GDT: Buffalo Sabres @ Philadelphia Flyers 7:00 PM ESPN+, MSG, WGR550

[mjd1001]

Its also time for UPL to be healthy and Levi to get some time in Rochester.

Since last year and including this year:

UPL:  2.62 GAA, .909 save %, team plays at a 91 point pace (not good enough most years but WOULD be in a playoff position this year)

Levi: 3.29 GAA, .893 save %, team plays at a 79 point pace.

Edited November 17 by mjd1001

[Thorner]

14 hours ago, spndnchz said:

Can Dan actually call a game ?

[Thorner]

13 hours ago, Carmel Corn said:

Thought I'd build on what you said....no rookie GM's please.

This exactly 

[Thorner]

12 hours ago, jad1 said:

He does seem to be lacking the presence of guys like Peca and Drury.

Maybe because he’s lacking the greatest goalie of all time that Peca had, and the best overall roster I’ve ever seen the Sabres assemble, that Drury had. Maybe we should reckon with those (quite sizeable) variables in the equation before jumping to a mystic intangible?

the closer one gets to pinning the issues on one player, they further they get from a salient reading of the situation. We’ve been there so many times recently with so many good players im surprised we still go there 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

As of this morning, 8th place in the conference is still only .500 in terms of point percentage.

Sabres are at .472.  A win last night WOULD have put them at .527 (in sole possession of a playoff spot)

They are only 1 point back. After last nights game if feels a lot worse than that. They need Tage and UPL back healthy.

Per Matthew Fairburn, The Sabres are 0-4 this season when they have a chance to get above .500.

This team does not appear able to rise to the challenge.

[Thorner]

10 hours ago, rickshaw said:

I’m shocked at the Quinn drop off. 

It’s not that shocking when we consider it’s hard for a player to drop off from somewhere they never actually got on. Putting up good *metrics* in small sample sizes and then projecting that over a full 82 game season in *actual production* is a fools errand. It’s ok we do stuff like that on this website as fans: as a GM it’s abhorrent.

i’m honestly more surprised people think stats work that way. It’s an entirely different animal when you expect projected results from a small sample to extrapolate over a much larger frame where much more is expected of the player. Call it the Comrie effect.

A *frequent* misstep and characterization of Adams’ tenure is projecting out best case scenario development before it happens. His strategy essentially IS counting on maybes, for things to happen that we haven’t actually seen yet

Edited November 17 by Thorner

[DarthEbriate]

12 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Tie and jacket?  Pocket square? 
Nice shoes and matching belt?
Fedora?

Check. Check. Check. And... no hat. I did end up wearing my wife's faux-fur stole as the evening progressed. Good accessory: stoles.

[LTS]

15 hours ago, John Tucker said:

These guys are literally falling all over the ice.  Are they f’ing drunk?!?!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who said this last night.

This team was so bad last night that I chose to watch Gladiator instead, despite the billion commercials.  I couldn't stand another moment of watching this team be the exact same team as last year.  I see nothing that has changed. The power play looks the exact same, so either someone was FOS about who orchestrated it last year or the person they have in charge of it this year knows so little about it that all they did was copy/paste which should be grounds for dismissal.

If Ruff wanted to send a message he should have stapled Dahlin's ass to the bench after this two penalties early on. Even if one of them was perhaps a bit questionable the team should not have been in the situation (on the power play, twice).

This team hates success. Every time they begin to get some they cave on themselves. Also, any team that plays a hard forecheck completely stifles the Sabres. They Sabres play to not lose, they don't play to win. They give up both blue lines all the time.

They continue to be a disappointment and I don't know how anyone can look at that game last night and have anything positive to say.

 

4 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

The Quinn drop-off has been bad, but perhaps made worse by the expectation some had that he was on verge of busting into top-10 winger and star status. 

Salient 

 

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Per Matthew Fairburn, The Sabres are 0-4 this season when they have a chance to get above .500.

This team does not appear able to rise to the challenge.

Essentially a key characteristic of a mediocre team. Sabres are 3-2 in games where they have a chance to get BACK to .500. So I can’t really draw a distinction that implies they somehow “fold” when the games matter 

they simply fold a lot because mediocre teams fold a lot 

[LabattBlue]

You know what I want from a 4th line?   Come out in their first couple shifts and set the tone.   I mean bone crushing checks.  You know what Adams got?  More off-season mediocrity. 

[SwampD]

19 minutes ago, Weave said:

Per Matthew Fairburn, The Sabres are 0-4 this season when they have a chance to get above .500.

This team does not appear able to rise to the challenge.

That’s because they are not good. They are not a .500 team.

The skill difference when switching over to other games is striking. Not sure if I’ve ever noticed it this much before this season. It’s quite depressing.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

Its also time for UPL to be healthy and Levi to get some time in Rochester.

Since last year and including this year:

UPL:  2.62 GAA, .909 save %, team plays at a 91 point pace (not good enough most years but WOULD be in a playoff position this year)

Levi: 3.29 GAA, .893 save %, team plays at a 79 point pace.

