Around the NHL 2023-24 Season

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, French Collection said:

Ottawa beat the Caps while Detroit beat the Pens. Two old teams dropping down the standings.

At least there were no loser points.

Darcy Kuemper seemed to have been sniffing glue before the game.  He was absolutely awful and had given up 4 goals on the Otters 1st 10 shots.  That stuff balances out throughout the season.

[Thorner]

13 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Are super stars never allowed to be shut down? McDavid was absent from the Vancouver game (against pettersson), is mcdavid just very good?

Pettersson is a 100 point player lmao

Josh Gorges once shut down Connor McDavid

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Darcy Kuemper seemed to have been sniffing glue before the game.  He was absolutely awful and had given up 4 goals on the Otters 1st 10 shots.  That stuff balances out throughout the season.

I'm unsure what he was doing but he needs to stop unless playing the Sabres lol

 

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Josh Gorges once shut down Connor McDavid

 

Oh Gorges, if only you had been on this team instead of the tire fires of the 2010's

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Darcy Kuemper seemed to have been sniffing glue before the game.  He was absolutely awful and had given up 4 goals on the Otters 1st 10 shots.  That stuff balances out throughout the season.

I wouldn't fault Kuemper, Ottawa was just busting through the Washington D all night. Washington is slow, old and yesterday's news. They might try to manhandle a few teams here and there (maybe the Sabres) but they were not good. Ottawa on the other hand I've seen a couple times already and they look well balanced and play the right way. If I was a betting man and I had to choose Sabres-Wings-Senators for a playoff spot, right now, I'd bet Ottawa. Could change later. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by PerreaultForever

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

2 of the top 3 goalies in goals saved above expected are Shesterkin and Sorokin. Just interesting the Sabres might have played the 2 best goalies to open the season. 

Or maybe they are two of the top three goalies because they opened against the Sabres.  Just sayin'.

45 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Oh Gorges, if only you had been on this team instead of the tire fires of the 2010's

Agreed.

[thewookie1]

Any interest in an olofsson - leblanc swap

[French Collection]

31 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Any interest in an olofsson - leblanc swap

Leblanc? Or do you mean Kevin Labanc?
Seems like the Sharks couldn’t get anything for him and may waive him after scratching him for the first 3 games.

Similar salary to VO, similar age. Best season was 18/19, 17 G & 39 A. UFA after this year. He’s from Staten Island.

I watched him play junior for Hawerchuk. 
Both guys probably need a change of scenery. Labanc would come in as 13th F and have to work his way up vs VO being a 28G man relegated to the press box.

I don’t know if Labanc has any defense to his game, he was a Doug Wilson guy that Grier wants to move on from.

I doubt it happens but I would give it a shot, I’ve had it with VO.

[Curt]

46 minutes ago, French Collection said:

Leblanc? Or do you mean Kevin Labanc?
Seems like the Sharks couldn’t get anything for him and may waive him after scratching him for the first 3 games.

Similar salary to VO, similar age. Best season was 18/19, 17 G & 39 A. UFA after this year. He’s from Staten Island.

I watched him play junior for Hawerchuk. 
Both guys probably need a change of scenery. Labanc would come in as 13th F and have to work his way up vs VO being a 28G man relegated to the press box.

I don’t know if Labanc has any defense to his game, he was a Doug Wilson guy that Grier wants to move on from.

I doubt it happens but I would give it a shot, I’ve had it with VO.

No.  Matt Leblanc.  Dude is so cool.

[Zamboni]

“While Reaves might be the toughest in the NHL right now, John Scott was no softy during his time playing. The massive 6-8 defenseman wasn't afraid to go anyone during his playing years. This includes Ryan Reaves, however, it didn't end up happening.

Scott recently talked on a podcast about how Reaves dodged him during a game and ducked out of the fight when Scott did end up grabbing him.

"Well, he ducked me - he didn't want to [fight] and I finally grabbed him and he bailed out and you can tell him that... But, I think it's kind of as advertised. I know Toronto has dipped their toe in the tough waters throughout the years and tried to bring that edge, but they never went all in." - Scott on Reaves

Scott also went on to explain how he thinks bringing Reaves in will be different than other tough guys the Leafs have acquired in the past like Wayne Simmonds and Kyle Clifford.
Since the Colton Orr and Frazer McLaren days, I think they went 'we'll bring in a Kyle Clifford, we'll bring in a Wayne Simmonds... those guys are kind of tough, but this is the biggest top dog in the NHL and everybody knows it... And the good thing about Ryan Reaves is he's fast, he can get in on the forecheck, I think he's proven it the first two games, he's been laying guys out... You've gotta make yourself relevant other than just dropping the gloves, so he's good for this team.

