GDT: Coyotes @ Sabres 8 November 2022, 7 PM MSG-B, BSAZ

[Sabres Fan in NS]

This was not a great effort, but it happens to the best of them so it's going to happen to the Sabres, which are not yet amoungst the best of them.

I believe coach had t hem ready, but the leadership on the ice failed them on the ice last night.  Big time.

I think Tuch will take the team on his shoulders against Vegas and will inspire the team to a big win.

[Zamboni]

Lose the porn stache = winning

 

“write it down”

 

😂

[SwampD]

6 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

The possession and shot numbers (5:5 especially) very clearly show the Sabres were able to "control" the action the majority of the time. Unfortunately, that did not translate to goals for/against. for a one game sample, that can be explained away by all kinds of NHL randomness. Shooters and goalies have ebbs and flows, and pucks do crazy things. 

It is difficult to dispute the posters who saw the Sabres able to possess the puck, work the cycle, and pass around the perimeter, but unable to create high danger chances. Some of that is bad luck on rebounds and blocks, but a lot of that is a consistent lack of net-front presence. 

Unfortunately, it is not only a one game sample at this point. Possession is not control (teehee). Especially if the other team is letting it happen because it is not dangerous to them.

[bunomatic]

How many shots did they have in the 3rd period ? How many of those were quality shots not on the perimeter ? That game was hard to watch. 

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

We're gonna be inconsistent. This is what learning to win looks like.

I'm thinking switching up the lines didn't help.  I think Donny picked this game to do it because he figured even if they were off a bit they could still win.  He figured wrong.  The question becomes, then, did switching up the lines help at all and will it help in the future?  I'm not optimistic for the rest of this week but we'll see.

It will also be interesting to see how much of this is on the absence of both Joki and Muel.  When they were in and playing it seemed pretty obvious that the strong offense we were seeing was a direct result of a defense that could rapidly turn the play up ice.  There was also excellent gap control.  We're not seeing that currently.

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, Believer said:

What’s up with Hinostroza??… Healthy scratch again… 

From what I’ve seen watching nearly every game on TV… Hinostroza plays a high energy game, was off to a decent start (0-5-5 +1), and added a spark when the team fell behind… 

Why is he sitting??… Not physical enough??… Discipline??… Getting prepped for a trade??… Just makes no sense to me

I would have expected him to play in the second half of the back-to-back to get some fresh legs on the ice. 

[FrenchConnection44]

The most disappointing game of the year for me. Arizona basically went into a defensive shell and then waited to counter attack. We had no one to make things happen. 

 

We need a 2-3 of these young players to emerge as stars. Someone at the level of a Kucherov (there are 3-4 potentially there) or approaching a Stamkos. Neither are big but they are smart, strong for their size, and can dominate with the puck. And shoot. 
 

But we also need these young guys to get stronger. To be able to dominate more. They can skate. They have potential with good height, several have grit (especially love Cousins grit), but they are not rising to physically dominate opponents (not just hits but being able to move opponents, carry the puck without getting pushed off, making plays with an opponent pressing, and so on). When they get that they can weather tough games better. 
 

Concerned about Vegas; but also, more generally, about the team culture getting negative (that’s been a problem  for years and it’s tough for teams to eliminate that). 

I would also be good with trading Middlestadt. He’s not a center. If we can get a couple of good games out of him then someone might bite. 

 

 

[FrenchConnection44]

7 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I'm thinking switching up the lines didn't help.  I think Donny picked this game to do it because he figured even if they were off a bit they could still win.  He figured wrong.  The question becomes, then, did switching up the lines help at all and will it help in the future?  I'm not optimistic for the rest of this week but we'll see.

It will also be interesting to see how much of this is on the absence of both Joki and Muel.  When they were in and playing it seemed pretty obvious that the strong offense we were seeing was a direct result of a defense that could rapidly turn the play up ice.  There was also excellent gap control.  We're not seeing that currently.

definitely thinking missing our defensemen hits us. On both ends of the ice. When I see certain defensemen out there I get a bit discouraged that the shift will not produce anything. Having those two back in the lineup will elevate that and lead to fewer bad shifts. 

