Does this guy have any credibility at all?

[Doohicksie]

33 minutes ago, Doohicksie said:

Power - Bryson = good

Just looking at the numbers, @Pimlach.  I was just as surprised.

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Power is worse.

I've said this in the Power or Byram thread, but one of them needs to be traded. 

I'm not advocating the trading of either one of these players. But if one of them needs to be dealt I would prefer that it would be Byram. I simply don't understand your disdain for Power. If he were to be shopped every team in the league would be interested in dealing for him. 

[dudacek]

13 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

This is the Dahlin effect. He was one of our worst guys statistically prior to playing with him. The worst thing we can do is hand him another Power contract because he's playing with one of the league's best defensemen.

 

The question of what kind of contract he should get is another conversation entirely.

There is no debate that Byram benefits from playing with Dahlin. Every player does. I suspect that if Byram and Power traded roles they'd also trade results, because the drop-off from Dahlin to Samuelsson, Jokiharju and Clifton is considerable.

But as good as Dahlin is, it's false to suggest that being his partner is "easy"; he's unpredictable, takes risks, plays a ton, and against the opponent's best players. A lot of NHL players would be in over their heads. Out here on the West Coast, I'm reminded of how Quinn Hughes boosts everybody and Filip Hronek does not. But Hronek is good enough to play off Hughes and Hughes/Hronek tends to give you the best of both players.

Players can only be judged by how well they've performed in the role they've been given.

Byram has been given a prominent and important role and played it well. And Dahlin has played some of his best hockey with Byram as his partner.

The Sabres don't need to move on from Byram or Power — those aren't the spots that are broken.

They need to round out their top 4 by acquiring the player Samuelsson was supposed to be.

 

[Stoner]

Incredible.

Analytics says the Sabres have so many amaaaaazing players. Yet all they do is lose, year after year. It's all Dahlin has done for seven (?) years.

Does this not have to be taken into account? Does "season effect" get considered? Because when the seasons are new, when they're slipping away, all I see is suckitude. You got some goals and assists? A notable goals for against projected 60 5 on 5? Wonderful. You don't know how to play winning hockey.

How anyone can be married to any player on the roster? Bowen ***** Byram? Who cares.

Edited Tuesday at 04:47 PM by Stoner

[dudacek]

25 minutes ago, Stoner said:

Incredible.

Analytics says the Sabres have so many amaaaaazing players. Yet all they do is lose, year after year. It's all Dahlin has done for seven (?) years.

Does this not have to be taken into account? Does "season effect" get considered? Because when the seasons are new, when they're slipping away, all I see is suckitude. You got some goals and assists? A notable goals for against projected 60 5 on 5? Wonderful. You don't know how to play winning hockey.

How anyone can be married to any player on the roster? Bowen ***** Byram? Who cares.

 

So sad what the franchise has sown.

[In The Buff]

49 minutes ago, Stoner said:

Incredible.

Analytics says the Sabres have so many amaaaaazing players. Yet all they do is lose, year after year. It's all Dahlin has done for seven (?) years.

Does this not have to be taken into account? Does "season effect" get considered? Because when the seasons are new, when they're slipping away, all I see is suckitude. You got some goals and assists? A notable goals for against projected 60 5 on 5? Wonderful. You don't know how to play winning hockey.

How anyone can be married to any player on the roster? Bowen ***** Byram? Who cares.

on top of that, what gets me is say we do decide to keep Byram & we give him a new contract. You have a large percentage of the salary cap being spent on defense, where you're paying top dollar for offensive minded defensemen... all meanwhile your defense sucks.

This whole fixation on having offensive minded Dmen doesn't seem worth its cost if they can't defend well.

For a team thats in playoff contention, sure it makes sense to want to have more offense from your back end. A Byram or Power might be that missing piece.

But for a team like us, does it make sense to pay a premium on Dmen because they can score 10 goals a year? Or would it make sense to use that money on a forward who can put up 20-30?

I realize this is simplistic in thought but its like we're constructing our roster in reverse. We're paying our D to play offense & as a result both our offense & defense suffer as a result. As it seems theres little thought put into how this team is constructed, with not much balance to anything.

[Stoner]

55 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

So sad what the franchise has sown.

Maybe. Am I broken? I don't care if I ever see any of these guys in a Sabres uniform again. I'd miss Zach, I guess.

I think I'd rather be broken than sit around and concoct mathematical evidence that we actually have great players.

[JoeSchmoe]

1 hour ago, Stoner said:

Analytics says the Sabres have so many amaaaaazing players.

What analytics are you looking at? We have 3 guys in +ve expected goal %. Two are easy to guess and the 3rd one is Benson.

