GDT- GAME 6: Bears @ Americans 7:05pm, TV-MSG (NYS only) & AHL TV, Radio 95.7 FM/950 AM (ROC)

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

The Capitals future.

So brighter than ours? 

Look, I know defensive shut down hockey can be less exciting than fast open offensive hockey (both terms used loosely for the sake of discussion but you know what I mean) but it wins. Reading about Savoie being invisible is part of that. He's never faced D at a higher level and it'll be even harder in the NHL with D oriented teams. Part of the learning curve is learning how to fight through that and adapt your game to face it. It's also about learning to play it, although I'm not sure the Sabres think you need to at this point. 

Anyway, it's how Vegas got to the final. It's how Dallas got as far as they did and it's partly how Florida got there as well. More often than not, defense still wins championships. Jersey raised the cup in the 90s after all. We never have. 

Remember this year how a total garbage team like Philly shut our high powered offense down and then realize we have a dimension of our game missing. 

[LGR4GM]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

So brighter than ours? 

Look, I know defensive shut down hockey can be less exciting than fast open offensive hockey (both terms used loosely for the sake of discussion but you know what I mean) but it wins. Reading about Savoie being invisible is part of that. He's never faced D at a higher level and it'll be even harder in the NHL with D oriented teams. Part of the learning curve is learning how to fight through that and adapt your game to face it. It's also about learning to play it, although I'm not sure the Sabres think you need to at this point. 

Anyway, it's how Vegas got to the final. It's how Dallas got as far as they did and it's partly how Florida got there as well. More often than not, defense still wins championships. Jersey raised the cup in the 90s after all. We never have. 

Remember this year how a total garbage team like Philly shut our high powered offense down and then realize we have a dimension of our game missing. 

We beat the Flyers 5-3 last time we played them. We also finished higher than them overall. The missing component is goaltending and maturing/experience. 

You have to have both defense and offense to win. It's why teams like the Rangers and Kings lost and also why teams like Edmonton and Toronto lost.

In the last 2 months of the season we saw Buffalo take great strides towards being a better team defensively. 

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

So brighter than ours? 

Look, I know defensive shut down hockey can be less exciting than fast open offensive hockey (both terms used loosely for the sake of discussion but you know what I mean) but it wins. Reading about Savoie being invisible is part of that. He's never faced D at a higher level and it'll be even harder in the NHL with D oriented teams. Part of the learning curve is learning how to fight through that and adapt your game to face it. It's also about learning to play it, although I'm not sure the Sabres think you need to at this point. 

Anyway, it's how Vegas got to the final. It's how Dallas got as far as they did and it's partly how Florida got there as well. More often than not, defense still wins championships. Jersey raised the cup in the 90s after all. We never have. 

Remember this year how a total garbage team like Philly shut our high powered offense down and then realize we have a dimension of our game missing. 

What you are doing is extrapolating from one game in a long season and then making an unpersuasive conclusion. Sabres earned 91 points while Philly earned 75 pts this season. Our current roster is loaded with young players with more than half of them still have more upside to tap into. And on top of that our pipeline has a number of legitimate NHL players who should be ready in a year or so. From a development stage Philly is years behind us. 

You make the point that there is a dimension of our game that is lacking. That's like saying water is wet. Who isn't aware of that? We are all well aware that the blueline needs to be bolstered and the goalie position needs to be upgraded. Is Levi ready to assume a heavy load in his rookie year? I'm not sure. Will another goalie be added to the mix? Again, I'm not sure.  But regardless, whether players are brought in or not to address our weaknesses, this team should be better simply through internal improvement. 

As @LGR4GMnoted, even with a recognized deficiency on the defensive end, this team still played well defensively for two months. And even if the GM decided to keep the status quo defensive lineup (which is unlikely), the team should be better through internal growth i.e., young players getting better. The Sabres improved by 16 points from the prior year. That's a substantial number. And this team was vying for a playoff spot right up to the second last game of the season. That's a dramatic change from the prior seasons. This season certainly can't be considered a complete success. But in general, I consider it to be a success. The trajectory is now up. Pointing out the flaws is easy to do. However, when you don't put them in the proper context, you are not giving a fair representation of the situation. That's what you are doing. 

