Don't look now but the Sabres have gotten points in 9 of the last 10 games

[matter2003]

Sabres have recovered nicely after a tough November stretch and have now gotten points in 9 of their last 10 games, going 5-1-4 in that stretch.

Granted it would be nice if they could figure out a way to stop losing in OT and win a few of those but a point is better than nothing, giving them 14 of a possible 20 points over that time period and catapulting them into 2nd place in the division with a 3 point cushion.

Kreuger has figured out how to do something that Housley never could over 5 months...get this team out of a tailspin and back to playing good hockey that gets results.

Edited December 15, 2019 by matter2003

[Weave]

I don’t see this as sustainable.  Secondary scoring is almost nonexistent outside of Larsson’s recent burst.

I haven’t look closely but it sure seems Jack is in on nearly every goal we are scoring.  Good for Jack.  Bad for sustainability.

 

[JohnRobertEichel]

We're also just a few bad games in a row from bouncing down from the #2 division playoff seed to #12 overall in the conference. I still don't think much has changed with this team. Our critical #2 center of the future is now a regular scratch, our $10 million-per-year left winger is pulling a Matt Moulson on us, and our comatose GM continues to waste away the prime years of Eichel without any urgency to make the playoffs.

Or am I being overly negative?

[Doohicksie]

8 minutes ago, Marchand'sNose said:

Or am I being overly negative?

The glass is half full. How you prefer to look at it, is up to you.

[JohnRobertEichel]

14 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

The glass is half full. How you prefer to look at it, is up to you.

 

I see a half-full glass of public water from Flint, Michigan; the yellowish-brown tint won't turn clear for me until a playoff spot is clinched.

[Doohicksie]

The Tank has damaged you.

[pi2000]

I thought they played their best game of the season against the Islanders.

That's their ceiling.  At their best, they're competitive against a top 5 team in the conference.    

However they don't have the talent to win when they simply play average.   

They are what they've shown, I expect them to hover around .500 for the season, which is an improvement.

That said, a few of the right moves could propel them further up the standings, but I don't expect that to happen until the deadline approaches.

[Ross Rhea]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I don’t see this as sustainable.  Secondary scoring is almost nonexistent outside of Larsson’s recent burst.

I haven’t look closely but it sure seems Jack is in on nearly every goal we are scoring.  Good for Jack.  Bad for sustainability.

 

This is why they need to get Taylor Hall not Michael Frolik!

[JohnRobertEichel]

4 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

The Tank has damaged you.

It has, my friend. It certainly has.

But I have at least provided a specific benchmark by which I am willing to reverse my negative outlook: making the playoffs.

I also see a lot of this organization's fortune depending on the development of 4 specific players: Luukkonen, Dahlin, Mittelstadt, and Cozens. If all 4 reach their talent ceiling, we suddenly have a legitimate Cup contender. 

[inkman]

8 minutes ago, Marchand'sNose said:

It has, my friend. It certainly has.

But I have at least provided a specific benchmark by which I am willing to reverse my negative outlook: making the playoffs.

I also see a lot of this organization's fortune depending on the development of 4 specific players: Luukkonen, Dahlin, Mittelstadt, and Cozens. If all 4 reach their talent ceiling, we suddenly have a legitimate Cup contender. 

Unfortunately that "suddenly" is about 2 seasons from fruition. 

[inkman]

14 minutes ago, Ross Rhea said:

This is why they need to get Taylor Hall not Michael Frolik!

Unfortunately, Hall has one more goal than Zemgus Girgensons.  

[bob_sauve28]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I don’t see this as sustainable.  Secondary scoring is almost nonexistent outside of Larsson’s recent burst.

I haven’t look closely but it sure seems Jack is in on nearly every goal we are scoring.  Good for Jack.  Bad for sustainability.

 

The special teams have been so bad of late--last game excepted--that I do see them as being able to do better. They play good defense, and with Ullmark they have a chance to win every game. If those special teams improve, they can win a lot of hockey games 

[bob_sauve28]

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

 

Kreuger has figured out how to do something that Housley never could over 5 months...get this team out of a tailspin and back to playing good hockey that gets results.

In fairness to Housley, this team has a lot more horses now than when he was coach. Miller, MoJo, VO, Joki and Jimmy V are all players that have made a difference. Not that I am a Housely fan, but this is a much better team than last year 

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

1 hour ago, Marchand'sNose said:

We're also just a few bad games in a row from bouncing down from the #2 division playoff seed to #12 overall in the conference. I still don't think much has changed with this team. Our critical #2 center of the future is now a regular scratch, our $10 million-per-year left winger is pulling a Matt Moulson on us, and our comatose GM continues to waste away the prime years of Eichel without any urgency to make the playoffs.

Or am I being overly negative?

Right now only 4 points separate the #2 slot in the Atlantic division (held by the Sabres) and the #7 spot.  So the Sabres need to AT LEAST maintain the level of play we are seeing lately.  No one should be overly optimistic or pessimistic at this point.