He's a good guy. He's going to definitely make up his contract there. When he signed, I said 'Reavo, you're overpaid, how do you do it?' But I'm teasing because he does other things that nobody sees to make up for the lack of offensive production on the ice." - John Scott

 

My comments… I’m just glad Sabres don’t have that waste of a roster spot on the team.

[Doohicksie]

55 minutes ago, Curt said:

No.  Matt Leblanc.  Dude is so cool.

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, Zamboni said:

“While Reaves might be the toughest in the NHL right now, John Scott was no softy during his time playing. The massive 6-8 defenseman wasn't afraid to go anyone during his playing years. This includes Ryan Reaves, however, it didn't end up happening.

Scott recently talked on a podcast about how Reaves dodged him during a game and ducked out of the fight when Scott did end up grabbing him.

"Well, he ducked me - he didn't want to [fight] and I finally grabbed him and he bailed out and you can tell him that... But, I think it's kind of as advertised. I know Toronto has dipped their toe in the tough waters throughout the years and tried to bring that edge, but they never went all in." - Scott on Reaves

Scott also went on to explain how he thinks bringing Reaves in will be different than other tough guys the Leafs have acquired in the past like Wayne Simmonds and Kyle Clifford.
Since the Colton Orr and Frazer McLaren days, I think they went 'we'll bring in a Kyle Clifford, we'll bring in a Wayne Simmonds... those guys are kind of tough, but this is the biggest top dog in the NHL and everybody knows it... And the good thing about Ryan Reaves is he's fast, he can get in on the forecheck, I think he's proven it the first two games, he's been laying guys out... You've gotta make yourself relevant other than just dropping the gloves, so he's good for this team.

He's a good guy. He's going to definitely make up his contract there. When he signed, I said 'Reavo, you're overpaid, how do you do it?' But I'm teasing because he does.

 

My comments… I’m just glad Sabres don’t have that waste of a roster spot on the team.

I don't think he's going to make a difference to that team.

Its early. But 3 games in, 8 minutes per game. No points, -3. 

But he can win fights right? 2 fights so far, nothing groundbreaking. He probably won against Foligno the other night, but it was a draw or a slight loss in his fight Vs Montreal.  If he's only good enough of a 'hockey player' to get 8 minutes of ice time, I want a 'better' hockey player in that spot instead.

[PerreaultForever]

Hey, guess what? We're currently dead last in the East. Can't wait for those draft lottery threads.

Meanwhile Philly is leading the Metropolitan (yes, I know this won't last) cause, well, Torts is a dinosaur who doesn't get modern hockey and the Bruins, despite playing pretty poorly are undefeated. Yzerplan that so many of you mocked a feeble 3 and 1 to start. 

[Curt]

48 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Hey, guess what? We're currently dead last in the East. Can't wait for those draft lottery threads.

Meanwhile Philly is leading the Metropolitan (yes, I know this won't last) cause, well, Torts is a dinosaur who doesn't get modern hockey and the Bruins, despite playing pretty poorly are undefeated. Yzerplan that so many of you mocked a feeble 3 and 1 to start. 

Are you really taking a gloating victory lap after game 4 of 82?

Personally I think it’s a bit early to be trying to shove it in everyones’ face how right you are.

[Curt]

On 10/18/2023 at 3:31 AM, PerreaultForever said:

and yet, Philly shut him down totally tonight and shook him up a little as well. Very good player, yes. Superstar? Hmmm, not so sure. 

Elias Pettersson with 2 more points tonight.  8 points in his first 4 games.  I think this guy is becoming a super duper star.

Very good player?  Yes.  Superstar?  Depends on your definition.

[mjd1001]

9 hours ago, Curt said:

Elias Pettersson with 2 more points tonight.  8 points in his first 4 games.  I think this guy is becoming a super duper star.

Very good player?  Yes.  Superstar?  Depends on your definition.

My original quote was that he is under-rated. That doesn't mean he is going to be passing Matthews and McDavid for league MVP. Superstar? To me if you are a top 10 scorer in the league AND you are very exciting to watch at the same time, then yes, you are becoming a superstar. I think Pettersson is on that path now for sure.