[DarthEbriate]

13 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

Good run Amerks. A ton of growth for a lot of young players. Hat tip to the coaching staff for bringing these guys along. Impressed withMetsa again tonight.

Hershey won the series and deserved it but that 90s Devils style of play is a disgrace to the game. Just unwatchable garbage.

The garbage will do. Especially in the playoffs.

I'm hopeful that the Sabres don't rush anyone (or rather, they have sufficient talent at the NHL level that the kids can't break in until they're complete players). Seeing this year's playoff Amerks vs. next season playoff Amerks and how much better will Kulich, Rosen, and Kozak look with an extra year of growth/seasoning. And add Nadeau (and also Kisakov knowing he'll be on his 2nd contract before he's ready, strengthwise.)

11 hours ago, Claude Balls said:

The pipeline for the Sabres defense is not good. Pilut was good all playoffs, but other than him.....oof. 

On to next year. 

Pilut was the only Amerk D you'd call up and he's a 7/8. Everyone else is AHL talent. I'm not sure what the Bears were rolling in terms of NHL potential, but it will definitely be nice to see Novikov and Johnson (both potentially somewhere in the 4-6th D range at the NHL, depending on partner) added to the mix. And Komarov in another season. If Pilut re-signs, cool, but if not then you can probably figure Bryson starts next season in Rochester and he's a darn good AHL-level guy.

[Flashsabre]

9 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

The garbage will do. Especially in the playoffs.

I'm hopeful that the Sabres don't rush anyone (or rather, they have sufficient talent at the NHL level that the kids can't break in until they're complete players). Seeing this year's playoff Amerks vs. next season playoff Amerks and how much better will Kulich, Rosen, and Kozak look with an extra year of growth/seasoning. And add Nadeau (and also Kisakov knowing he'll be on his 2nd contract before he's ready, strengthwise.)

Pilut was the only Amerk D you'd call up and he's a 7/8. Everyone else is AHL talent. I'm not sure what the Bears were rolling in terms of NHL potential, but it will definitely be nice to see Novikov and Johnson (both potentially somewhere in the 4-6th D range at the NHL, depending on partner) added to the mix. And Komarov in another season. If Pilut re-signs, cool, but if not then you can probably figure Bryson starts next season in Rochester and he's a darn good AHL-level guy.

The Bears have Carlsson on the blue line that could be an NHLer and McMichael up front that will be an NHLer. The rest of their team was basically journeymen AHL vets.

Amerks have Rousek, Kulich, Rosen, Cederqvist, Kozak that should play and guys like Weissbach and Metsa who I think will earn chances.

The Marlies won a Cup a couple years ago with a ridiculous payroll of AHL bets but it did nothing to help the Leafs as none of those guys were developing talent.

This Amerks team will help the Sabres a lot in a couple years. And as you said, add Kisakov, Neuchev, Novikov, Johnson, Nadeau into the mix next season and you have a great pipeline to future Sabres success.

[Marvin]

Who among our AHL vets and AHL-NHL hybrids will other franchises target for the NHL?  I have already seen Lawrence Pilut turn up on an LA Kings blog.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Marvin said:

Who among our AHL vets and AHL-NHL hybrids will other franchises target for the NHL?  I have already seen Lawrence Pilut turn up on an LA Kings blog.

Presuming you mean as a FA or a trade for the player's rights where that guy is the primary target of the other team.  And that you don't mean somebody wanting to grab one of these guys a couple of weeks into July to fill out their AHL rosters.

Pilut could find himself as an NHLer on a team with a very shallow pool of NHL D-men.  (Even shallower than Buffalo's to start the year.)  Like him and he's great at the AHL level, but he simply isn't any higher than an 8 at best on a team with reasonable NHL D depth.

