GDT: Sabres vs Wild Wed. 11/27 7:00 PM EST MSG-B, FDSN, WGR550

[Thorner]

29 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

“They have a really good record but…” is an interesting argument. You are what your record says you are. They are not an offensive juggernaut but they are a fast, tough team that gives up very little defensively. That is what succeeds in the playoffs.

Agree. You are what your record says you are. Which is incompatible with the “moral victory” logic being thrown around. If the Wild are full credit for their wins, yesterday is no exception, and neither was it for our loss.

- - - 

I also like the term “goalied” a lot for the humour it’s naturally imbibed with, as if it’s somehow indicative of a roster difference that will disappear over time for no reason at all. Next time we lose to Tampa and Kucherov puts up 4 points im going to say we got “wingered” lol.

goalies and their outputs is a component of roster construction, yes 

yesterday, the wild had more expected goals at even strength. Their goalie played really well on the power play. Good for them 

Edited Thursday at 06:31 PM by Thorner

[Archie Lee]

The team has played well enough since the 0-3 start (or 1-4-1 start, or 4-7-1 start; draw the line where you prefer), that I am no longer fretting over individual games.  Last night was a combo of being goalied, bad puck luck, and, for portions of the game, not being prepared to get to the greasy areas.  

When you only give up one goal, it is perhaps unfair to point the finger at a particular defensive miscue, but the 4 on 1 that led to the Wild's only goal was a rather spectacular example of bad situational awareness on the part of either Thompson or Peterka (or both).  Tuch and Dahlin were already deep and had gained possession when both Thompson and Peterka drove the net.  When the centering pass failed and a turnover resulted, an odd-man rush was automatic.  On top of that, Kaprizov was on the ice.  I thought it was an example of how we are sometimes inpatient offensively.  It seemed a little early to try and force an o-zone possession into a scoring opportunity and Thompson and Peterka ended up like two receivers whose patterns have taken them to the same spot on the field leaving them coverable by one d-man. One of them should have stayed high.  Two things you don't want to do against the Wild is give them an odd-man rush with Kaprizov on the ice, and fall behind.   

[LabattBlue]

I would never call a game(especially if I was in attendance) in which my team scores ZERO goals, a great game.  The only time you got out of your seat for 3 hours was to get something to eat, drink, or go to the restroom. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

I would never call a game(especially if I was in attendance) in which my team scores ZERO goals, a great game.  The only time you got out of your seat for 3 hours was to get something to eat, drink, or go to the restroom. 

Like the old tale of the lobster in slowly heated water, the expectations have become absurdly low, gradually, over time until it almost appears normal to be fishing for positives in a game we lost 5 years into a regime that’s not made the playoffs and also averaged 76 points a season since taking over. But it’s very, very not normal

ill be ecstatic if we make the playoffs, and I think it’s about 50/50, but playoffs were the mandate this year because they were the *absolute lowest result acceptable*. Ie, maintaining a spot on the edge of a knife of an absolutely unmissable goal isn’t a good spot to be.
 

We aren’t precariously towing the line between success and failure: we are precariously towing the line between avoiding utter failure and utter failure 

They HAVE to make the playoffs 

I’m glad they played reasonably: that’s imminently preferable to playing poorly. But it’s also a terribly small take away relative to the actual result, im sorry 

[Stoner]

41 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

The team has played well enough since the 0-3 start (or 1-4-1 start, or 4-7-1 start; draw the line where you prefer), that I am no longer fretting over individual games.  Last night was a combo of being goalied, bad puck luck, and, for portions of the game, not being prepared to get to the greasy areas.  

When you only give up one goal, it is perhaps unfair to point the finger at a particular defensive miscue, but the 4 on 1 that led to the Wild's only goal was a rather spectacular example of bad situational awareness on the part of either Thompson or Peterka (or both).  Tuch and Dahlin were already deep and had gained possession when both Thompson and Peterka drove the net.  When the centering pass failed and a turnover resulted, an odd-man rush was automatic.  On top of that, Kaprizov was on the ice.  I thought it was an example of how we are sometimes inpatient offensively.  It seemed a little early to try and force an o-zone possession into a scoring opportunity and Thompson and Peterka ended up like two receivers whose patterns have taken them to the same spot on the field leaving them coverable by one d-man. One of them should have stayed high.  Two things you don't want to do against the Wild is give them an odd-man rush with Kaprizov on the ice, and fall behind.   

By playing well enough do you mean having a decent record? I am guessing that's what you're saying.

Yes it's a little early to fret over one game vis a vis making the playoffs. They are not in a terrible spot, nor a good one. 23 points in 22 games is not enough.

[LabattBlue]

21 minutes ago, Stoner said:

By playing well enough do you mean having a decent record? I am guessing that's what you're saying.

Yes it's a little early to fret over one game vis a vis making the playoffs. They are not in a terrible spot, nor a good one. 23 points in 22 games is not enough.

It is scary that they are only 4 points from being last in the conference. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

On that 2-1 with the goalie pulled, I wish Tage had passed the puck to the open JJP.  I don't think the goalie could have moved over in time.  

