GDT Ottawa Senators vs Buffalo Sabres 7:30pm ET 11/1/18

[Stoner]

10 hours ago, Thorny said:

I don't even know what this means, really. By "showed up" do you guys mean "score'? Cause then, ya, he didn't show up, nor did the other 17 skaters. 

But he showed up twice today on the scoresheet already, other players besides Jack, Skinner and Pommers can contribute, too. 

The point was about what your $10 million superstar does with the game on the line. He didn't show up. He blew a one-timer wide of the net and lost a key faceoff. He gave a puck away.

The point a game point of pride might have some meaning if we're still talking about the latest Dead Puck Era, which ended. This isn't your older brother's NHL. Let's not transport this season's Jack back to last season and say he's 11th in scoring. He didn't crack the top 30 last year and he currently has 42 players ahead of him. Not good enough.

[nfreeman]

I’ve credited this team previously this year for showing heart.  

Last night’s loss was the kind of loss that a team loses when it is used to losing.  

Lousy opponent that is reeling — and instead of coming out flying, the Sabres get blown by on 2 early offensive rushes, take 2 penalties and give up a PPG.  Then a soft goal to start the 2nd period, they are back on their heels again for most of the period, give up another one and it’s pretty much over.

They’ve now lost 3 in a row, all of which were well deserved losses, and I’d guess their mental state is pretty GD poor.

[Stoner]

8 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

He'll get there. Jack's a December-January boy. 

When seasons have been over. I'm looking at him now, when a continued (?) push by the team could put them in squarely in the playoff conversation at the 1/4 season pole.

[North Buffalo]

Bad effort especially in the first. ?

[TrueBlueGED]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

I watched about half of the game.

Sabres were under siege in the 1st, yet SOG were even. Weird.

I can’t get too angry over a game where they got almost 50 SOG. Skinner was just unlucky not to tie it in the 3rd.

And, as @Randall Flagg notes: The team needs more consistent secondary scoring.

Remember when @WildCard was being all negative while the team was winning but getting out-shot badly? Now the team is getting more shots but losing, and he's even more angry! Dude is never happy! ?

[WildCard]

16 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Remember when @WildCard was being all negative while the team was winning but getting out-shot badly? Now the team is getting more shots but losing, and he's even more angry! Dude is never happy! ?

I've come to realize there is no God in sports

[Taro T]

52 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

The point was about what your $10 million superstar does with the game on the line. He didn't show up. He blew a one-timer wide of the net and lost a key faceoff. He gave a puck away.

The point a game point of pride might have some meaning if we're still talking about the latest Dead Puck Era, which ended. This isn't your older brother's NHL. Let's not transport this season's Jack back to last season and say he's 11th in scoring. He didn't crack the top 30 last year and he currently has 42 players ahead of him. Not good enough.

Actually, he's tied along w/ about 16 other guys for 26th in points.  And w/ 1 more point to date, he'd be top 20.  He'll be fine.

And MacKinnon had a rough outing as well last night in Calgary.  He was a -3, only won about 44% of his faceoffs and didn't make the scoresheet.  His team gave up a 4-2 3rd period lead, went on to trail 4-6, fought back to 5-6 w/ an empty net & then he shot wide w/ about 35 seconds left & 1/2 the net available.  Is that loss is on Nate because he didn't will the team to a win?

[Stoner]

9 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Actually, he's tied along w/ about 16 other guys for 26th in points.  And w/ 1 more point to date, he'd be top 20.  He'll be fine.

And MacKinnon had a rough outing as well last night in Calgary.  He was a -3, only won about 44% of his faceoffs and didn't make the scoresheet.  His team gave up a 4-2 3rd period lead, went on to trail 4-6, fought back to 5-6 w/ an empty net & then he shot wide w/ about 35 seconds left & 1/2 the net available.  Is that loss is on Nate because he didn't will the team to a win?

Like I said, 42 players are ahead of him. If you want to say Bergeron and McDavid are tied for fourth, and the next player is in fifth, and so on and so forth, to put Eichel in 26th, go for it.

