Defense Next Year 2021-22

[LabattBlue]

1 hour ago, Cage said:

What about potential #1 overall pick.... Owen Power?

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nhl/news/nhl-mock-draft-2021-sabres-owen-power-kraken-luke-hughes/o92mfuglsbwv1gqm8qos7d8v5

If there are comparable grades among the top 5, I'd much rather go with a center or wing.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Cage said:

What about potential #1 overall pick.... Owen Power?

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nhl/news/nhl-mock-draft-2021-sabres-owen-power-kraken-luke-hughes/o92mfuglsbwv1gqm8qos7d8v5

I can't imagine the Sabres adding yet another LHD that high in the draft. 

"The Sabres have some promising pieces up front, but the future backend leaves fans wanting more." .... we have the following players Dahlin, Johnson, Samuelsson, Laaksonen, Bryson, and technically still Jake McCabe on the left hand side. Right wing we have Quinn and Reinhart and Tage. That's it. 

6 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

If there are comparable grades among the top 5, I'd much rather go with a center or wing.

Eklund, Beniers, or Guenther. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by LGR4GM

[thewookie1]

For starters to the OP, you either give Dahlin a bridge or 8 years. Never give the 5 years because that takes him to UFA. 

Keith wasn’t paired with Hjalmarsson normally. For years it was

Keith-Seabrook

Hjalmarsson-Oduya

Rosieval- Young guy(Leddy/ Van Reimsdyk/etc)

Keith and Hjalmarsson would be together primarily in big defensive situations or in-between shifts/ double shifting. Essentially If shifts were a minute. Keith would play 1 minute with Seabrook, 30 secs with Hjalmarsson and then Hjalmarsson would play a minute with Oduya.

 

To better our defense we need to likely trade Risto and Miller. Instead we need a guy like Savard/Hjalmarsson to fit in at the 2RD  role.

In my opinion, I look at next year assuming either Bryson/Borgen are not here. Why you may ask? Because I’d like to force competition and if Bryson/Borgen beats out the others then we are better for it.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

For starters to the OP, you either give Dahlin a bridge or 8 years. Never give the 5 years because that takes him to UFA. 

Keith wasn’t paired with Hjalmarsson normally. For years it was

Keith-Seabrook

Hjalmarsson-Oduya

Rosieval- Young guy(Leddy/ Van Reimsdyk/etc)

Keith and Hjalmarsson would be together primarily in big defensive situations or in-between shifts/ double shifting. Essentially If shifts were a minute. Keith would play 1 minute with Seabrook, 30 secs with Hjalmarsson and then Hjalmarsson would play a minute with Oduya.

 

To better our defense we need to likely trade Risto and Miller. Instead we need a guy like Savard/Hjalmarsson to fit in at the 2RD  role.

In my opinion, I look at next year assuming either Bryson/Borgen are not here. Why you may ask? Because I’d like to force competition and if Bryson/Borgen beats out the others then we are better for it.

Bryson and Borgen play opposite sides. 

[Gabrielor]

Dahlin Borgen (I'm glad we have the Joki option, but I've obsessed about this pair since 2018)

xxx Jokiharju (xxx could be McCabe, but needs to be a LD top 4 D with experience, and more defensive than offensive)

Bryson/Samuelsson/depth signing depth signing/Laaksonen (lots of options here, UFA's and young guys will dictate it)

 

Miller - trade or Seattle

Risto - trade, at long last

 

is what I'd be looking for. We're still shy 1 impact dman, but we may be able to cover that hole long term via the draft.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Bryson and Borgen play opposite sides. 

I know, just the general idea of inexperienced Dmen 

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

For starters to the OP, you either give Dahlin a bridge or 8 years. Never give the 5 years because that takes him to UFA. 

Keith wasn’t paired with Hjalmarsson normally. For years it was

Keith-Seabrook

Hjalmarsson-Oduya

Rosieval- Young guy(Leddy/ Van Reimsdyk/etc)

Keith and Hjalmarsson would be together primarily in big defensive situations or in-between shifts/ double shifting. Essentially If shifts were a minute. Keith would play 1 minute with Seabrook, 30 secs with Hjalmarsson and then Hjalmarsson would play a minute with Oduya.

 

To better our defense we need to likely trade Risto and Miller. Instead we need a guy like Savard/Hjalmarsson to fit in at the 2RD  role.

In my opinion, I look at next year assuming either Bryson/Borgen are not here. Why you may ask? Because I’d like to force competition and if Bryson/Borgen beats out the others then we are better for it.

I want to do this r.e. the mitts line and the top 6 too. 

Let's get 6 skaters we think can make 2 lines better than what we expect the Mitts line to be, and let's see 'em try and compete. 