 

[Archie Lee]

1 hour ago, Stoner said:

By playing well enough do you mean having a decent record? I am guessing that's what you're saying.

Yes it's a little early to fret over one game vis a vis making the playoffs. They are not in a terrible spot, nor a good one. 23 points in 22 games is not enough.

Just that using the same splits, they are 11-7-1, or 10-6, or 7-3 in their current stretch. Of course, that’s not how it works and you can’t just carve out the 0-3 start.  But, we are trending positively in the win-loss column and a single, mostly well-contested loss after a 3 game win streak, isn’t something I’m going to worry too much over (and I’m not suggesting anyone is). 

If the Sabres get to 94 points and the playoffs (big ifs), they have somewhere around 28 more losses coming. 

[Stoner]

27 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Just that using the same splits, they are 11-7-1, or 10-6, or 7-3 in their current stretch. Of course, that’s not how it works and you can’t just carve out the 0-3 start.  But, we are trending positively in the win-loss column and a single, mostly well-contested loss after a 3 game win streak, isn’t something I’m going to worry too much over (and I’m not suggesting anyone is). 

If the Sabres get to 94 points and the playoffs (big ifs), they have somewhere around 28 more losses coming. 

The great philosopher (and possibly great wrestler) @SDSonce opined that in the NHL fans treat each game discretely as a single season. I think it will be that way until the end of time (Feb. 2025).

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

On that 2-1 with the goalie pulled, I wish Tage had passed the puck to the open JJP.  I don't think the goalie could have moved over in time.  

 

He didn't have a good lane to pass it; at best maybe a 40% chance of hitting the pass and otherwise its a complete failure without even a shot being put on goal.

[JohnC]

7 hours ago, Pimlach said:

I bolded your caveat.  Bear in mind that the direction set by the GM was unorthodox and it was a complete flow down from the owner and his  Economic, Efficient, and Effective plan.  

Hockey operations and Front Office were cut and retooled.  Scouting cut and retooled.  The best players and biggest contracts were moved out.  RFAs and FAs were allowed to leave upon request.   They were fielding a team that barely reached the Salary Cap floor and are still yet to spend to the cap with a first time NHL head coach.   There was no way TP was paying money for an established NHL coach and GM after the Krueger debacle, the Eichel injury, and Covid threatening the viability of PSE.  

So yes, Granato arose from the ashes of Ralph Krueger, and he did some good work in a difficult situation.  The 91 point season was surprising and impressive work all things considered.  He got to see Dahlin, Thompson, and several others start to play to their true potential.   However, that season and especially the past one highlight the collective failures by Granato, Adams and Pegula.  

Hockey  rebuilds happen all the time with the same coach/GM in place.  While Granato did not achieve playoffs, his difficult circumstances are duly noted.  But he may have been one of the few coaches that could, or even would, work in Buffalo under all of those limitations and restrictions driven by KA/TP.   His contributions in this period are notable.   Still, I doubt that many NHL teams will seek him out as a rebuild type of coach.  

I'm not putting Granato on a coaching pedestal.. Let's not forget what the situation was at that time.  Any coach coming to this franchise at the time was coming to a blow it up situation, stripping away the foundation not only to the roster but to the innards of the organization. Both the GM and owner set a course that was a full throttle rebuild with a spartan budget. KA and the owner set a course that was going to shed players, contracts and resources within the organization during the covid and the retool period. From a competitive standpoint, this team was set up to fail. As you point out, the owner was not going to pay the going rate for a first-rate coach, and on the other side of the coin no credible coach was interested in coming to this no-win and sure to fail situation. (As you point out.) 

Where we seem to diverge is that I give Granato more credit for the development of the younger players, such as Tage, Mitts, Dahlin etc. than you seem to do. DG was presiding in a period of time where this particular rebuild strategy ordered from above presented him with a situation that made it impossible for his team to be a serious team. I would say (and so do you) that under the circumstances his 91 pt season was impressive. 

This team is definitely at a more mature stage than when DG took over. I still contend that during this flux period Granato was the right coach for that turbulent time. The team is now at a more mature stage of the rebuild. There is no question that Lindy is now more suited to be the coach at this time than Granato would be. 

 

[nfreeman]

11 hours ago, French Collection said:

I disagree with comments that the Wild are a really good team. The Sabres outplayed them, by a good margin. Gustavsson is average but is having a good season and despite his shaky start to this one he found his groove and was solid.

They have a good record but are not a powerhouse by any means. This same team did not make the playoffs last year in a weak western conference.

It was a game the Sabres should have won, making it frustrating for us.

Carry on.

I thought it was a really good, well-played game by 2 pretty good teams.  Minny struck me as a really well-coached team.  They certainly frustrated the Sabres' ability to forecheck and set up the cycle in the O-zone many times.  Still, the Sabres were able to create quite a few good chances, but Minny's goalie was outstanding.  For that matter UPL also had a great game. 

I agree that Minny isn't a juggernaut, but they looked like a very good team last night, have an Art Ross contender and are clearly in a nice groove right now.  A team will have to play very well to beat them.