The game changer for this team will be when we trade to get a forward.  Will he fit in?  Will he struggle and cost us games?  Will we miss the D that was traded at some point during the season?  Will it be enough of an upgrade to get us 2-3 more wins in the standings than we would have if we didn't make the trade?   The Sabres are a bubble team for sure this season, but at this point it's up to JBotts to make a move to ensure that bubble carries us past the wildcard cutoff line before it pops...

Edited December 15, 2019 by SHAAAUGHT!!!
Added* No one should be overly optimistic or pessimistic at this point. And grammar. Oh the grammar...

[...]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

I don’t see this as sustainable.  Secondary scoring is almost nonexistent outside of Larsson’s recent burst.

I haven’t look closely but it sure seems Jack is in on nearly every goal we are scoring.  Good for Jack.  Bad for sustainability.

I don't know, man, you can also look at it in a different way: because of the present lack of secondary scoring, this could very well be sustained if the secondary scoring picks up. It could possibly improve if the first line continues producing.

[Zamboni]

I think it’s great they got 9 out of 10. Of course they’ll cool off a bit. Every season, even for teams that make the playoffs and even those that win the cup have peaks and valleys throughout the year. 
negative Nancy’s can hunt for the negatives and complain about the what if’s, and should haves... complaining, in a twisted way, makes them happy. I’m glad the Sabres have been trending in a positive direction. I hope that doesn’t take JB’s foot off the gas and he is still searching for troops to better the roster.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Zamboni

[bunomatic]

2 hours ago, Marchand'sNose said:

 

I see a half-full glass of public water from Flint, Michigan; the yellowish-brown tint won't turn clear for me until a playoff spot is clinched.

After years of ineptitude from this franchise I kind of feel the same. A playoff berth is the measure of success I’m looking for. Another year on the outside is one more kick in the groin for the fans. I realize I’d better rummage around for my old jockstrap from my playing days if I want to avoid any bruising but its time this franchise set the bar a little higher.

Edited December 15, 2019 by bunomatic

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, Marchand'sNose said:

It has, my friend. It certainly has.

But I have at least provided a specific benchmark by which I am willing to reverse my negative outlook: making the playoffs.

I also see a lot of this organization's fortune depending on the development of 4 specific players: Luukkonen, Dahlin, Mittelstadt, and Cozens. If all 4 reach their talent ceiling, we suddenly have a legitimate Cup contender. 

I'm kind of in the same boat.  I will feel the team has taken a step forward if they get a playoff berth.  Unlike others on this board, though, I'm not so sure we *need* forward help.  I kind of expect a trade simply to restore the balance between D and F bodies on the roster, but I think continued adherence to RFK's plan may be enough to put this team over the top in terms of making the playoffs.

I think a more radical roster re-do is in the offing for this summer.

[Gatorman0519]

5 hours ago, Weave said:

I don’t see this as sustainable.  Secondary scoring is almost nonexistent outside of Larsson’s recent burst.

I haven’t look closely but it sure seems Jack is in on nearly every goal we are scoring.  Good for Jack.  Bad for sustainability.

 

Yup... the same problem still exists as it has since Drury and Briere left town.  Until that is fixed we are Walking on thin ice.

[Drunkard]

Does this mean we like the loser point now that we've been racking them?

[Doohicksie]

I see the loser point as a kind of lifeboat for teams that aren't quite winning games to help them hang around until they can win properly.  This is exactly the criticism many have of giving a standings point to a team that loses in OT or SO, artificially keeping teams in the playoff longer, but yeah, in the past 10 games the loser point has helped the Sabres.  But that's the way the game is played, so you might as well take advantage of it.

[That Aud Smell]

Gotta get over the DeLuca hump.

And honestly, it will be a tremendous improvement if this team finishes around 90 points. Bottom line seems to be that they need more good NHL players in order to be in the top third tier of NHL clubs.

It does confound me: Why are the Bills turned around more quickly than the Sabres?

[Doohicksie]

15 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

It does confound me: Why are the Bills turned around more quickly than the Sabres?

This has been discussed on the forums here:  Draft picks out of college into the NFL are much more completely developed players than draft picks that need significant development before they are ready for the NHL.  An NFL first rounder is almost always ready to be a starter; in the NHL, most draftees, even in the first round, need some time on the farm to develop. 

It's the difference between hiring an 18 year old and a 22 year old:  No matter what the field, which one would you expect will be ready to do the job out of the gate?

Edited December 16, 2019 by Doohickie

[MattPie]

Just now, Doohickie said:

This has been discussed on the forums here:  Draft picks out of college into the NFL are much more completely developed players than draft picks that need significant development before they are ready for the NHL.  An NFL first rounder is almost always ready to be a starter; in the NHL, most draftees, even in the first round, need some time on the farm to develop.

And as discussed too, with so many positions in the NFL, even late 1st or second round you may be picking the top player for some less-desirable position, like corners, guards, etc. 

[That Aud Smell]

23 minutes ago, MattPie said:

And as discussed too, with so many positions in the NFL, even late 1st or second round you may be picking the top player for some less-desirable position, like corners, guards, etc. 

that's a sticking point for me, though. there's so much more to get right on a 53-player roster!

oh well. to the extent it's a mystery to me, it's likely to remain so.