There isn't any team that doesn't deal with injuries. Most teams play their backups significant amounts of time. There are a number of workhorse goalies but not as many as in the "old" era. It's inarguable that having a quality backup is important. But how much of an improvement is it with Reimer as the backup? What we got is what we got.  

Criticizing Lev's performances is warranted. What's also warranted is recognizing that the play in front of him on defense and offense is inadequate, to put it mildly. It's easy to point out particular deficiencies in this roster from the goalies to the forwards to the defensemen. The roster in general is simply inadequate not only from a talent standpoint but more indictable from an individual competitive level. 

The results shouldn't be surprising when you have a mediocre GM and a clueless owner. The most intolerable aspect of this team is that it is boring to watch. It didn't take me long to switch over to the Georgia vs Tenn college football game. There was passion on the field and in the stands.  

I have no doubt that when the injured players return the Sabres will be better. But so what?  There is not enough talent or proper construction of the roster to sustain it for extended periods of time. Extended mediocrity becomes wretched mediocrity that is tough to take. It's so sad how irrelevant and invisible this franchise has become since the Puegula takeover. 

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, SwampD said:

That’s because they are not good. They are not a .500 team.

The skill difference when switching over to other games is striking. Not sure if I’ve ever noticed it this much before this season. It’s quite depressing.

It's noticeable to me, too. There is also an "intensity" differential watching other teams compared to watching the too often flat Sabres. 

I do believe that the Sabres are a .500 team. What does that mean? You are striving to attain being mediocre. That in itself is pathetic.  

Edited November 17 by JohnC

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

It's noticeable to me, too. There is also an "intensity" differential watching other teams compared to watching the too often flat Sabres. 

I do believe that the Sabres are a .500 team. What does that mean? You are striving to attain being mediocre. That in itself is pathetic.  

1st bold - Absolutely.

 

2nd bold - But,… they aren’t. 

[jad1]

56 minutes ago, Thorner said:

Maybe because he’s lacking the greatest goalie of all time that Peca had, and the best overall roster I’ve ever seen the Sabres assemble, that Drury had. Maybe we should reckon with those (quite sizeable) variables in the equation before jumping to a mystic intangible?

the closer one gets to pinning the issues on one player, they further they get from a salient reading of the situation. We’ve been there so many times recently with so many good players im surprised we still go there 

Sorry, don't buy it.  The talent on this team should be good enough to make the playoffs.

Are you really saying that the Sabres need one of the best goaltenders of all time in net for them to be successful?  

And the 06-07 team had six 20 goal scores on the roster.  They finished first overall in the league standings.  The 22-23 Sabres had five 20 goal scores on the roster. That team finished 20th overall.  What was the difference.

And regarding talent, how many other teams have two #1 overall picks on the their defense?  How many even have a #4 overall pick on defense?  Sabres have all that, and yet it's not enough talent?

You cant chalk up the Sabres woes to talent.  One of their issues is they play fundamentally poor hockey, and that's on the coaches to fix.

But another issue is that they lack consistency, urgency, and a high level of compete on a game-to-game basis.

And those are qualities that Peca and Drury brought to the team.  Those guys set a high standard in the lockeroom and demanded accountability from the players. 

At some point this team has got to accept the talent in the room and set the expectation that it's good enough to win and demand the effort level from itself to make it happen each game.  The Sabres had captains who could do this in the past; they need one to do it now.

 

Edited November 17 by jad1

[Slack_in_MA]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

It's noticeable to me, too. There is also an "intensity" differential watching other teams compared to watching the too often flat Sabres. 

I do believe that the Sabres are a .500 team. What does that mean? You are striving to attain being mediocre. That in itself is pathetic.  

I've also noticed recently that (with exceptions) they don't seem to celebrate goals together very enthusiastically, almost non-chalant at times.

I remember feeling the same way late in the Eichel/Reinhardt era.

How much do you think these guys actually like each other? 

[JohnC]

15 minutes ago, SwampD said:

1st bold - Absolutely.

 

2nd bold - But,… they aren’t. 

I consider the Sabres as basically a middling team. For me, whether they are a .500 team or not is not a consequential issue. Even if they are a .500 team, so what! This franchise has become irrelevant as an NHL franchise. From a league narrative standpoint it is basically invisible. What's outrageous is that this descent has been going on for nearly a generation. That's ridiculous!

[DarthEbriate]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I consider the Sabres as basically a middling team. For me, whether they are a .500 team or not is not a consequential issue. Even if they are a .500 team, so what! This franchise has become irrelevant as an NHL franchise. From a league narrative standpoint it is basically invisible. What's outrageous is that this descent has been going on for nearly a generation. That's ridiculous!

The loser point inflates it. Currently, 22 of 32 teams are .500 or better (and a single overtime appearance/loss prevents the Sabres and Blues from joining them). Being .500 is not enough, because 6 of those teams aren't playoff-bound.

[Thorner]

18 minutes ago, jad1 said:

Sorry, don't buy it.  The talent on this team should be good enough to make the playoffs.

Are you really saying that the Sabres need one of the best goaltenders of all time in net for them to be successful?  

