How many points will the Sabres finish with

[mjd1001]

What will be their final point total over an 82 games this season?

I don't think I saw an actual poll on this, so I'm wondering what everyone is thinking.

I browsed a few gambling sites online, and I saw the Sabres anywhere from 67.5-71.5 as the betting odds.

So, I apoligize if this was posted as a poll already (I didn't see it) but here just one game into the season, I'm curious as to where everyone is on this.

[Cal Naughton Jr]

All of them

[mjd1001]

Even though the over-under betting odds are in the high 60's or near 70, I was already thinking this could/should be an 80-81 point team. Then you remember it is only 'one game' and you just lost 2 of your top 5 or 6 players for a few weeks to injury. Its hard so early.  Until we see more, I WANT to say 81 points but I'm probably thinking more like 75 now, pending how long the injuries are for.

[Indabuff]

13 minutes ago, Cal Naughton Jr said:

All of them

All your base are belong to us.

[Taro T]

Still expect 71 or 72 points.  But would not be surprised to see mid-70's.  Anything over 82 & Granato needs to win the Jack Adams.

[Andrew Amerk]

The hardest working team in hockey, version 2.0

[matter2003]

45 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:

The hardest working team in hockey, version 2.0

But way faster

[Billznut]

Final record somewhere around this:

27-44-11 — 65 points 

I think current and future injuries will help lead to this record. I also feel like we will play a lot of teams tough, force overtime frequently but that we will lose our fair share of shootouts. 

Edited October 17, 2021 by Billznut

[Sabres Fan in NS]

88+

Really.

Just short of the playoff, unless there is a miracle.

[Doohicksie]

80+ with a playoff berth.  😉

[MattPie]

2 hours ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

80+ with a playoff berth.  😉

If you're going to say that, we're talk 90+ at least.

[GASabresIUFAN]

at least 4.

[Doohicksie]

54 minutes ago, MattPie said:

If you're going to say that, we're talk 90+ at least.

[elijah]

Voted according to what I thought before the first 2 games, which was sub 60. Was fully prepared for a historically bad team. 

As of right now? Maybe a Granato led team that lets the youngsters attack on offense could manage to scrape up 75+ points.

But I won’t let the first 2 games of the season grow my optimism that much just yet. 

[mjd1001]

I'm not going to be surprised if this team goes on a 3 game losing streak, I'm not 100% convinced they are even better than last year...but I'm still holding out hopes for that 80-81 point season. I want to cautiously say it is a pretty good possibility at this point.

[mjd1001]

Older thread from back in October.

Interesting the Sabres finished with 75 points...which is by far and away the #1 choice of those who voted in the poll.

[PromoTheRobot]

2 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Older thread from back in October.

Interesting the Sabres finished with 75 points...which is by far and away the #1 choice of those who voted in the poll.

But what could've been?

Not advocating for Anderson to come back per se. Just pointing out the impact losing him had on the Sabres this year.

 

 

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

But what could've been?

Not advocating for Anderson to come back per se. Just pointing out the impact losing him had on the Sabres this year.

 

 

Corresponding to what you are saying, Granato was asked on WGR why his team is playing so much better the last few months. He stated that it corresponded to the team getting healthy. Two players that come to mind are Mitts and Olofsson. Even when they returned it took time for them to get healthy enough to allow them to play to their abilities.  One of the benefits of this season is that it allowed more players to get playing time, resulting in a larger of pool of players to give this team more depth and a greater ability to withstand the loss of players due to injuries. 

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

But what could've been?

Not advocating for Anderson to come back per se. Just pointing out the impact losing him had on the Sabres this year.

 

 

It’s interesting that almost unanimously this board believed Adams had assembled a terrible collection of goalies this year, and we were right.

Yet also almost unanimously we believed that goaltending was going to crush the development of this team and we were wrong.

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It’s interesting that almost unanimously this board believed Adams had assembled a terrible collection of goalies this year, and we were right.

Yet also almost unanimously we believed that goaltending was going to crush the development of this team and we were wrong.

I believe that the GM was aware that his assemblage of goalies for this season was inadequate. My sense is that he had other priorities to address before giving serious attention to that position. I'm aware that some people disagree but I still strongly contend that the GM made a mistake in not signing Ullmark. It's not provable but in my estimation this team could have earned maybe 10 more points in the standing. It wouldn't be enough to get us into the playoffs but it would have put us higher up ladder in the rebuild.  

[Archie Lee]

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I believe that the GM was aware that his assemblage of goalies for this season was inadequate. My sense is that he had other priorities to address before giving serious attention to that position. I'm aware that some people disagree but I still strongly contend that the GM made a mistake in not signing Ullmark. It's not provable but in my estimation this team could have earned maybe 10 more points in the standing. It wouldn't be enough to get us into the playoffs but it would have put us higher up ladder in the rebuild.  