Would be surprised if any others except possibly Murray got any interest from other teams for actually playing in the NHL.  Could Cecconi or Davies have an outside shot at NHL interest?  Can't see that one personally, but maybe possibly sort of.  Don't see Weissbach as an NHLer or any of the others as NHLers unless a team has a rash of injuries.

The Sabres have a few guys in the AHL that could or will become NHLers.  But really don't see any of their AHL vets nor AHL-NHL hybrids (except Pilut) having any legit shot at the NHL next year.  Karmanos and the rest did a nice job of assembling the Amerks and they could bring most all this squad back as there doesn't seem to be a Dixon Ward (vet that should've been in the NHL but wasn't due to circumstances and promptly got back to the NHL) on this roster.

[PerreaultForever]

14 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

We beat the Flyers 5-3 last time we played them. We also finished higher than them overall. The missing component is goaltending and maturing/experience. 

You have to have both defense and offense to win. It's why teams like the Rangers and Kings lost and also why teams like Edmonton and Toronto lost.

In the last 2 months of the season we saw Buffalo take great strides towards being a better team defensively. 

No, to the bold. 

If you look over the whole season, the teams that play better D are the teams that gave us the most trouble. Regardless of how good they were. Otherwise I agree, but would also add bad D makes goalies look bad and then people say "our goaltending sucks" and good team D makes average goalies look good. For example Hill, playing for Vegas right now. He's no better than Comrie as a goalie, but you wouldn't know it behind that team's defensive system. Put Hill on Buffalo and he'd look like a sieve. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

No, to the bold. 

If you look over the whole season, the teams that play better D are the teams that gave us the most trouble. Regardless of how good they were. Otherwise I agree, but would also add bad D makes goalies look bad and then people say "our goaltending sucks" and good team D makes average goalies look good. For example Hill, playing for Vegas right now. He's no better than Comrie as a goalie, but you wouldn't know it behind that team's defensive system. Put Hill on Buffalo and he'd look like a sieve. 

He's kind of right.  From the 2nd period of the Miller game, the Sabres had moments (sometimes a period or 2, occassionally a game or 3) of actually playing what the rest of the league (minus the Loafs & Eulers) consider playing actual team defense.  The D would box out forwards trying to get to the crease and the F's would actually take time and space from the F3 and the D.  But they'd then revert back to their earlier season defensive zone coverage for a few games at a time.

Could never figure out the rhyme nor the reason for the regression to October hockey for them.  Because believe they actually were preaching (teaching?) playing that tighter defensive zone play.

[PerreaultForever]

52 minutes ago, Taro T said:

He's kind of right.  From the 2nd period of the Miller game, the Sabres had moments (sometimes a period or 2, occassionally a game or 3) of actually playing what the rest of the league (minus the Loafs & Eulers) consider playing actual team defense.  The D would box out forwards trying to get to the crease and the F's would actually take time and space from the F3 and the D.  But they'd then revert back to their earlier season defensive zone coverage for a few games at a time.

Could never figure out the rhyme nor the reason for the regression to October hockey for them.  Because believe they actually were preaching (teaching?) playing that tighter defensive zone play.

That's kind of my point though. What we are looking at here is how Hershey plays a dull defensive system that basically shut down all our shiny offensive prospects. This is the problem imo. We aren't taking our shiny offensive kids and instilling defense into them as a part of their development plan. We've stressed offense first on both teams and that's what they revert to as it's what they know and what they prefer. It's hardly surprising to me that you saw that regression, as it's their natural preferred style of play. 

I have always felt, and still feel, that we are doing it backwards. With our approach, if we are lucky and keep hitting on picks, we will become Toronto, but we won't win in the playoffs like Florida or Vegas. It will be a new frustration. Better than missing the playoffs, but still frustrating. 

[dudacek]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No, to the bold. 