No one around here in 2015 would have been happy with Eichel projecting to a second- or third-tier offensive producer. Why's it good enough three-four years into his career?

[MattPie]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Like I said, 42 players are ahead of him. If you want to say Bergeron and McDavid are tied for fourth, and the next player is in fifth, and so on and so forth, to put Eichel in 26th, go for it.

No one around here in 2015 would have been happy with Eichel projecting to a second- or third-tier offensive producer. Why's it good enough three-four years into his career?

Without looking, are spots 26 through 42 all the same number of points? It's equally disingenuous to say he's 26th or 42nd if that's the case.

[Stoner]

BTW, I hope people don't think I'm down on Jack and want him gone or something. He's a very good player. But through three-plus seasons, he's just very good. He's not special or elite. Every team has a couple of Eichels. You want to have a player who's one of a handful in the league. I'm not even sure I can blame him. He's a victim of what his team went through to get another player, and thus the expectations for him were probably too high.

2 minutes ago, MattPie said:

Without looking, are spots 26 through 42 all the same number of points? It's equally disingenuous to say he's 26th or 42nd if that's the case.

Like I said, there are 42 players ahead of him.

This is not a recording.

[Ottosmagic13]

10 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Actually, he's tied along w/ about 16 other guys for 26th in points.  And w/ 1 more point to date, he'd be top 20.  He'll be fine.

And MacKinnon had a rough outing as well last night in Calgary.  He was a -3, only won about 44% of his faceoffs and didn't make the scoresheet.  His team gave up a 4-2 3rd period lead, went on to trail 4-6, fought back to 5-6 w/ an empty net & then he shot wide w/ about 35 seconds left & 1/2 the net available.  Is that loss is on Nate because he didn't will the team to a win?

Yes, absolutely. /sarcasm

 

Until Jack, Skinner and Pomm get help it's a mute point. You know what makes a superstar better... having secondary scoring behind him. Oilers have 16 goals from their top line and 20 goals scored by people not McDavid or McDavid linemates (Cagguila and R N-H). 

 

The Sabres have 17 from Jack, Skinner, Pomm and 12 from everyone else. 

 

The scary thing is those numbers are low and I've noticed the D contributing more this season than in recent memory. Our 4-9 forwards are bad, and we're sitting one that seemed promising (Erod). 

 

[MattPie]

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

BTW, I hope people don't think I'm down on Jack and want him gone or something. He's a very good player. But through three-plus seasons, he's just very good. He's not special or elite. Every team has a couple of Eichels. You want to have a player who's one of a handful in the league. I'm not even sure I can blame him. He's a victim of what his team went through to get another player, and thus the expectations for him were probably too high.

Like I said, there are 42 players ahead of him.

This is not a recording.

There are 25 ahead of him, and 16 in the same place, right? Wait, I forgot NHL Rule 314.15pa: If a Buffalo player is tied with other players in any stat, the Buffalo player loses the tiebreaker. If two or more Buffalo players are tied in any stat, they are ordered in terms of increasing salary behind all other players tied in that stat."

Edited November 2, 2018 by MattPie

[nfreeman]

8 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

BTW, I hope people don't think I'm down on Jack and want him gone or something. He's a very good player. But through three-plus seasons, he's just very good. He's not special or elite. Every team has a couple of Eichels. You want to have a player who's one of a handful in the league. I'm not even sure I can blame him. He's a victim of what his team went through to get another player, and thus the expectations for him were probably too high.

Like I said, there are 42 players ahead of him.

This is not a recording.

You are correct that Eichel to date hasn’t nearly been worth the stupid and enormous sacrifice it took to get him.  

You are wrong — and your snark in being wrong makes it worse — about 42 players being ahead of him.  As MP notes, there are 26 ahead of him and 15 tied with him.

 

[Taro T]

21 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Like I said, 42 players are ahead of him. If you want to say Bergeron and McDavid are tied for fourth, and the next player is in fifth, and so on and so forth, to put Eichel in 26th, go for it.