Tuch, Zucker, and the guy who did pretty well playing D for Finland are just below the 50% marker.

The rest all suck.

[pi2000]

Byram isn't the problem, lol. 

[Pimlach]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

 

So sad what the franchise has sown.

True, but not to teams like the Blues, Knights, Panthers, Lightning and others.  The hiring of three consecutive unqualified GMs is a bigger problem than how good the players have been.   There are good players on the team right now and there were good players before them.   

None of the GMs could build a roster and hire a coach staff.  

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmoe said:

What analytics are you looking at? We have 3 guys in +ve expected goal %. Two are easy to guess and the 3rd one is Benson.

Tuch, Zucker, and the guy who did pretty well playing D for Finland are just below the 50% marker.

The rest all suck.

It was a shot at posters who have been telling us how great our players are going back literally years. Cozens Quinn Samuelsson among the current disappointments.

Should there not be a reckoning?

They don't practically contribute to winning hockey. Unless you're just carrying the franchise's water and dealing Hopium, what's the point?

Dahlin's great. And he's never made a big play in a meaningful win for the Buffalo Sabres. In the most important measure of a player, he is still a prospect. No one knows how he'll perform in a playoff game.

[Stoner]

25 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Byram isn't the problem, lol. 

He's among many highly touted young players. Are these players not the problem? The Sabres are close to being the NHL's worst team. There's a huge disconnect somewhere.

We want to finger Terry (gross), insert name of GM (gross) or blame the coach, but maybe these players just flat out can't play winning hockey.

I bet the 75 Caps had some talented players.

[Thorner]

18 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

This is the Dahlin effect. He was one of our worst guys statistically prior to playing with him. The worst thing we can do is hand him another Power contract because he's playing with one of the league's best defensemen.

This is correct. His numbers are bad away from Dahlin. There’s too much data to even post if someone isn’t already coming away with that conclusion 

Edited Tuesday at 08:07 PM by Thorner

[triumph_communes]

He’s not been a super star but he’s way better the. Mittelstadt so net win

[Thorner]

18 hours ago, JohnC said:

If Bryam plays like a first pairing defender, he will get first pairing money. It won't be cheap because first pairing players usually have sizeable contracts. The cap is going up. Paying the market rate is the cost of doing business. Why create another hole on the blueline when you have a player that already fits a need?

Part of the point of rostering two first overall D is we don’t need to shell out first pairing money for the guy who plays next to Dahlin. Dahlin himself bridges the gap. If you pay Byram what he earned *while playing with Dahlin* you should be unemployed as a GM lol 

Baseline for paying Byram should be what he did away from Dahlin

id bridge him if possible 

Edited Tuesday at 08:23 PM by Thorner

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

If Byram is better than Power on PP2, then play him there. You don't need to trade either one of these players even if one of them is supplanted on the PP unit. As almost everyone agrees, it makes a lot of sense to bring in a more rugged to the unit. That doesn't mean any of the two mentioned players have to be moved. It's time this hollow organization realize that it needs to add talent, not subtract it. 

In terms of team structure long term it's too much money on similar guys. Byram is going to want to be paid like a top pairing D man. That puts a lot of money on 3 offensive D men. You only need 2. I'd rather they spent the money on adding that defensive partner(s) or a top 6 forward. 

Again I hated the Mitts for Byram trade. It's not that I thought Mitts was all that, but it was a positional mistake imo. Strength down center is an important thing and we don't have it. So I'm not about subtracting but rather about adding the actual team needs. 

[Thorner]

16 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I think there are sound arguments for keeping Byram and Power and also for trading one of them.  I don’t know why you think we would get very little in return for either player. I think both would be sought after if the Sabres made them available.

No argument for trading Power over Byram unless it’s about the fact Power nets the way bigger return or something. Because he would because he’s the far more valuable asset 

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, Stoner said:

Incredible.

Analytics says the Sabres have so many amaaaaazing players. Yet all they do is lose, year after year. It's all Dahlin has done for seven (?) years.

Does this not have to be taken into account? Does "season effect" get considered? Because when the seasons are new, when they're slipping away, all I see is suckitude. You got some goals and assists? A notable goals for against projected 60 5 on 5? Wonderful. You don't know how to play winning hockey.

How anyone can be married to any player on the roster? Bowen ***** Byram? Who cares.

Dude you know I sail this ship with you but you need to pick the right guys. Some are interchangeable and some aren’t: Dahlin is in the Eichel Reinhart mold of very capably being one of THE guys on a perennial cup winner 

[ska-T Palmtown]

The thing that has stuck out to me the most in the very good games of the 4 Nations tourney ... how effing good the forward groups are at playing defense.