I mostly agree on Ullmark.  I thought last year that the bar was set with the Demko contract.  I would have given Ullmark 5 x 5 or 5 x 5.25 and been happy to lock up 1/2 of a 1A/1B tandem for the next half decade.  I recognize though that Ullmark has had durability issues and has yet to show he can be an effective 50+ game starter and playoff performer.

Also, I do understand that a GM needs to set a value on a player and stick to it.  Adams and his front-office team likely valued Ullmark at closer to 3 x 5 or 4 x 4.5.  With that in mind I appreciate that you can't always give a player a bit more than what you value them at; overpaying players is not a path to get a franchise to a position where they no longer need to do so. 

I personally think Adams undervalued Ullmark and that it was a mistake to let him go.  There will likely come a time where we really have no choice but to make such a commitment to a goalie whose #'s are not better than Ullmark's. That said, I respect that Adams stuck to his position on where he valued the player. 

[matter2003]

59 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

But what could've been?

Not advocating for Anderson to come back per se. Just pointing out the impact losing him had on the Sabres this year.

 

 

 

I am not buying this really. Anderson's metrics were terrible. Among the worst in the NHL.

What really happened was we got Tuch and Krebs, Mittlestadt came back from injury around the same time and we got some other guys back as well. The goal scoring went from an abysmal 2.67 to over 3.2 goals per game since March 1st. 

 

Basically we started scoring a lot more which made the bad goaltending not seem as bad as it really was because we won in spite of it.

Edited April 30, 2022 by matter2003

[GASabresIUFAN]

48 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It’s interesting that almost unanimously this board believed Adams had assembled a terrible collection of goalies this year, and we were right.

Yet also almost unanimously we believed that goaltending was going to crush the development of this team and we were wrong.

I think most thought that the goaltending would cost us victories and it did.  

[JohnC]

24 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I mostly agree on Ullmark.  I thought last year that the bar was set with the Demko contract.  I would have given Ullmark 5 x 5 or 5 x 5.25 and been happy to lock up 1/2 of a 1A/1B tandem for the next half decade.  I recognize though that Ullmark has had durability issues and has yet to show he can be an effective 50+ game starter and playoff performer.

Also, I do understand that a GM needs to set a value on a player and stick to it.  Adams and his front-office team likely valued Ullmark at closer to 3 x 5 or 4 x 4.5.  With that in mind I appreciate that you can't always give a player a bit more than what you value them at; overpaying players is not a path to get a franchise to a position where they no longer need to do so. 

I personally think Adams undervalued Ullmark and that it was a mistake to let him go.  There will likely come a time where we really have no choice but to make such a commitment to a goalie whose #'s are not better than Ullmark's. That said, I respect that Adams stuck to his position on where he valued the player. 

With respect to the highlighted section that is exactly what happened. The GM said that they had a value and contract number, and they weren't going to exceed it. My criticism relates not so much to any particular numbers $$$ but that there should have been more flexibility with the numbers and term. You have to consider the fact that the number that Ullmark was seeking would have had little negative influence on our cap situation and that locking him up gave him more time and room to address that position again if he wanted to. There was so much cap space that the organization had to buy a contract for a player who wasn't be added to the roster in order to meet the cap floor.  If Ullmark would have beens signed to a 5 year deal and then the organization wanted to move on in a few years you still have the option to trade him. My point is that by signing him you are not precluding other goalie options in the future. 

There is a good chance that if the GM is successful in bringing in another goalie this offseason, the contract will not be any cheaper than if he would have been signed  last year at the amount that the player wanted. It's like digging a hole and then having to refill it again. It wasn't necessary.  

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

It’s interesting that almost unanimously this board believed Adams had assembled a terrible collection of goalies this year, and we were right.

Yet also almost unanimously we believed that goaltending was going to crush the development of this team and we were wrong.

Absolutely.  And it is a true testament to the character of this team that the constant parade of losing rarely seemed on the verge of breaking them and never did break them.

Many on this team did take strides & on the whole the team did develop.  But, at the end of the day, how much more could they have gained development-wise if they were playing meaningful games beyond early January?  How much of an extra 1/2 step might they have had playing w/ the adrenaline that comes w/ knowing they have to find a way to win this game pumping through their veins?

Mia culpa.  Thought this team would end up w/ 4 fewer points & 4-5 spots lower in the standings.

But, how much better could both the season & the development have been w/ Ullmark or comparable between the pipes?  We'll never get to know that.