[Curt]

12 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

I have no problem with Bryson going forward...as long as the 3 offensive minded dmen(Dahlin, Bryson and Joker) are paired with 3 defensive minded dmen(Borgen, McCabe, and ???).  In this scenario Risto goes bye bye, and so does Miller(unless he becomes a 7th defenseman for his last contract year).

...and hopefully they can do this, pairing a lefty and a righty so no one has to play their off side....unless the blueliner in question is very comfortable playing the off side.  No more trying to fit a square peg into a round hole BS.

I don’t think Dahlin and Jokiharju need to be paired with a defensive defenseman.  They have looked great together.

10 hours ago, Cage said:

What about potential #1 overall pick.... Owen Power?

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nhl/news/nhl-mock-draft-2021-sabres-owen-power-kraken-luke-hughes/o92mfuglsbwv1gqm8qos7d8v5

I don’t think he should play in the NHL next season.

[Curt]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

.... we have the following players Dahlin, Johnson, Samuelsson, Laaksonen, Bryson, and technically still Jake McCabe on the left hand side.

Laaksonen is a RD, unless I’m wrong and he plays his off hand side.

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I can't imagine the Sabres adding yet another LHD that high in the draft. 

Why not? The notion of drafting a player for a positional need (especially when they won't be ready for a few years) is folly. You draft the best player available and if you end up with too many at any position then you trade.  

The notion that we are "set" at any position is also silly imo. This team might be on a small roll, but we are far from good, and we could use upgrades at any and all positions. 

I don't think McCabe will be here next year. Just a feeling. 

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Why not? The notion of drafting a player for a positional need (especially when they won't be ready for a few years) is folly. You draft the best player available and if you end up with too many at any position then you trade.  

The notion that we are "set" at any position is also silly imo. This team might be on a small roll, but we are far from good, and we could use upgrades at any and all positions. 

I don't think McCabe will be here next year. Just a feeling. 

Owen Power isn't even the best lhd in this draft, let alone "best player"

[nfreeman]

41 minutes ago, Curt said:

I don’t think Dahlin and Jokiharju need to be paired with a defensive defenseman.  They have looked great together.

Yes.  There was a sequence last night when the Sabres had control in the offensive zone and Dahlin got it, danced across the water with his galleons and guns, and Joki read Dahlin’s risky move, dropped back a bit out of the zone to cover in case Dahlin turned it over, and the whole thing flowed so naturally that the two of them seemed perfectly matched.  

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I can't imagine the Sabres adding yet another LHD that high in the draft. 

"The Sabres have some promising pieces up front, but the future backend leaves fans wanting more." .... we have the following players Dahlin, Johnson, Samuelsson, Laaksonen, Bryson, and technically still Jake McCabe on the left hand side. Right wing we have Quinn and Reinhart and Tage. That's it. 

 

22 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Why not? The notion of drafting a player for a positional need (especially when they won't be ready for a few years) is folly. You draft the best player available and if you end up with too many at any position then you trade.  

The notion that we are "set" at any position is also silly imo. This team might be on a small roll, but we are far from good, and we could use upgrades at any and all positions. 

I don't think McCabe will be here next year. Just a feeling. 

It would be ***** stupid and here is why. First the article that discusses this says one of the dumbest things I have ever read. "the future backend leaves fans wanting more" okay well that's odd considering that in the last 3 drafts the Sabres have had 6 picks in the first or second round. We can all agree that the vast majority of players come from those round. That brings me to the second point, of the 6 picks 3 of them have been left handed defenders including franchise lhd Rasmus Dahlin. Which brings me to my third point, Owen Power is being talked about at 1 overall because he is 6'6" and what is folly beyond all else is thinking that the extra 3 inches of height he has over Dahlin somehow makes him super duper special. Finally this "best player available" mantra that ppl like you have been quoting at me for years is complete *****. You don't have a definition for it and your definition can be different then mine. Maybe for me best player available involves not only talent but tenacity and so Eklund and Beniers rank higher than Power. Maybe I think forwards are the best at the top of the draft because I know that is how you get goal scorers so I put a premium on those position compared to defenders that I can easily get later in the first. 

My long winded point is that I took exception to the article because it makes it sound like Buffalo NEEDS to draft Power when 50% of our high value picks the last 3 years are for his position. Further I take exception to not only that article but many others specifically saying "power is 6'6" and that matters" when in reality it only matters if he somehow used that extra size as an advantage which he does not typically do other than a longer reach. Their starting argument is flawed both from the Sabres' needs perspective and the overvaluation of size better known as the Logan Stanley rule. 

Eklund, Beniers, and Guenther are all better and Luke Hughes is the best LHD in this draft. 

