Did the Buffalo Sabres improve between opening night 2021 to opening night 2022?

[Taro T]

On paper the anticipated opening night lineup would appear to be better than last year's actual opening night lineup.

Two points though to consider in that is: 1 had they been healthy, both Olofsson AND Samuelsson would've been in last year' opening lineup.  If every available player on the roster today is considered available, those 2 should be considered to have been on last year' opening night lineup.  Which makes last year's lineup much closer to this year's lineup especially when it would likely have bounced Butcher and Hayden.

2. Until the neck injury, Anderson was absolutely on fire.  IF Comrie is going to be as good as that all year, this team will be in the playoffs.  Doubt he will be and even if he ends up as good as Adams is hoping for, it's doubtful he'll be as good as Anderson was in that small stretch.  Which also could skew that question of which of those teams is better?

A couple of much lesser points: Hagg was a very good defensive D-man in early October last year.  Overall, expect Lyubushkin to be better than what Hagg gave the Sabres but not necessarily right out of the gate.  (And realize he's actually the Pysyk replacement by handedness, but Pysyk was more of a solid 2 way guy that didn't have more of a defensive focus but both Hagg & Lyubushkin are defensive 1st guys.

And, this roster isn't necessarily set.  There may be a move available as camps break & teams have to legitimately be under the cap and that could improve this squad just as a major injury or 2 could significantly weaken this team.

All that said, if the team gets goaltending & stays reasonably healthy, fully expect it is better than last year's.  Though it might not be better than what we got to watch the last month of last season.  They were playing well, fun to watch, & winning in a small sample.  Actually, for the full season, this team is likely not as good as what they showed down the stretch.  But fully expect a couple of stretches where they are better than that.

[K-9]

May I wait until opening night 2022 before answering the question?

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

May I wait until opening night 2022 before answering the question?

Sure. Dogs days of summer so just shooting the breeze.

[Marvin]

I need to remember that the Sabres were 2 points above 7th in the division.  It could be that the team improves, but bounces for other teams go better and we land in 7th with a better record.

[Thorner]

12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

On paper the anticipated opening night lineup would appear to be better than last year's actual opening night lineup.

Two points though to consider in that is: 1 had they been healthy, both Olofsson AND Samuelsson would've been in last year' opening lineup.  If every available player on the roster today is considered available, those 2 should be considered to have been on last year' opening night lineup.  Which makes last year's lineup much closer to this year's lineup especially when it would likely have bounced Butcher and Hayden.

2. Until the neck injury, Anderson was absolutely on fire.  IF Comrie is going to be as good as that all year, this team will be in the playoffs.  Doubt he will be and even if he ends up as good as Adams is hoping for, it's doubtful he'll be as good as Anderson was in that small stretch.  Which also could skew that question of which of those teams is better?

A couple of much lesser points: Hagg was a very good defensive D-man in early October last year.  Overall, expect Lyubushkin to be better than what Hagg gave the Sabres but not necessarily right out of the gate.  (And realize he's actually the Pysyk replacement by handedness, but Pysyk was more of a solid 2 way guy that didn't have more of a defensive focus but both Hagg & Lyubushkin are defensive 1st guys.

And, this roster isn't necessarily set.  There may be a move available as camps break & teams have to legitimately be under the cap and that could improve this squad just as a major injury or 2 could significantly weaken this team.

All that said, if the team gets goaltending & stays reasonably healthy, fully expect it is better than last year's.  Though it might not be better than what we got to watch the last month of last season.  They were playing well, fun to watch, & winning in a small sample.  Actually, for the full season, this team is likely not as good as what they showed down the stretch.  But fully expect a couple of stretches where they are better than that.

Need to include Eichel in with the injured players if the idea is to compare the best team we could have iced to start last season, if healthy, if we are comparing how far we’ve come organizationally since. 

If we are making the comparison literally just to gauge how much better we’ll be potentially than that specific roster we iced game 1, makes sense to leave out the injured guys - but at that point we might as well compare from the end of last season as it fills in way more data points 

[Taro T]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Need to include Eichel in with the injured players if the idea is to compare the best team we could have iced to start last season, if healthy, if we are comparing how far we’ve come organizationally since. 