Power clearly has amazing talent but at 19 is going to be up and down. And not as strong as he needs to be. Hard work and his talent will shine through. 

[Berg]

On 11/8/2022 at 2:24 PM, Buffalonill said:

This should be a easy blow out 

Very easy.. 

[French Collection]

Like everyone else I am very disappointed in last night’s result.

Fluky goals and the Sabres lack of shots and driving the net cost them.

One player I thought was horrible is KO. He did not make a play on any shift. He also seemed to lack passion and drive.

I know he wears the C but I think he should sit out for Hinestroza next game.

[NAF]

That was a tough game to watch. I will say I thought the effort was there, and that the Sabres probably deserved to win from an advanced stats perspective (don't know the actual numbers, just guessing). Regardless, past a certain point they looked pretty dull. I don't think they battled hard enough in the slot to screen/tip and make long point shots a viable means to score. They had better come out a bit hungrier against Vegas.

 

I'll also add that Power is looking really good these days. Very sound positional play. He also looks like he knows when to jump up into the offense. I wish he was a bit more physical, but perhaps he'll add that later down the road. The Mittelstadt experiment has been pretty crappy so far. He'll make one nice play and then three terrible ones. If he doesn't improve by the end of this year I'm comfortable moving on from him. Krebs has also been kinda meh, but the jury is still very much out on him.

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, nucci said:

why do you want a bottom 6 forward? Why not a top 6? regardless of all the points you make, they still lost 4-1.

I'm not sure why you think I want a bottom 6 forward.  I never said that. I said that guys like Cozens and Krebs are making so many mistakes that they are causing more goals against NOW than a 'bottom 6' forward would be.  I also thought I made it really, REALLY clear that I understand and agree with them playing the young guys, but that it is costing them right now.

Again, not sure where you think I was advocating for them not playing the young guys. That was not the point of my entire post at all. Guess you hear or read what you want though. 

[That Aud Smell]

A disappointing, at times maddening, loss.

As per usual, I can come to this community's GDT, peruse the final few pages, and get the perspective and analysis I need. Having watched and read, my main takeaways are that the team was able (permitted at times?) to carry possession and translated that possession into a healthy share of the total shot attempts, but, and I think HC DG said it in his post game, they did not make things hard enough on the Coyotes' goalie. It would have taken perfect shots to beat him (and, even at that, the Sabres came awfully close a few times) when there was no traffic. Too easy.

My "water finds its level" expectation for this team was to be @deluca67 .500 at season's end (e.g., 41-36-5). I think they're still trending that way. My hope is that they manage to exceed (my) expectations. Dahlin's play and, at times, Comrie's play had given me some hope in that regard. 

Beat Las Vegas!

[nucci]

35 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I'm not sure why you think I want a bottom 6 forward.  I never said that. I said that guys like Cozens and Krebs are making so many mistakes that they are causing more goals against NOW than a 'bottom 6' forward would be.  I also thought I made it really, REALLY clear that I understand and agree with them playing the young guys, but that it is costing them right now.

Again, not sure where you think I was advocating for them not playing the young guys. That was not the point of my entire post at all. Guess you hear or read what you want though. 

from your post.....

 

Put Vinny in there every game, sign another 'bottom 6' veteran forward,

[mjd1001]

Just now, nucci said:

from your post.....

 

Put Vinny in there every game, sign another 'bottom 6' veteran forward,

Context. Read the entire post.  I stand by what I said that if you had Vinny and another veteran in there they would be a better team right now.  But some other things I posted:

-with regard to the young guys not doing well "but I guess sometimes these things take time."

-with regard to young guys making mistakes (in this case Power) "He is young, he is going to make these kind of mistakes, but we have to be willing to have him do this where it is going to cost the Sabres goals."

-with regard to criticizing Cousins and how he as to get better:  "If I were to 'nit pick' (and I'll admit I'm really looking for something here"

-also "I'll pause here again to say I like Cozens."

-I also said I realize "But they made a comittment to playing the young guys."

And finally, if you read the one line you took out of my post, it may sound like I am advocating for that exact line'  But context clearly states the "If" before the word "put" is implied. 

 

[LabattBlue]

Didn't see any of the game, and from the looks of it, glad I missed it.  

