So #8

[Flashsabre]

If we could acquire a 2C without trading #8 and then land Rossi or Lundell in the draft they would be in good shape down the middle and could use Cozens as a scoring RW.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Ruff Around The Edges said:

I'm warming up to the idea of taking Anton Lundell at #8. I know he isnt the 'sexy' pick everyone is looking for, but he just might be the one we truly need to make. Top 6 forward that has the skating, size, and defensive mindset that is lacking on this roster.

His skating is not a strength.  He really needs to improve it.

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, ubkev said:

I don't think he has the skating. He doesn't have the agility.

This is my biggest concern especially on a smaller ice surface where quickness is key. That said and as Draisaitl and even Reinhart have shown, if you work hard skating can really improve. 

It's a tough call at 8, there will be options. I hope all 3 of Rossi, Jarvis, and Lundell are there so we can pick the best one. I think that is probably Rossi then Jarvis, then Lundell but I can only hope the Sabres nail this pick (if they don't trade it).

[ubkev]

35 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This is my biggest concern especially on a smaller ice surface where quickness is key. That said and as Draisaitl and even Reinhart have shown, if you work hard skating can really improve. 

It's a tough call at 8, there will be options. I hope all 3 of Rossi, Jarvis, and Lundell are there so we can pick the best one. I think that is probably Rossi then Jarvis, then Lundell but I can only hope the Sabres nail this pick (if they don't trade it).

I'm with the people on the trade train. Yeah, if they make the pick I hope they get a perennial all star. But I really don't want to wait the 1-4 years it takes to develop them anymore. I'm getting pretty exhausted with waiting. 

[LGR4GM]

15 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

That's the biggest problem.

I say the sky is royal blue.

You say...so, you're equating the sky to the new uniforms.

No, I'm saying the sky is royal blue.

But you're on the Sabres board, you must be implying it's the color of the Sabres uniform.

I said the sky is royal blue.

You say...they'd look better on Winnipeg because Laine.

So you won't explain what you actually meant and you are upset with me for having to try and fill in the blanks... 

14 hours ago, ubkev said:

Wtf is happening in here?

Short version is someone laughed at something and I spent far too many posts trying to ascertain what their laughter meant. 

Edited August 21, 2020 by LGR4GM
spelling

[SwampD]

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So you won't explain what you actually meant and you are upset with me for having to try and fill in the blanks... 

Short version is someone laughed at something and I spent far too many posts trying to ascertain what their laughter meant. 

Im guessing it was because you were so adamant up thread about him not being a 2C, and then you said he could excel at 2C.

I have to admit that I chuckled at it a little when I read it.

(You did credibly explain downthread why you thought that, though.)

 

[LGR4GM]

23 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Im guessing it was because you were so adamant up thread about him not being a 2C, and then you said he could excel at 2C.

I have to admit that I chuckled at it a little when I read it.

(You did credibly explain downthread why you thought that, though.)

 

I was adamant about him not being a 2c? 

I thought I was pretty consistent in saying he could become a 2c but I worried about him reaching that due to his offense. 

[SwampD]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I was adamant about him not being a 2c? 

I thought I was pretty consistent in saying he could become a 2c but I worried about him reaching that due to his offense. 

Yes. You just said it again. 

[LGR4GM]

I feel like my definition of adamant and yours are very different then. 

[SwampD]

16 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I feel like my definition of adamant and yours are very different then. 

I am truly sorry that your definition is incorrect.

?

Just having some fun. Man I wish we were talking about Last night’s Sabres playoff game.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

I am truly sorry that your definition is incorrect.

?

Just having some fun. Man I wish we were talking about Last night’s Sabres playoff game.

[Gabrielor]

Really hoping we hold onto this pick. As long as we don’t take Holtz, I think this pick will be a fantastic add.

I do seriously hope they’re considering Lundell. If neither Raymond or Rossi fall, he’s the guy.

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, ubkev said:

I'm with the people on the trade train. Yeah, if they make the pick I hope they get a perennial all star. But I really don't want to wait the 1-4 years it takes to develop them anymore. I'm getting pretty exhausted with waiting. 

Are you suggesting that last year's first round pick wasn't worth taking because he didn't immediately play in the NHL? I'm open to dealing our first round pick but it has to be for a young second line player who can play right away. If that type of deal can't be made then you keep the pick. 

[ubkev]

43 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Are you suggesting that last year's first round pick wasn't worth taking because he didn't immediately play in the NHL? I'm open to dealing our first round pick but it has to be for a young second line player who can play right away. If that type of deal can't be made then you keep the pick. 

Well, after rereading my post 6 times, I couldn't find that part where I mentioned anything about last year's pick. Ya stumped me!

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I was adamant about him not being a 2c? 

I thought I was pretty consistent in saying he could become a 2c but I worried about him reaching that due to his offense. 

First.... I'm not upset. In fact it is you who most often in your posts that seems to get an attitude. I actually like getting in to conversations with people who are soooo adamant on their opinions and use stats/facts to advance that opinion. 

Sometimes it can be quite a learning experience and other times it can be outright fun. 

Edit: sorry, quoted the wrong post because I was going to respond to this one too.

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

Im guessing it was because you were so adamant up thread about him not being a 2C, and then you said he could excel at 2C.

I have to admit that I chuckled at it a little when I read it.

(You did credibly explain downthread why you thought that, though.)