If we are making the comparison literally just to gauge how much better we’ll be potentially than that specific roster we iced game 1, makes sense to leave out the injured guys - but at that point we might as well compare from the end of last season as it fills in way more data points 

Am OK with discounting Eichel from that roster because at that point he was never playing for the Sabres again (or if he does, it'll be years from now under some very strange circumstances) and Tuch & Krebs were merely twinkles in Adams' eye.  IF opening night is the demarcation, would only include Olofsson & Samuelsson as they would've been there if available.  If Eichel were available, maybe Monahan would've been in the lineup that night.  😉

 

[Thorner]

Just now, Taro T said:

Am OK with discounting Eichel from that roster because at that point he was never playing for the Sabres again (or if he does, it'll be years from now under some very strange circumstances) and Tuch & Krebs were merely twinkles in Adams' eye.  IF opening night is the demarcation, would only include Olofsson & Samuelsson as they would've been there if available.  If Eichel were available, maybe Monahan would've been in the lineup that night.  😉

 

So it’s an unbalanced exercise then when Eichel’s value counts on one side but not the other. It’s not surprising the B side is way better when our top asset only counts on one end 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So it’s an unbalanced exercise then when Eichel’s value counts on one side but not the other. It’s not surprising the B side is way better when our top asset only counts on one end 

You can do it however you'd like & it's @LGR4GM's thread so not sure if it's an unbalanced exercise or not but IMHO it isn't.  It's a snapshot in time and none of the Eichel's worth of assets the Sabres came away with were even identified with the Sabres at the time (including Östlund & this coming 2nd rounder).  But we KNEW Eichel & the Sabres were as much a thing as Reinhart & the Sabres were.  Neither asset the Sabres got for Sam was of any use against the Habs either and also wouldn't have been of any use against them in any circumstance healthy or not.  It happens, assets that have current value get traded for future value & vice versa.

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

You can do it however you'd like & it's @LGR4GM's thread so not sure if it's an unbalanced exercise or not but IMHO it isn't.  It's a snapshot in time and none of the Eichel's worth of assets the Sabres came away with were even identified with the Sabres at the time (including Östlund & this coming 2nd rounder).  But we KNEW Eichel & the Sabres were as much a thing as Reinhart & the Sabres were.  Neither asset the Sabres got for Sam was of any use against the Habs either and also wouldn't have been of any use against them in any circumstance healthy or not.  It happens, assets that have current value get traded for future value & vice versa.

Do as you wish. I just started the thread, I don't think controlling how it involves would be good. Lots of different ways to examine it 

[Thorner]

21 minutes ago, Taro T said:

You can do it however you'd like & it's @LGR4GM's thread so not sure if it's an unbalanced exercise or not but IMHO it isn't.  It's a snapshot in time and none of the Eichel's worth of assets the Sabres came away with were even identified with the Sabres at the time (including Östlund & this coming 2nd rounder).  But we KNEW Eichel & the Sabres were as much a thing as Reinhart & the Sabres were.  Neither asset the Sabres got for Sam was of any use against the Habs either and also wouldn't have been of any use against them in any circumstance healthy or not.  It happens, assets that have current value get traded for future value & vice versa.

I struggle with it because it goes back to something I talked about over a year ago now probably and it’s that Eichel, the asset, is effectively “written off” in the mind. We are measuring improvement from a team that had neither Eichel, or one that accounted for his asset value - counting that as square one and measuring anything deemed “improved” from there net gain.

Example: We go from Caggiula and Hayden to Krebs and Tuch in the OP. Meaning, had we merely retained Hayden and Caggiula we’d be “break even.” In what world does that make sense? Anything slightly better that Caggiula would have been net gain?

We were still actively in a deficit from where we really were. That’s the ground Tuch and Krebs go a long (perhaps all?) the way to replacing. That to me is an interesting discussion, but I digress.

- - - 

Going back to the original idea and just taking the game 1 roster at face value, I think the answer to the thread title is rather obvious: yes, we improved. Perhaps resoundingly. We already saw it and have the data, as it took course over the duration of last season. 

If you are one that believes that what you saw last year with Buffalo is what you get, that mirage it was not, the question answers itself. 

Just add in your opinion of Comrie, Lyubushkin, and the rookies 

Edited August 21, 2022 by Thorny

[Taro T]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I struggle with it because it goes back to something I talked about over a year ago now probably and it’s that Eichel, the asset, is effectively “written off” in the mind. We are measuring improvement from a team that had neither Eichel, or one that accounted for his asset value - counting that as square one and measuring anything deemed “improved” from there net gain.

Example: We go from Caggiula and Hayden to Krebs and Tuch in the OP. Meaning, had we merely retained Hayden and Caggiula we’d be “break even.” In what world does that make sense? Anything slightly better that Caggiula would have been net gain?

We were still actively in a deficit from where we really were. That’s the ground Tuch and Krebs go a long (perhaps all?) the way to replacing. That to me is an interesting discussion, but I digress.

- - - 

Going back to the original idea and just taking the game 1 roster at face value, I think the answer to the thread title is rather obvious: yes, we improved. Perhaps resoundingly. We already saw it and have the data, as it took course over the duration of last season. 