No one around here in 2015 would have been happy with Eichel projecting to a second- or third-tier offensive producer. Why's it good enough three-four years into his career?

Umm, Bergeron & McClavicle are tied for 3rd, & Kane & MacKinnon are tied for 5th.  You are being disingenuous claiming they're tied for 4th & 6th respectively.

 

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

No one around here in 2015 would have been happy with Eichel projecting to a second- or third-tier offensive producer. Why's it good enough three-four years into his career?

This line of thought interests me so little.

[Stoner]

OK, for the THIRD TIME today I went to nhl.com's stats page to see if I'm crazy. There are 42 players in the NHL with a higher PPG number than Jack's 1.08. 42.

I'm not sure where this is going off the rails. Kane and McKinnon are tied, yes, but not near the top.

[Stoner]

Where it went off the rails is that the discussion went from Jack being above a point a game pace to other folks looking only at total points.

[Stoner]

50 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

This line of thought interests me so little.

Thanks for letting us know.

[Weave]

53 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

This line of thought interests me so little.

Given that we blew up 3 seasons and a franchise’s reputation to get him, it interests me a ton.

[LGR4GM]

35 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

OK, for the THIRD TIME today I went to nhl.com's stats page to see if I'm crazy. There are 42 players in the NHL with a higher PPG number than Jack's 1.08. 42.

I'm not sure where this is going off the rails. Kane and McKinnon are tied, yes, but not near the top.

Those numbers will come down for most. With a sample size of 10-12 games, you need to see how that shakes out. The question is does Eichel maintain his number and surpass people or also wilt. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by LGR4GM

[Randall Flagg]

48 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

OK, for the THIRD TIME today I went to nhl.com's stats page to see if I'm crazy. There are 42 players in the NHL with a higher PPG number than Jack's 1.08. 42.

I'm not sure where this is going off the rails. Kane and McKinnon are tied, yes, but not near the top.

Not to debate a broader point about what you and the franchise needs from Jack after losing a season (and depth for years) for him, but loads of those guys will come off their October adrenaline. A lot of them are worse than Jack. A lot of them would have fewer points than Jack on the first line of this team. It's disappointing about Jack (and not his fault) that he isn't worth losing a season for (no player is) but for as long as this team looks remotely like it does he's going to be at the very bottom of (or not on) the problem list. 

It's been established for 3 seasons now, too, that when everyone else gets tired during the long middle months of the season is when Jack's freaky strength kicks in and he starts to climb these charts. He's done it every single year. Humming along at an 88 point pace before that even starts isn't a bad thing, and I'll start looking closer at that stuff when we pass the halfway point. I know that probably does nothing for you, but that's how this poster sees it anyway.

Also, I know your secret. (You're the only person on this board whose enjoyment of Jack approaches mine - I think Thorny could be in the conversation too though, and maybe True, but True can't stand him helping a player score such as Jeff Skinner) 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[Stoner]

14 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Not to debate a broader point about what you and the franchise needs from Jack after losing a season (and depth for years) for him, but loads of those guys will come off their October adrenaline. A lot of them are worse than Jack. A lot of them would have fewer points than Jack on the first line of this team. It's disappointing about Jack (and not his fault) that he isn't worth losing a season for (no player is) but for as long as this team looks remotely like it does he's going to be at the very bottom of (or not on) the problem list. 

It's been established for 3 seasons now, too, that when everyone else gets tired during the long middle months of the season is when Jack's freaky strength kicks in and he starts to climb these charts. He's done it every single year. Humming along at an 88 point pace before that even starts isn't a bad thing, and I'll start looking closer at that stuff when we pass the halfway point. I know that probably does nothing for you, but that's how this poster sees it anyway.

Also, I know your secret. (You're the only person on this board whose enjoyment of Jack approaches mine - I think Thorny could be in the conversation too though, and maybe True, but True can't stand him helping a player score such as Jeff Skinner) 

As long as that's the only secret you reveal, I'm good. I want the guy to end up next to Perreault and not Vanek, that's all.