[Curt]

4 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

My original quote was that he is under-rated. That doesn't mean he is going to be passing Matthews and McDavid for league MVP. Superstar? To me if you are a top 10 scorer in the league AND you are very exciting to watch at the same time, then yes, you are becoming a superstar. I think Pettersson is on that path now for sure.

Agree.  I wasn’t making any point regarding anything you said.  I was just following up on a conversation that Perrault and I had a couple days ago.

[PerreaultForever]

11 hours ago, Curt said:

Are you really taking a gloating victory lap after game 4 of 82?

Personally I think it’s a bit early to be trying to shove it in everyones’ face how right you are.

I guess you can take it that way but it's not what I want. I said years ago I thought their approach was wrong BUT also that I hoped I was wrong. I stressed that. 

What I want, the only thing I want, is for the Sabres to win. AND WIN A LOT. 

I'm just really disappointed after all the talk and hype about "time to win" that they have come out so flat and disorganized and unready to compete at a high level. The lack of team unity (on ice) is appalling. I look at the Philly games (I've watched their 2 home games) and there is a team with very little talent and supposedly they should all hate Torts by now and quit on him BUT they come out with fire, energy, resolve. They work their butts off and they get two wins at home. WHY aren't we like that? WHY????

I'm sick of it. I hate being right about this. Absolutely hate it. Maybe they turn it around, but this is not the way to start a season of so called "time to win". You start hard and fast like those other teams. Some or all of whom will falter later at some point due to depth or youth or lack of talent but the serious effort to be good is there at the start and that's all you can ask for. We do not have that. 

[PerreaultForever]

11 hours ago, Curt said:

Elias Pettersson with 2 more points tonight.  8 points in his first 4 games.  I think this guy is becoming a super duper star.

Very good player?  Yes.  Superstar?  Depends on your definition.

To me, a superstar is a guy who can flip a game on his own and do that often. They elevate the players around them no matter who those players are as well. Can Pettersson do that on his own or does he need the supporting cast idk. I think it's too early to say he's a superstar. 

In terms of definition, I'd ask you this. Is there a current Sabre who you would call a superstar?

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

My original quote was that he is under-rated. That doesn't mean he is going to be passing Matthews and McDavid for league MVP. Superstar? To me if you are a top 10 scorer in the league AND you are very exciting to watch at the same time, then yes, you are becoming a superstar. I think Pettersson is on that path now for sure.

For you, does a "superstar" need to be a complete player or just an offensive scorer?

Can the dominant defenders be superstars or is it just reserved for flashy offense?

[Curt]

10 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

To me, a superstar is a guy who can flip a game on his own and do that often. They elevate the players around them no matter who those players are as well. Can Pettersson do that on his own or does he need the supporting cast idk. I think it's too early to say he's a superstar. 

In terms of definition, I'd ask you this. Is there a current Sabre who you would call a superstar?

By your definition, no, definitely not.  Dahlin and Thompson are closest but need more consistency.

How many superstars are there in the league then, like 5?

Thats fine, it’s a word without a set definition.  He isn’t a superstar then, just a star.

[mjd1001]

17 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

For you, does a "superstar" need to be a complete player or just an offensive scorer?

Can the dominant defenders be superstars or is it just reserved for flashy offense?

Honestly, that is a tough question to answer.

To me, a 'star' or 'superstar' doesn't mean you are the best. It means you are close to the best but you are fun to watch. Or you bring a lot of personality to the game. Its kinda a sliding scale.  70% how good you are. 20-25% how exciting to watch.  5%-10% your personality off the ice.  

Guys like Denis Potvin, Patrice Bergeron,  Larry Robinson, Ryan O'Reilly, Chris Chelios, Rod Langway...they were great defensive players, maybe some of the best ever. Some may have been called stars (although as a kid when watching I never heard Langway called a star), but rarely ever have I heard them called 'superstars' because there wasn't much flash to their game.

I was only a little kid, really really little, but Bob Gainey may have been just as important to the success of the Canadians of the late 70's as Lafleur and Schutt, but he certainly wasn't called a 'superstar' by most because of the role he played and how he played it.

So to me, personally, to be a superstar you must have both Great play AND something that is fun to watch and fans (even casual fans) notice.

21 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

To me, a superstar is a guy who can flip a game on his own and do that often. They elevate the players around them no matter who those players are as well. Can Pettersson do that on his own or does he need the supporting cast idk. I think it's too early to say he's a superstar. 