If you are one that believes that what you saw last year with Buffalo is what you get, that mirage it was not, the question answers itself. 

Just add in your opinion of Comrie, Lyubushkin, and the rookies 

To the bolded, yes & no.  The roster on opening night the year before ON PAPER was better than last year's opening night roster yet that season ended with the Sabres starting with & keeping through the lottery the 1st pick overall.  Injuries, poor chemistry, poor leadership, & poor timing/luck caused that to be one of the most miserable seasons the Sabres ever experienced.

And though last year's team wasn't as talented on paper performed way better having so much negative energy removed.  This team should be better than last year's in part because of Tuch & Krebs but it isn't an absolute given.  Last year's team had 2 very good stretches sandwiched around mediocre and bad stretches.  And last year's team should've been nearly as bad as the year before, but it wasn't.  So, yes, this year's team should be better, but will it actually be?  That's why they play & we watch, to find out.

The question asked by @LGR4GM in the OP is actually quite interesting as that team on opening night was the 2nd strongest results wise of the entire year.  Though a lot of that was due to GTing, of all things which was not expected at the time nor did it prove to be sustainable (which in fact was expected).

[Doohicksie]

On 8/20/2022 at 9:42 AM, triumph_communes said:

only Okposo/Girgensons on downward trend

Is Okie on a downward trend? 

2020-21:  35 GP, 2G, 11A, 13P, .37 PPG

2021-22:  74 GP, 21G, 24A, 45P, .61 PPG

We'll see what happens this year.  If his production goes down, It's likely due to less PP time which means that a youngster is tearing it up on the PP.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Doohickie

[triumph_communes]

12 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Is Okie on a downward trend? 

2020-21:  35 GP, 2G, 11A, 13P, .37 PPG

2021-22:  74 GP, 21G, 24A, 45P, .61 PPG

We'll see what happens this year.  If his production goes down, It's likely due to less PP time which means that a youngster is tearing it up on the PP.

He obviously went up after finally healing his head. But there’s no more up for him. 

[DarthEbriate]

51 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Is Okie on a downward trend? 

2020-21:  35 GP, 2G, 11A, 13P, .37 PPG

2021-22:  74 GP, 21G, 24A, 45P, .61 PPG

We'll see what happens this year.  If his production goes down, It's likely due to less PP time which means that a youngster is tearing it up on the PP.

His recovery from his health scare, the removal of Krueger and stapling him to a line with unoffensive-Girgs and Larry (yes... the GLO/LOG line was great at what it did, but Okposo couldn't generate that many point with those two), and reintroduction of PP time gave him new life. I agree, the PP time likely starts to drop as Quinn pops, or Krebs finds a shot to even out his pass-only approach.

39 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

He obviously went up after finally healing his head. But there’s no more up for him. 

It's over. Oky-Lan Kposobi has the high ground.

[Weave]

49 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

He obviously went up after finally healing his head. But there’s no more up for him. 

I think that is going to depend on his center more than anything else.  He could conceivably end up with Mitts as his pivot and be the RW on an offensively minded line.

[SwampD]

On 8/20/2022 at 1:25 PM, dudacek said:

I guess you’re right,

But even when games are played and we show improvement, we seem to find ways to say that doesn’t matter either, so 🤷

That’s because the games that they played didn’t matter.

18 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

He obviously went up after finally healing his head. But there’s no more up for him. 

Maybe. Probably depends on his linemates.

There may not be more up for him, but his down might not come for a while. His game was never built on speed (no, he’s not slow), it’s based on hands and head and size. He’s not going to lose any of those to age so he could hang out here for a while.

 

As to the thread, I think it’s interesting to ask if the Sabres have improved, but I think it’s a red herring to use the opening night rosters to answer the question. Especially because the direction this team has chosen is that they plan on having most of their improvement happen from within.

Are they better? Absolutely. Heck, they were better by the end of the season. Are they better than the end of last season? On defense alone , I would say yes. The rest?,… cautiously optimistic.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

That’s because the games that they played didn’t matter.

Maybe. Probably depends on his linemates.

There may not be more up for him, but his down might not come for a while. His game was never built on speed (no, he’s not slow), it’s based on hands and head and size. He’s not going to lose any of those to age so he could hang out here for a while.

 

As to the thread, I think it’s interesting to ask if the Sabres have improved, but I think it’s a red herring to use the opening night rosters to answer the question. Especially because the direction this team has chosen is that they plan on having most of their improvement happen from within.

Are they better? Absolutely. Heck, they were better by the end of the season. Are they better than the end of last season? On defense alone , I would say yes. The rest?,… cautiously optimistic.

I used the start of the season because for the first 50ish game they were 1 team and then for the last 30ish games they were really a completely different team. 