 

There's a little more to it but, you get the idea.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Gabrielor said:

As long as we don’t take Holtz, I think this pick will be a fantastic add.

Care to elaborate?

[Gabrielor]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Care to elaborate?

Sure, if you don't mind though, I'm going to cheat and just re-post my thought's from HFBoards. They're almost 2 months old, but I'm still at the same exact place:

"Whether or not Holtz will succeed here will come down to his personality, and coaching.

He’s extremely raw in fundamentals. His defensive awareness is hilarious, and he does have a Laine-eske propensity to shoot from the outside, without Laine’s talent that makes it work.

If he has that self-improvement personality matrix, and we actually coach him properly, his elite traits could make him a better Olofsson.

However, if he has an Alex Nylander personality, and we develop him like we did Nylander, he’ll bust hard.

Better to pick a better all around player, better fit, and someone who we won’t have to rely on our own coaching to develop as much. Anton Lundell, come on down."

 

I'll add that I don't think he's one of the 8 best players. Me personally, I think these are the best 8 players.

Alexis Lafrenière

Quinton Byfield

Marco Rossi

Lucas Raymond

Anton Lundell

Jake Sanderson

Tim Stützle

Jamie Drysdale

Edited August 21, 2020 by Gabrielor

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

First.... I'm not upset. In fact it is you who most often in your posts that seems to get an attitude. I actually like getting in to conversations with people who are soooo adamant on their opinions and use stats/facts to advance that opinion. 

Sometimes it can be quite a learning experience and other times it can be outright fun. 

Edit: sorry, quoted the wrong post because I was going to respond to this one too.

 

ok, I can't respond with facts or even opinions without knowing your position. I have stated this multiple times. 

[dudacek]

53 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

Sure, if you don't mind though, I'm going to cheat and just re-post my thought's from HFBoards. They're almost 2 months old, but I'm still at the same exact place:

"Whether or not Holtz will succeed here will come down to his personality, and coaching.

He’s extremely raw in fundamentals. His defensive awareness is hilarious, and he does have a Laine-eske propensity to shoot from the outside, without Laine’s talent that makes it work.

If he has that self-improvement personality matrix, and we actually coach him properly, his elite traits could make him a better Olofsson.

However, if he has an Alex Nylander personality, and we develop him like we did Nylander, he’ll bust hard.

Better to pick a better all around player, better fit, and someone who we won’t have to rely on our own coaching to develop as much. Anton Lundell, come on down."

 

I'll add that I don't think he's one of the 8 best players. Me personally, I think these are the best 8 players.

Alexis Lafrenière

Quinton Byfield

Marco Rossi

Lucas Raymond

Anton Lundell

Jake Sanderson

Tim Stützle

Jamie Drysdale

Interesting. I have not read “raw” or “hilarious defensively” elsewhere.

I do get an entitled vibe from him though.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Gabrielor said:

I'll add that I don't think he's one of the 8 best players. Me personally, I think these are the best 8 players.

Alexis Lafrenière

Quinton Byfield

Marco Rossi

Lucas Raymond

Anton Lundell

Jake Sanderson

Tim Stützle

Jamie Drysdale

You spelled Seth Jarvis incorrectly. 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

First.... I'm not upset. In fact it is you who most often in your posts that seems to get an attitude. I actually like getting in to conversations with people who are soooo adamant on their opinions and use stats/facts to advance that opinion. 

Sometimes it can be quite a learning experience and other times it can be outright fun. 

Edit: sorry, quoted the wrong post because I was going to respond to this one too.

 

I don’t think that Liger is generally, and in this case, particularly adamant that he knows the exact outcome of any one prospect with any certaint.

Just the statement that Lundell could be a 2C, but he worries about the skating, is a reflection of the uncertainty he acknowledges is part of the development process.

What he does seem to be very adamant about is his evaluation process/method.  However, I’ve always found Liger to be easy to talk to about prospects and not dismissive of others’ ideas and opinions.

It seems like you are taking shots at him just because he is willing to put his well researched and developed opinions on prospects out there for everyone to see.  But it’s honestly hard to say for sure because you refuse to just say in plain English what the heck you are talking about.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Curt

[LGR4GM]

You should never be dismissive on prospect opinions because you can never be sure your opinion is right until years later. I liked the Cozens pick and hated the Johnson pick. If Cozens turns into Grigorenko and Johnson turns into PK Subban I will be wrong. 

Really what you are doing is trying to create a range for a prospect. What is their NHL floor and ceiling, all while acknowledging any prospect could bust. 

[WildCard]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

You should never be dismissive on prospect opinions because you can never be sure your opinion is right until years later. I liked the Cozens pick and hated the Johnson pick. If Cozens turns into Grigorenko and Johnson turns into PK Subban I will be wrong. 

Really what you are doing is trying to create a range for a prospect. What is their NHL floor and ceiling, all while acknowledging any prospect could bust. 

Unless it was anyone the Bills drafted for about 2 decades 

[Gabrielor]

43 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Interesting. I have not read “raw” or “hilarious defensively” elsewhere.

I do get an entitled vibe from him though.

Some all shift videos are out there on Holtz, but can be tricky to find.

This breakdown did a good job of illustrating the Alex-Nylander-vs-Vegas-defensive-positioning that I find hiliarious, though:

 

38 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You spelled Seth Jarvis incorrectly. 

He's my 9th guy lol. (Ahead of Perfetti, who I think is overrated).