In terms of definition, I'd ask you this. Is there a current Sabre who you would call a superstar?

I understand your point of view, and I can't disagree with it. But to me the difference between a 'star' and a 'superstar' is both the level of how good they are AND a slight bit of how exciting they are to watch (right or wrong, how many highlight real clips of them are there on sportscenter or twitter)  On the Sabres, no one at that level yet, Thompson is on the border of it.

Around the league, McDavid, McKinnon, Patrick Kane (when he's not hurt), Pastrnak, Kucherov, Ovechkin, Matthews, Maybe Crosby or Makar, and to me Pettersson.  Drasaitl? Maybe, but I don't find him exciting to watch. Matthews?  Sure, again, not electrifying but he is a great goal scorer.  Kaprizov, yes for sure. He's like Pettersson to me, LOVE to watch him play, gets a bit less attention though because he's on a team not in the national spotlight. Matt Tkachuk...he is on the border of superstardom also to me..not flashy, but fun to watch and effective.

Edited October 20, 2023 by mjd1001

[PerreaultForever]

Just now, Curt said:

By your definition, no, definitely not.  Dahlin and Thompson are closest but need more consistency.

How many superstars are there in the league then, like 5?

Thats fine, it’s a word without a set definition.  He isn’t a superstar then, just a star.

Ya, not many. It is a term I personally do not hand out easily. Eichel, for example, isn't one. For all that generational talk he hasn't become a superstar and likely it never fits for him. Star yes, all star yes, superstar no. Same holds for Dahlin as you said. 

leagues and tv networks (and some fans) like to use the term more generously for marketing obviously. 

[Curt]

20 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I guess you can take it that way but it's not what I want. I said years ago I thought their approach was wrong BUT also that I hoped I was wrong. I stressed that. 

What I want, the only thing I want, is for the Sabres to win. AND WIN A LOT. 

I'm just really disappointed after all the talk and hype about "time to win" that they have come out so flat and disorganized and unready to compete at a high level. The lack of team unity (on ice) is appalling. I look at the Philly games (I've watched their 2 home games) and there is a team with very little talent and supposedly they should all hate Torts by now and quit on him BUT they come out with fire, energy, resolve. They work their butts off and they get two wins at home. WHY aren't we like that? WHY????

I'm sick of it. I hate being right about this. Absolutely hate it. Maybe they turn it around, but this is not the way to start a season of so called "time to win". You start hard and fast like those other teams. Some or all of whom will falter later at some point due to depth or youth or lack of talent but the serious effort to be good is there at the start and that's all you can ask for. We do not have that. 

Take it that way?  I don’t know how else it could be interpreted.

[PerreaultForever]

5 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Honestly, that is a tough question to answer.

To me, a 'star' or 'superstar' doesn't mean you are the best. It means you are close to the best but you are fun to watch. Or you bring a lot of personality to the game. Its kinda a sliding scale.  70% how good you are. 20-25% how exciting to watch.  5%-10% your personality off the ice.  

Guys like Denis Potvin, Patrice Bergeron,  Larry Robinson, Ryan O'Reilly, Chris Chelios, Rod Langway...they were great defensive players, maybe some of the best ever. Some may have been called stars (although as a kid when watching I never heard Langway called a star), but rarely ever have I heard them called 'superstars' because there wasn't much flash to their game.

I was only a little kid, really really little, but Bob Gainey may have been just as important to the success of the Canadians of the late 70's as Lafleur and Schutt, but he certainly wasn't called a 'superstar' by most because of the role he played and how he played it.

So to me, personally, to be a superstar you must have both Great play AND something that is fun to watch and fans (even casual fans) notice.

That's fair. It's a more generous usage than I have but it is a subjective thing. There's also a bias towards offense as in most sports but you are correct about Gainey. He was essential to their success. We had the French Connection who were stars for sure but our success at that time was also heavily dependent on Ramsey and Luce (and then Gare to complete that line) as they were a great shutdown pair and two of the finest penalty killers in the history of the league. Without them we never make it to that cup final, we'd have just been like today's Leafs.

 

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

Take it that way?  I don’t know how else it could be interpreted.

How about I say it this way simply, I would prefer to be wrong. 

[Curt]

9 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

How about I say it this way simply, I would prefer to be wrong. 

I believe you.  I wish they were playing better too.

A season is long.  Most teams go through ups and downs.  I’m hopeful that they can get it turned around relatively quickly.