They finished the last 28 games on something like a 100pt pace versus playing the first 50ish games at something like a 75 point pace. 

If Detroit is so much better because of what they did in UFA but the Sabres aren't, why do the in season moves not count when they clearly showed improvement and that they mattered. Not saying you said they didn't count just in the media in general. 

[ddaryl]

On 8/20/2022 at 3:46 PM, PerreaultForever said:

The defense is slightly better, but imo this team is basically the same as it was end of last year and any improvement rests on young players like Cozens and Mitts being better and coming into their own. If they don't, we won't be any good at all. 

Good enough for me to say we will be better this season and it will show up in the Win Column. I fully expect more growth from the team as a whole, while younger players continue to push the roster.

 

[Pimlach]

It’s pretty clear we will ice a better team than the one that started last season.  
 

We look slightly better than the one that finished last year because Comrie and Luby are upgrades.  Factor in Power and Muel improvement from the end of last year and maybe we get something from Quinn/JJP.  
 

Lots of other questions. Will Dahlin and Tage continue to improve?   Will Cozens, Mitts and Krebs improve?  Will Skinner and Kyle have good years?  Does Anderson have anything left?   

[pi2000]

They're better because their young core are a year older.

Goaltending is still an issue, however. 

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, ddaryl said:

Good enough for me to say we will be better this season and it will show up in the Win Column. I fully expect more growth from the team as a whole, while younger players continue to push the roster.

 

Where we differ, is that I also think we will be better, and we will be in games longer and games will be more competitive and closer, I think we will be on the wrong side of many of those close ones as the goaltending will let us down late in games or in key moments and that 1 or 2 goals will make the difference in a win or loss. 

We won't see as many back up goalies and teams taking us lightly late in the year either. It'll make a difference. 

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Where we differ, is that I also think we will be better, and we will be in games longer and games will be more competitive and closer, I think we will be on the wrong side of many of those close ones as the goaltending will let us down late in games or in key moments and that 1 or 2 goals will make the difference in a win or loss. 

We won't see as many back up goalies and teams taking us lightly late in the year either. It'll make a difference. 

I do think we’ll see a fast start, though. 

IMO the fast start teams are the ones who come out on fire w/something to prove game 1, not always the teams who find the early ones boring, the playoff teams. Sabres were on a mental mission last season to start, for example. 

You know they cared more about the games when “all eyes were on them” (Krebs has a tattoo of himself, come on now) because the results demonstrate that: the Eichel revenge or whatever game, RJ night, etc.

(On a tangent that fact sort of annoys me in the immediate term even while I accept its a good thing prob in the long run. Annoying in that our “event games” are relatively small potatoes when compared to games that actually matter. But it should bode well in playoffs if we ever get there as I think liger pointed out in some other thread or maybe even this one)

Are the Sabres a “something to prove” team again? Fast start prob depends on that.

I say yes.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

There will be a year where they start out with something to prove, and they’ll actually prove it: the fast start ends up getting them in the playoffs. 

The following season teams are savvy on them from the get go, and the team is a bit less in “prove it” mode, and maybe we miss. That’s my prediction, anyways. 

How they respond to that first real adversity is the real test, and I’m cautiously optimistic they have the roster to do it. 

[Thorner]

When was that recent year we won a bunch in a row early on and were sitting in first place about a quarter in? Remember the math to miss the playoffs at that point was just like absurdly bad yet we still did it and missed. 

I could see a start like that again where we perhaps slide towards the end but actually hold on because the team is actually decent. It could go the other way where we catch fire to end a year and go from there, kinda like the Briere core but I still see that as a bit of a unicorn, even with ppl drawing comparisons with that team to this one. Pretty sure the 03 team finished even stronger than 22, and as much as I like Quinn and Peterka and see a comparison there, Vanek Roy et all we’re coming in out of a lockout-bolstered, much-closer-to-the-nhl-than-normal AHL, and most importantly, excelled in a L3 role because of the dominant top 6 above it. Don’t see that here quite yet. For that reason I’ll keep my money on the other mentioned trajectory. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Thorny

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

There will be a year where they start out with something to prove, and they’ll actually prove it: the fast start ends up getting them in the playoffs. 

The following season teams are savvy on them from the get go, and the team is a bit less in “prove it” mode, and maybe we miss. That’s my prediction, anyways. 

How they respond to that first real adversity is the real test, and I’m cautiously optimistic they have the roster to do it. 

You’ve had a few posts in this direction and I agree it’s something to pay attention to.

I probably spend too much time looking at history, but young teams fitting the profile of the Sabres seem to frequently “come out of nowhere” and just as frequently hit a pothole the following season.

Edited August 22, 2022 by dudacek