If you look over the whole season, the teams that play better D are the teams that gave us the most trouble. Regardless of how good they were. Otherwise I agree, but would also add bad D makes goalies look bad and then people say "our goaltending sucks" and good team D makes average goalies look good. For example Hill, playing for Vegas right now. He's no better than Comrie as a goalie, but you wouldn't know it behind that team's defensive system. Put Hill on Buffalo and he'd look like a sieve. 

Vegas had the league’s 11th best defence, Florida its 21st.

Florida was 6th in the league in goals for. They knocked off the league’s 1st, 7th and 2nd best defences to get to the final.

The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th best defences lost in the 1st round

The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th best offences won in the 1st round

Not seeing any evidence that defence is more important than offence in this year’s playoffs.

[LGR4GM]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's kind of my point though. What we are looking at here is how Hershey plays a dull defensive system that basically shut down all our shiny offensive prospects. This is the problem imo. We aren't taking our shiny offensive kids and instilling defense into them as a part of their development plan. We've stressed offense first on both teams and that's what they revert to as it's what they know and what they prefer. It's hardly surprising to me that you saw that regression, as it's their natural preferred style of play. 

I have always felt, and still feel, that we are doing it backwards. With our approach, if we are lucky and keep hitting on picks, we will become Toronto, but we won't win in the playoffs like Florida or Vegas. It will be a new frustration. Better than missing the playoffs, but still frustrating. 

You're taking losing an AHL playoff series where our shiny offensive prospects were all 18-20 yr olds, most in their very first NA season, and extrapolated that to mean the Sabres won't win in the playoffs because Buffalo doesn't play your preferred system. On top of that you're ignoring the fact the AHL team won 2 playoff series before this too.

https://giphy.com/gifs/mmYy42RNrgA0w

 

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No, to the bold. 

If you look over the whole season, the teams that play better D are the teams that gave us the most trouble. Regardless of how good they were. Otherwise I agree, but would also add bad D makes goalies look bad and then people say "our goaltending sucks" and good team D makes average goalies look good. For example Hill, playing for Vegas right now. He's no better than Comrie as a goalie, but you wouldn't know it behind that team's defensive system. Put Hill on Buffalo and he'd look like a sieve. 

Your entire hypothesis is "teams that play better defense are harder to beat". Yea, we all know. 

[French Collection]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

 

I have always felt, and still feel, that we are doing it backwards

I feel the opposite way.

Defense can be taught. The defensive zone coverage will be… Pressure the puck here. Stick on puck, mind the gap. Defense is also a commitment by players to do the right thing at the right time and to be in position. Defense will also improve with physical and mental maturity.

Offense has an artistic quality to it, you often need to be creative. Even chaotic play can be effective. Have fun, see what works, try something new.

The playoffs are a bit different as there is less time and space. You have to adapt your offense and deal with more obstruction.

They are different games but lacrosse being all offense when you have possession and a complete 180 degree turn to defense and getting possession back when you don’t is the mindset required. Unlike lacrosse, you don’t change your personnel on the fly to suit the situation, players need to be able to score and check.

I think it’s easier show Jack Quinn how to improve defensively than teaching Girgs how to score goals.

[Thorner]

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No, to the bold. 

If you look over the whole season, the teams that play better D are the teams that gave us the most trouble. Regardless of how good they were. Otherwise I agree, but would also add bad D makes goalies look bad and then people say "our goaltending sucks" and good team D makes average goalies look good. For example Hill, playing for Vegas right now. He's no better than Comrie as a goalie, but you wouldn't know it behind that team's defensive system. Put Hill on Buffalo and he'd look like a sieve. 

Hill is better than Comrie, who’s a non-entity

[PerreaultForever]

18 hours ago, dudacek said:

Not seeing any evidence that defence is more important than offence in this year’s playoffs.

So you're not watching the playoffs then? 

You can't quote regular season stats as any sort of evidence for what's happening in the playoffs. They went over it on HNIC a couple times about how Maurice has had them switch styles and it only came together over the last 1/4 of the year. 