[LGR4GM]

Before I go to sleep I want to give Power a little respect. His P1/e60 looks pretty close to Quinn Hughes who is also his P1/gp closest comparable too. I like Power, but I don't love Power and when I watch him I see him do lots of good things but I also see some of the bad (passive at the blue line, bad puck decisions at times) and I would rather not draft that type of player, for me that falls outside of my personal criteria for BPA. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Owen Power isn't even the best lhd in this draft, let alone "best player"

disagree. we already argued about it in the draft thread. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by PerreaultForever

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

 this "best player available" mantra that ppl like you have been quoting at me for years is complete *****. You don't have a definition for it and your definition can be different then mine. Maybe for me best player available involves not only talent but tenacity and so Eklund and Beniers rank higher than Power. Maybe I think forwards are the best at the top of the draft because I know that is how you get goal scorers so I put a premium on those position compared to defenders that I can easily get later in the first. 

The first part of what you say above is BS. Best player available simply means the one they (the scouts or whoever is on the payroll doing the job) have ranked the highest. Drafting best player available and not by position for immediate need is not my idea or the idea of "ppl like me" but rather the tried and true successful philosophy of many a great GM in history. Deciding who is that player is up to their criteria, be it analytics, scouting or whatever formulas they use to rank them but it's still best available player. It's always the best plan. 

The second part of what you say above is simply a subjective assessment.  It's a team game, and any weakness kills you so you need strength everywhere. A great D makes a goalie better and lets forwards cheat offensively, it can drive the play etc. etc. It's never just about drafting flashy goal scorers, who often falter on weaker teams when they can't play their preferred game/style.

We disagree on who is the best player available in this draft, and that's a valid disagreement, but there's no need for your holier than thou attitude. You've been wrong often about the draft like all of us.   imo you're dead wrong in your assessment this time. 

[Thorner]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Why not? The notion of drafting a player for a positional need (especially when they won't be ready for a few years) is folly. You draft the best player available and if you end up with too many at any position then you trade.  

The notion that we are "set" at any position is also silly imo. This team might be on a small roll, but we are far from good, and we could use upgrades at any and all positions. 

I don't think McCabe will be here next year. Just a feeling. 

Can’t take a dman first overall twice. You just can’t. I’d rather eat Arby’s 

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

The first part of what you say above is BS. Best player available simply means the one they (the scouts or whoever is on the payroll doing the job) have ranked the highest. Drafting best player available and not by position for immediate need is not my idea or the idea of "ppl like me" but rather the tried and true successful philosophy of many a great GM in history. Deciding who is that player is up to their criteria, be it analytics, scouting or whatever formulas they use to rank them but it's still best available player. It's always the best plan. 

The second part of what you say above is simply a subjective assessment.  It's a team game, and any weakness kills you so you need strength everywhere. A great D makes a goalie better and lets forwards cheat offensively, it can drive the play etc. etc. It's never just about drafting flashy goal scorers, who often falter on weaker teams when they can't play their preferred game/style.

We disagree on who is the best player available in this draft, and that's a valid disagreement, but there's no need for your holier than thou attitude. You've been wrong often about the draft like all of us.   imo you're dead wrong in your assessment this time. 

Flashy goal scorers? Do read what I look for in players?

Beniers and Eklund have a tenacity that Power does not. 

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

We disagree on who is the best player available in this draft, and that's a valid disagreement, but there's no need for your holier than thou attitude. You've been wrong often about the draft like all of us.   imo you're dead wrong in your assessment this time. 

I'm wrong about the draft shockingly less than I should be. Especially compared to the Sabres although their 2017 draft minus 1 pick is great. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by LGR4GM

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'm wrong about the draft shockingly less than I should be. Especially compared to the Sabres although their 2018 draft minus 1 pick is great. 

If Cozens is Bergeron meets Carter or whatever, Botterill is going to get a good grade from me for his drafts 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If Cozens is Bergeron meets Carter or whatever, Botterill is going to get a good grade from me for his drafts 

I think Cozens slid to them and we should be grateful 

I think they wanted Turcotte and I think they felt Zegras was undersized. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by LGR4GM

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think Cozens slid to them and we should be grateful 

I think they wanted Turcotte and I think they felt Zegras was undersized. 

Who would you rather have Cozens or Zegras 

[dudacek]

27 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think Cozens slid to them and we should be grateful 

I think they wanted Turcotte and I think they felt Zegras was undersized. 

I felt they were preparing to take Zegras over Caufield, but they were hoping Turcotte would slide. The fact Cozens slid instead caught them a bit of guard, but to their credit they pounced on LA's mistake.

[LGR4GM]

36 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Who would you rather have Cozens or Zegras 

Man I love that draft because this is a tough question. I lean Cozens. 

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Man I love that draft because this is a tough question. I lean Cozens. 

BOW AT THE ALTER OF BOTTERILL!

*altar

Edited April 17, 2021 by Thorny