to get high.

[inkman]

Or. um, just smoke it. I'm not eating dog poo to get high.

But once you get high, all bets are off. :lol:

[Mustache of God]

Or. um, just smoke it. I'm not eating dog poo to get high.

 

I'd try it at least once...for science.