And the 06-07 team had six 20 goal scores on the roster.  They finished first overall in the league standings.  The 22-23 Sabres had five 20 goal scores on the roster. That team finished 20th overall.  What was the difference.

And regarding talent, how many other teams have two #1 overall picks on the their defense?  How many even have a #4 overall pick on defense?  Sabres have all that, and yet it's not enough talent?

You cant chalk up the Sabres woes to talent.  One of their issues is they play fundamentally poor hockey, and that's on the coaches to fix.

But another issue is that they lack consistency, urgency, and a high level of compete on a game-to-game basis.

And those are qualities that Peca and Drury brought to the team.  Those guys set a high standard in the lockeroom and demanded accountability from the players. 

At some point this team has got to accept the talent in the room and set the expectation that it's good enough to win and demand the effort level from itself to make it happen each game.  The Sabres had captains who could do this in the past; they need one to do it now.

 

The difference? Depth. Playmaking. 05-06 was roll-4-lines era. Not to mention talent (see: actual current ability 2-ways at both ends of the ice) within other parts of the roster like the defensive unit and in net.

But, you raise a lot of good points with your excellent post. I do think things like urgency and accountability are a factor at times, too. I posted just the other day that that’s a functional error of the GM: no one claims the drought. They’ve been, year after year, levied with almost no expectations for each season. Not until this year, apparently. I’m sure the players saw the lack of spending as evidence it really was about playoffs this year, right? 

Where I disagree is the idea a “leader” would have the ability to siphon that mindset out of the rest of the team through sheer force of will. The Peca teams and the Briere teams weren’t the “youngest team in hockey”, were they? Or even close to? You can’t just look at the leader; you have to look at who you are asking them to lead.

We would benefit a lot from a more veteran captain mostly because that player would provide the right mindset within his minutes. We know the TALENT of a single player like Jack Eichel can’t elevate an entire team, there’s no reason to think the leadership quotient of one player could fare better. I don’t need to even argue that talent is more important than a sense of accountability: just that it’s as important.

The youngest team in the league, statistically, doesn’t make the playoffs. Bottom 10 spenders almost never make the playoffs. (Side note: You *don’t* think spending less than everyone would bear out, in most cases, in having less talent? Adams is so good that he’s equaling the talent of others teams with less money? That doesn’t pass the smell test.) We are both. Low spending and too young. Those teams don’t make the playoffs. 

Every one of those teams had a poor leader? Classic correlation / causation disagreement 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, DarthEbriate said:

Check. Check. Check. And... no hat. I did end up wearing my wife's faux-fur stole as the evening progressed. Good accessory: stoles.

Need a hat too.  

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

The loser point inflates it. Currently, 22 of 32 teams are .500 or better (and a single overtime appearance/loss prevents the Sabres and Blues from joining them). Being .500 is not enough, because 6 of those teams aren't playoff-bound.

DeLuca .500 has been muddled so much being asked to stand up as a tool to predict the playoffs: it’s real function was always about telling you if you truly are “good” or not: because, you are right, .500 in todays nhl no longer represents “average” / something to be using as any kind of benchmark 

Edited November 17 by Thorner

[inkman]

I smoked at least a 1/4 ounce last night.  I thought the game was great. It’s about adjusting expectations.  I expected to get blazed and I went for it.  

[DarthEbriate]

14 minutes ago, Thorner said:

DeLuca .500 has been muddled so much being asked to stand up as a tool to predict the playoffs: it’s real function was always about telling you if you truly are “good” or not: because, you are right, .500 in todays nhl no longer represents “average” / something to be using as any kind of benchmark 

True, the DeLuca .500 is at least representative. Then, you only have outliers like the 16-loser point Islanders sneaking in.

[WhenWillItEnd66]

This team is a below .500 team.  They will have a great game every now and then,  but still suck, soft And defensively worthless

[ska-T Palmtown]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

That’s because they are not good. They are not a .500 team.

The skill difference when switching over to other games is striking. Not sure if I’ve ever noticed it this much before this season. It’s quite depressing.

It probably depends on the team(s) you watch? I was in Seattle last week and watched the Kraken score four goals in the second period ... and honestly, if felt like watching middling Sabres hockey. Hardly any coordinated breakouts, losing the puck at the opposition's blueline, bad giveaways, and terrible passes. The only real difference was they buried 4 out of 5 decent chances they had to score. Snipes. Banging home rebounds. None of this "square in the goalie's chest" nonsense we see game in and game out from pretty much anyone but TNT and JJP.

Mother-effing Will Freakin' Borgen ripped one between the goalie's arm and body on a 2-on-1. Will. Borgen. Granted, he may have been trying for a rebound pass and snuck one in ... but still - instead we get Cozens (he does not get to be called 'Cozzy' until he pulls his head from his butt) firing a 10th grade JV weak wrister right at the logo. boo.

[Weave]

39 minutes ago, inkman said:

I smoked at least a 1/4 ounce last night.  I thought the game was great. It’s about adjusting expectations.  I expected to get blazed and I went for it.  

This is why I admire you.  You set expectations for yourself and then go out and nail it.