I realize that our prospect pool looks great, but remember that Edmonton also had a brilliant prospect pool of high #1 picks over the last decade, and until McDavid came along they were nothing...and even with him, they are still inconsistent, and maybe not even the best team in their division.

So for all those who want to just keep pointing at a bunch of prospects...talent alone does not make them a playoff team.

[msw2112]

Three observations from the game:

1.  I thought the Sabres played hard and controlled the play for most of the game

2. Sloppy turnovers led to the Coyotes goals

3. The Sabres need to put pucks on the net and drive the net.  I was at the Chicago game, which was very similar.  They outskated the Blackhawks, out finessed them (passing, skating, etc.), but in the first 2 periods, the Blackhawks got into the dirty areas, created chances in front, and took the lead.  In the 3rd, the Sabres finally started putting the puck on the net, got some rebounds, and ultimately scored a couple of goals and won the game.  In this one, the first 2 periods were similar, except this time, the Sabres did NOT get pucks on the net/drive the net in the 3rd.  Yes, the AZ goalie was hot and played well, but the Sabres also made it too easy for him.

[Crusader1969]

12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yup, I'd say we are firmly back in the suck hard for Bedard sweepstakes. 

I said a while back I thought the culture was fragile and an effort (or rather lack of) looks like last year and the year before and is right back to coasting complacent acceptance of losing. We went down 3-1 I didn't see any digging down, any extra effort, anybody giving it their all. Just same same all around the perimeter, little in front, little extra effort. Just a big bag of nothing. 

Rob Ray calls it a "good effort" when the most entertaining moment of the night was when his papers got soaked in ice spray. 

On nights like this I hate that I became a Sabres fan. I'm watching the Kraken right now. Far more entertaining so far.

At least he is really really good 

[Thorner]

14 hours ago, CallawaySabres said:

Trap game? We have been the trap for every other team in the league for 11 years 

My comment isn't supposed to reflect positively on their effort. It was a condemnation of their effort.

Just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. We didn't get our best effort tonight because they are looking forward towards Thursday. And that's a generous reading - the alternative is that we didn't get a good game from them just because. Which would be an even larger issue 

11 hours ago, Taro T said:

Very good call.

Without that fluke to start the game there's a very good chance this doesn't become that trap you predicted.  But that goal happened & it did.

So frustrating.  They needed to be better.  Hoping you're right about Thursday as well.  Because of the history of the past 4 seasons, Thursday really feels like a must win.

Yup.

They'll win Thursday. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

11 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

This "trap game" thing is nonsense. It presumes the team in question, the Sabres, is a winning team and a substantially better team than their weak opposition who they take too lightly because they are too focused on the "real" opposition coming the game after. 

While they may indeed be thinking about the Eichel game, none of the other aspects of that hold as true. You simply don't run into a "trap" game when you've come off 2 straight losses, it's not possible. 

Your reading of my take is nonsense. 

I didn't presume any of the erroneous content you just laid out. 

You hit on it with the bolded - that's what I was saying. That's what I meant by trap game. 

My thought is that they were looking beyond what they consider to be an inferior opponent - human nature. It might not be accurate, but the result of the game only lends credence to what I said. Makes it more likely. 

That the Sabres "got up for", performed better in "event" games last year is a documented fact. That means they've left something in the tank during the rest, presumably. 

- - -

Called what would happen but being right isn't enough on this site, I need to explain why I was right the next day, as well. lol Have at it 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

A disappointing, at times maddening, loss.

As per usual, I can come to this community's GDT, peruse the final few pages, and get the perspective and analysis I need. Having watched and read, my main takeaways are that the team was able (permitted at times?) to carry possession and translated that possession into a healthy share of the total shot attempts, but, and I think HC DG said it in his post game, they did not make things hard enough on the Coyotes' goalie. It would have taken perfect shots to beat him (and, even at that, the Sabres came awfully close a few times) when there was no traffic. Too easy.

My "water finds its level" expectation for this team was to be @deluca67 .500 at season's end (e.g., 41-36-5). I think they're still trending that way. My hope is that they manage to exceed (my) expectations. Dahlin's play and, at times, Comrie's play had given me some hope in that regard. 