Vegas switched as well, but it took Cassidy longer. 

[PerreaultForever]

15 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You're taking losing an AHL playoff series where our shiny offensive prospects were all 18-20 yr olds, most in their very first NA season, and extrapolated that to mean the Sabres won't win in the playoffs because Buffalo doesn't play your preferred system. On top of that you're ignoring the fact the AHL team won 2 playoff series before this too.

https://giphy.com/gifs/mmYy42RNrgA0w

 

No.

First, the only thing I prefer is winning, and defense wins. 

Second, yes, you can use age as an excuse, but it doesn't change the fact that they could not handle defensive shut down hockey. 

Lastly, Sabres struggle against that as well. Is there a correlation? A pattern? Is it in the team philosophy? Well, where there's smoke there's fire. It's not that difficult to see what's coming. Seen it all before. 

[PerreaultForever]

14 hours ago, French Collection said:

I feel the opposite way.

Defense can be taught. The defensive zone coverage will be… Pressure the puck here. Stick on puck, mind the gap. Defense is also a commitment by players to do the right thing at the right time and to be in position. Defense will also improve with physical and mental maturity.

Offense has an artistic quality to it, you often need to be creative. Even chaotic play can be effective. Have fun, see what works, try something new.

The playoffs are a bit different as there is less time and space. You have to adapt your offense and deal with more obstruction.

They are different games but lacrosse being all offense when you have possession and a complete 180 degree turn to defense and getting possession back when you don’t is the mindset required. Unlike lacrosse, you don’t change your personnel on the fly to suit the situation, players need to be able to score and check.

I think it’s easier show Jack Quinn how to improve defensively than teaching Girgs how to score goals.

Defense CAN be taught, but it also HAS to be taught. Offense is their natural way of approaching the game. Being the star, making the big rushes and moves. They've been doing that for a dozen years already (give or take). Learning to do what HAS to be done rather than what you WANT to do is much harder if you don't start early. 

Girgs had to learn to play D when he found out he couldn't score those goals at that level. That's what role players do. I think Krebs is in the same boat. 

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, Thorny said:

Hill is better than Comrie, who’s a non-entity

Stats (not including this Vegas run cause that's the point) look relatively even. Comrie is worse for Buffalo than Winnipeg because our D isn't good yet. 

https://www.nhl.com/player/adin-hill-8478499

 

https://www.nhl.com/player/eric-comrie-8477480

 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Stats (not including this Vegas run cause that's the point) look relatively even. Comrie is worse for Buffalo than Winnipeg because our D isn't good yet. 

https://www.nhl.com/player/adin-hill-8478499

 

https://www.nhl.com/player/eric-comrie-8477480

 

And Comrie was injured most of the year.

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

No.

First, the only thing I prefer is winning, and defense wins. 

Second, yes, you can use age as an excuse, but it doesn't change the fact that they could not handle defensive shut down hockey. 

Lastly, Sabres struggle against that as well. Is there a correlation? A pattern? Is it in the team philosophy? Well, where there's smoke there's fire. It's not that difficult to see what's coming. Seen it all before. 

The "pattern" is youth. Sabres are young. The Amerks even younger.  The hope is these youngsters grow, get stronger and learn to play the heavier game when mature.

[JohnC]

17 hours ago, Thorny said:

Hill is better than Comrie, who’s a non-entity

How good is Comrie? Candidly, I don't know. What was the expectation this year for Hill before the season started? He was their fourth listed goalie. It wasn't until there were a series of injuries that he got his opportunity to play. Prior to the season, if any GM had an opportunity to choose between Hill or Comrie, I suspect most of them would have chosen Comrie. Obviously, you can't control the circumstances. Comrie was plagued with injuries throughout the season. And to be fair, the team in front of the Vegas goalies from a defensive standpoint was stronger than for the Buffalo goalies by far. Even Jack has become a disciplined two-way player. 