The idea that Jack isn't a problem on a team that (still) can't score goals is an interesting one. You could argue that a $10 million a year offensive player has to lead the way and change that depressing reality of Sabres hockey. You could also argue there's not enough around him for him to do that. But, circling back around, how much can go around him when so much of the salary cap is devoted to him? I think the great ones do lead the way and pull up the rest, rather than needing the rest to pull them up.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Where it went off the rails is that the discussion went from Jack being above a point a game pace to other folks looking only at total points.

....is that this is a GDT and Jack had 2pts in THIS game and we still lost. Seems to me that he's doesn't have the talent beneath him for support and this is a TEAM sport is it not?

On the positive side ....Jack being over a point a game is improvement even though again he's had um-teen wingers already 13 games into the season.

We are listed as 18th in overall league standings....but only 3pts out of 2nd place.

Teams with more than 1 elite player are within grasp... Chicago, Pitt, Sharks, Lightning, Laffs (Caps are behind us).

Also there are many players on this team whom aren't performing up to snuff. when they either wake up or get moved there will be improvement (hopefully).

We are already off to a better start than recent years. They played two not so great games and were still in them to the end (again, improvement)

We're still hanging on to a wild card spot...something that many didn't think they would see this year.

If Jbot can get Jack some secondary help he could be even more of a threat.

Edit: now that I know one of your secrets...GO JACK!!!

[Randall Flagg]

20 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

As long as that's the only secret you reveal, I'm good. I want the guy to end up next to Perreault and not Vanek, that's all.

The idea that Jack isn't a problem on a team that (still) can't score goals is an interesting one. You could argue that a $10 million a year offensive player has to lead the way and change that depressing reality of Sabres hockey. You could also argue there's not enough around him for him to do that. But, circling back around, how much can go around him when so much of the salary cap is devoted to him? I think the great ones do lead the way and pull up the rest, rather than needing the rest to pull them up.

Jack's an early contract of the kind that, coupled with what the cap is doing, will look scary/ridiculous as time approaches the present from the left, but make sense as time approaches the present from the right. 

Like, I think Nylander is about to get a similarly eye-popping deal wherever he ends up. And then every kid after that. 

I wouldn't be surprised that within 3 years, the production from Jack and these other guys versus the percentage of the cap they take up is completely normal to any other NHL era. 

I don't think he'll be Sid, Malkin, or McDavid, but there's no reason he's not better than Anze Kopitar, who hoisted two cups for a well-built-around-him franchise. Who is about to enter his second full-season-disappearing-act in the last three years, as well. 

You can need what you need from Jack, but my attention has shifted to needing my GMs to actually do f*cking something above average to make the team relevant for a change, rather than needing Jack to score his THIRD point of the night for the team to get their third goal. With Jack the exact player he is right now (I think he's having a very nice season and i expect it to get better) you can win a cup in this league. Our FO has been just stupid enough that I worry they won't get close. 

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Thanks for letting us know.

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Given that we blew up 3 seasons and a franchise’s reputation to get him, it interests me a ton.

I understand.

Now and again, stuff on the board just boils down, IMO, to one's world view, outlook on life, and such.

If we accept for the sake of argument that Eichel will not be the next Perreault but will instead be, what, a notch above Pierre Turgeon? (That actually seems fair.)

Then what of it? What is there to be done about it? What's done is done.**

It's mostly thistle patch harumphing to want to dwell on the ways in which Eichel has disappointed, is disappointing, and likely will disappoint -- in the light of the cost to acquire him, the hope invested in him, and the value and term of his current contract.

Which, fine. That may be some people's cup of tea.

It ain't mine.  And every now and then, I feel like saying as much.

** For the purposes of this analysis, I'm disregarding the possibility of trades and the like. Because, even in that event, the team would be holding an asset that did not turn out to be as valuable as had been hoped (by some). And that's to say nothing of the fact that his contract all but guarantees that he's a Sabre for the long-term.