The US PK and 6v5 against Canada were freeze frame CLINICS on how to aggressively defend while maintaining positional accountability. 

Whether at even strength, PK, or the dreaded extra attacker, Buffalo's forwards seems to consistently chase the puck too much and pick the worst times to do it. 

I have a very strong suspicion that the Sabres could acquire the much desired two "shut down D" and unless our forwards learn their GD d-zone responsibilities, the overall team D would not improve that much. Teams have learned if they overload the Sabres down low, (pick a forward, they all do it) will leave the zone too early or stay too high and they will eventually find a way to force Power (or any other whipping boy) to try to cover two players at once. 

The biggest thing a defender had to do in front on the net is tie up the other player's stick. It is that simple. Forget all this old-school BS about clearing the front and "put him on his arse", sure those are nice - but control the stick, control the player. If a defender has to keep their eyes on TWO players on opposite sides of their body, they are at such a disadvantage in terms of how to do that. If the opposing team has three players in front of the net and the Sabres only have two either a forward has completely blown their assignment or they are "strategically" trying to cut off a pass (zone concepts and "overloading" the puck in the d-zone seem to be quite in right now).

I just don't think it is fair to evaluate any of Sabres D-men completely on this team with such a poor defensive set of forwards.

[shrader]

57 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Byram isn't the problem, lol. 

He's not.  He's a very valuable commodity right now and I'm not against moving him.  It would have to be for a very key piece moving forward though.  Those Pettersson rumors earlier, that's the kind of package we need to be talking about at this point if Byram is involved, something that will catch a lot of attention.

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

The thing that has stuck out to me the most in the very good games of the 4 Nations tourney ... how effing good the forward groups are at playing defense.

The US PK and 6v5 against Canada were freeze frame CLINICS on how to aggressively defend while maintaining positional accountability. 

Whether at even strength, PK, or the dreaded extra attacker, Buffalo's forwards seems to consistently chase the puck too much and pick the worst times to do it. 

I have a very strong suspicion that the Sabres could acquire the much desired two "shut down D" and unless our forwards learn their GD d-zone responsibilities, the overall team D would not improve that much. Teams have learned if they overload the Sabres down low, (pick a forward, they all do it) will leave the zone too early or stay too high and they will eventually find a way to force Power (or any other whipping boy) to try to cover two players at once. 

The biggest thing a defender had to do in front on the net is tie up the other player's stick. It is that simple. Forget all this old-school BS about clearing the front and "put him on his arse", sure those are nice - but control the stick, control the player. If a defender has to keep their eyes on TWO players on opposite sides of their body, they are at such a disadvantage in terms of how to do that. If the opposing team has three players in front of the net and the Sabres only have two either a forward has completely blown their assignment or they are "strategically" trying to cut off a pass (zone concepts and "overloading" the puck in the d-zone seem to be quite in right now).

I just don't think it is fair to evaluate any of Sabres D-men completely on this team with such a poor defensive set of forwards.

Been harping on this for ages whenever someone says “we are loaded on talent, what’s missing?” 

[ska-T Palmtown]

Just now, Thorner said:

Been harping on this for ages whenever someone says “we are loaded on talent, what’s missing?” 

Situational awareness? It does seem like some of the Sabres' players might not have "it" in the hockey IQ department?

[Stoner]

7 minutes ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

Situational awareness? It does seem like some of the Sabres' players might not have "it" in the hockey IQ department?

Hello. The whole lot of 'em, I say.

[ska-T Palmtown]

Just now, Stoner said:

Hello. The whole lot of 'em, I say.

lol - fair. Although, I think they probably have enough players with "enough" hockey IQ, but those players tend to rely on the high end guys for cues and to be the first to react to something. I think the Sabres don't have enough high end, so the simply adequate folks get exposed more regularly.

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

Situational awareness? It does seem like some of the Sabres' players might not have "it" in the hockey IQ department?

Oftentimes defensive talent gets developed and rounded out at the nhl level: these guys are generally the offensive superstars in junior etc 

so there’s always been merit to that idea that these guys would see their defensive acumen develop on the big club

the reason why it’s functional for a player to learn on the job in this way is because a team will generally carefully integrate young players to a stable, veteran environment 

another course of action a team may take is to instead simply flood and overwhelm the roster with these types of players, every year, and claim they are all learning to play defence at once. This strategy works well because it perpetuates it’s own reality moving forward allowing for maximum job security 

Pros/cons

3 minutes ago, Stoner said:

Hello. The whole lot of 'em, I say.

Exactly 

Edited Tuesday at 08:49 PM by Thorner