Too often a negative narrative is ascribed to a player that is difficult alter. Mittelstadt is an example of that. His narrative went from being a soft and ineffective player to one of our best wall and versatile players who can play both the wing or center position. When he was moved up to the top line because of a Tage injury that line kept producing at a high rate. 

I'm not making any declarations about the trio of goalies that are on our roster. But I'm also not concluding that how they performed last year is how they will collectively perform next season. Is it a gamble to stick with this group? Yes. But it becomes a lesser gamble if the blueline is upgraded and the style of play tightens up, as it has with Vega. 

[DarthEbriate]

8 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

The "pattern" is youth. Sabres are young. The Amerks even younger.  The hope is these youngsters grow, get stronger and learn to play the heavier game when mature.

Per the bolded, last season, yes the Amerks were younger among the forwards.

However, for defensemen, the Sabres were younger. In goal, the Sabres were the younger battery anytime Anderson wasn't on the ice.

[Thorner]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

How good is Comrie? Candidly, I don't know. What was the expectation this year for Hill before the season started? He was their fourth listed goalie. It wasn't until there were a series of injuries that he got his opportunity to play. Prior to the season, if any GM had an opportunity to choose between Hill or Comrie, I suspect most of them would have chosen Comrie. Obviously, you can't control the circumstances. Comrie was plagued with injuries throughout the season. And to be fair, the team in front of the Vegas goalies from a defensive standpoint was stronger than for the Buffalo goalies by far. Even Jack has become a disciplined two-way player. 

Too often a negative narrative is ascribed to a player that is difficult alter. Mittelstadt is an example of that. His narrative went from being a soft and ineffective player to one of our best wall and versatile players who can play both the wing or center position. When he was moved up to the top line because of a Tage injury that line kept producing at a high rate. 

I'm not making any declarations about the trio of goalies that are on our roster. But I'm also not concluding that how they performed last year is how they will collectively perform next season. Is it a gamble to stick with this group? Yes. But it becomes a lesser gamble if the blueline is upgraded and the style of play tightens up, as it has with Vega. 

The year is 2030. Comrie has been traded back to the Sabres after returning to Winnipeg for the 5th time. Sabrespace proclaims Rick Comrie “just hasn’t been given a fair shake, yet.”

- - -

Comrie hasn’t managed to establish he can be counted on for anything other than spotty back up duty *in a decade*. This is evidence. Time matters. I feel like people mistake this as him being some sort of unknown. “Hey, we just don’t know yet, he could be Hellebuyck”.

It’s not even an undrafted mystery box. The fact is, the timeframe matters. Time, the only thing this board cares for not at all.

He’s not an unknown. We know. We know he hasn’t been able to seize a starting role in 10 years. The longer the timeframe gets, the significantly less compelling explaining away every year, one at a time, becomes.

Is it strictly possible he bucks trend? Yes. Is it worth betting on? Not even CLOSE

- - - 

Since being drafted, 10 years ago, Comrie has started *47* NHL games. Ie the amount a starter might have at it, in a single year. By all means, bring Comrie back, if you are looking to fill the role of mediocre backup goaltender, you have a decent shot at fulfilling that standard

Edited June 5, 2023 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

15 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

The "pattern" is youth. Sabres are young. The Amerks even younger.  The hope is these youngsters grow, get stronger and learn to play the heavier game when mature.

They are, definitely. That's kind of my constant issue though. Too much one way for this team, too extreme. Teams need balanced rosters with veterans and young guys. This is why they sign Okposo I guess but it's not enough. We need to add some character veterans to play with and lead all these young guys. Their plan seems to be to wait until our young guys become veterans (or close to it) and they lead themselves. Eventually it might work, but it will still take several years this way. 

I thought we were ready to leap forward this year and now I think we are definitely there and due, but we need to add 3 or 4 pieces and not just wait for Kulich and Savoie etc. 

We need to win now and make these new kids fight for roster spots and press the vets. We are so close I can feel it, but it's time to make the moves.