Beat Las Vegas!

The chances of a Deluca .500 team missing the playoffs is relatively fairly rare, only happens about once a year I think. Ie if you have 41 regular wins, you very likely aren't losing 36 in regulation. This isn't to say Deluca .500 without playoffs won't happen, but to me expecting deluca .500 is pretty close to excepting playoffs. It's not likely we'll see deluca .500 + a miss. It could happen, should be ~ 1 team that does it:

Vegas was over deluca 500 last year 43-31-8, and missed. Every other Deluca 500 team made it, all others that missed were below the mark

Previous full season, also one team at deluca 500 to miss - Montreal

3 at Deluca 500 actually missed the previous year

But the year before I didn't see any @ deluca 500 that missed. 

Could be us this year, just seems a small statistical landing ground. Anyways, just statistical food for thought, no real point to make here

Edited November 9, 2022 by Thorny

[MattPie]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The chances of a Deluca .500 team missing the playoffs is relatively fairly rare, only happens about once a year I think. Ie if you have 41 regular wins, you very likely aren't losing 36 in regulation. This isn't to say Deluca .500 without playoffs won't happen, but to me expecting deluca .500 is pretty close to excepting playoffs. It's not likely we'll see deluca .500 + a miss. It could happen, should be ~ 1 team that does it:

Vegas was over deluca 500 last year 43-31-8, and missed. Every other Deluca 500 team made it, all others that missed were below the mark

Previous full season, also one team at deluca 500 to miss - Montreal

3 at Deluca 500 actually missed the previous year

But the year before I didn't see any @ deluca 500 that missed. 

Could be us this year, just seems a small statistical landing ground. Anyways, just statistical food for thought, no real point to make here

To be honest, 1 team per year is 6.25%, so it's probably enough that it's a questionable measuring stick. I don't think 0.600 points has ever missed, but it's not as easy to look at a record and figure out.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, MattPie said:

To be honest, 1 team per year is 6.25%, so it's probably enough that it's a questionable measuring stick. I don't think 0.600 points has ever missed, but it's not as easy to look at a record and figure out.

It's an interesting / kinda weird line. I almost feel like it's too STRONG of a measuring stick, ie - I'd be confident in saying a deluca .500 team is really good - looking at the numbers, it's not just that they ALMOST exclusively make the playoffs - teams at Deluca .500 are so often well above it. Then there's the one team right at the mark that misses the playoffs. 

It can happen that you are merely a pretty good team that hits Deluca .500, but looking for us to hit in in that way..almost feel like there's a more realistic indicator of a "reasonable but might not make the playoffs quite yet" type team that I THINK Aud was getting it. 

[Pimlach]

Interesting observations here as usual.

I don't think they played nearly hard enough and the Yotes came in fired up and looking for 2 points to end a decent trip for them.  The fluky goals - sure some of it is bad luck but some of it is the result of their own lethargic play.   I saw no spark, no urgency. No one wants to go into the slot in the dirty areas.  

I don't like the line combo's and I especially don't like all the constant line changing.  Put the top 6 together and give them time to gel.  On defense I have seen enough of Pilut and Clagge,  but injuries are part of the game so we press on with them.  

The next two home games are huge for this team.   They need to win them to stay on a playoff contender pace.   It is not too early to say that these are "must win" games, especially if they want to bring fans back.

Thanksgiving is a few weeks away - I am hoping they are finally good enough to avoid the Holiday swoon that we see every season.      

 

 

[That Aud Smell]

59 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ie if you have 41 regular wins, you very likely aren't losing 36 in regulation.

great post. this tidbit was especially helpful.

32 minutes ago, Thorny said:

almost feel like there's a more realistic indicator of a "reasonable but might not make the playoffs quite yet" type team that I THINK Aud was getting it. 

if you're able to figure out what point i was making, i thank you in advance.

31 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Thanksgiving is a few weeks away - I am hoping they are finally good enough to avoid the Holiday swoon that we see every season.      

man - this is big. i would LOVE the team to be getting 3 out of 5 points around that period of time. wouldn't that be flippin' festive as a muhfugger?