Peyton Krebs going forward

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

What’s disingenuous is that there is no experience at the position.  Yes Kozak and Kulich have limited NHL experience, but TNT has 442 games, McLeod 292, Norris 239 and Krebs 290.  Lafferty has 343.   

We could have a spine of TNT, Norris, McLeod and Krebs of next year without utilizing Kulich or Kozak.  That’s plenty of experience.  

I’m sorry, we have the 9th best offense in the NHL.  Despite some of our forwards being mediocre or poor 2 way players, they aren’t the issue with this team.  The problems are the defense and goaltending.  I understand wanting Adams gone (I’m in that camp), but even a new GM isn’t going to delete the entire roster and start again.  Pegula isn’t going to hire someone who wants to try rebuild 4.0.  Dahlin and a top 10 offense is a good place to start building a competitive team.  Fix the defense and goaltending and create a competitive team.  Fire the coaching staff and hopefully the new staff fixes the special teams.  

You get that words have meaning, right? You can just say “disingenuous” when it doesn’t apply. Disingenuous implies and requires intent and I never said “there is no experience at the position” 

We don’t have the 9th best offence. no, 9th in goals doesn’t mean 9th best offence. Not all goals are created equal, you get that too, right? It’s not ipso facto sort the standings by goals and that’s your definitive rank of “offences”. Ridiculously simplistic, entry level analysis 

“Despite some of our forwards being poor 2 way players and our team defence being poor the forwards aren’t an issue”

🫡

Edited Monday at 05:36 PM by Thorner

[Thorner]

I’d rather have Adams as GM than you, can’t believe I said it 

[ska-T Palmtown]

15 minutes ago, Thorner said:

You get that words have meaning, right? You can just say “disingenuous” when it doesn’t apply. Disingenuous implies and requires intent and I never said “there is no experience at the position” 

We don’t have the 9th best offence. no, 9th in goals doesn’t mean 9th best offence. Not all goals are created equal, you get that too, right? It’s not ipso facto sort the standings by goals and that’s your definitive rank of “offences”. Ridiculously simplistic, entry level analysis 

“Despite some of our forwards being poor 2 way players and our team defence being poor the forwards aren’t an issue”

🫡

This is a heated exchange so I wade in with caution and with genuine interest as to what else, in hockey, defines a successful offense than goals? Or is it better to just say "we are 9th best in goals scored" and note that adding forwards that can score better than the current group need not be near the top of the priority list? 

I ask because I don't think "add more scoring" fixes the Sabre next year. *Scoring forwards* are not the issue, but as I, and many many others have lamented, *TEAM* defense should be a primary concern this offseason. I think it is ever-so-slightly above "average NHL goaltending" only because in some sample size UPL played around that level ... I have yet to see this team play good team defense consistently. 

Please note that in my world, "team defense" likely means getting a better assistant coach that can help fix whatever it is that we watch in front of the Sabres' goal.

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

This is a heated exchange so I wade in with caution and with genuine interest as to what else, in hockey, defines a successful offense than goals? Or is it better to just say "we are 9th best in goals scored" and note that adding forwards that can score better than the current group need not be near the top of the priority list? 

I ask because I don't think "add more scoring" fixes the Sabre next year. *Scoring forwards* are not the issue, but as I, and many many others have lamented, *TEAM* defense should be a primary concern this offseason. I think it is ever-so-slightly above "average NHL goaltending" only because in some sample size UPL played around that level ... I have yet to see this team play good team defense consistently. 

Please note that in my world, "team defense" likely means getting a better assistant coach that can help fix whatever it is that we watch in front of the Sabres' goal.

Can’t agree 

This is a mindset thing. Yes, we are 15th in 5 V 5 differential. I think adding everywhere is a priority 

[Thorner]

If there was a possibly of signing Marner, for example, I would focus far more energy there than on a hypothetical 2nd pairing D man

BPA. Bottom 10 team

 

Playoffs should be something we think our roster has a lock on not just a chance at 

Edited Monday at 06:11 PM by Thorner

[Thorner]

Our goal differential was 93% worse before this 7 in 8 stretch 

think about it 

[ska-T Palmtown]

2 minutes ago, Thorner said:

Can’t agree 

This is a mindset thing. Yes, we are 15th in 5 V 5 differential. I think adding everywhere is a priority 

It think it is just the nuance of it for me. Nothing in a vacuum. We are in the upper 1/3 of teams for GF. Adding someone like Nylander from Tor, with his notoriously poor defensive zone play does not make the Sabres a playoff team. 

Adding someone who scores about as many goals as someone they replace who can also play better defensively ... now they have my attention.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

It think it is just the nuance of it for me. Nothing in a vacuum. We are in the upper 1/3 of teams for GF. Adding someone like Nylander from Tor, with his notoriously poor defensive zone play does not make the Sabres a playoff team. 

Adding someone who scores about as many goals as someone they replace who can also play better defensively ... now they have my attention.

Yes it does lol 

Nylander would be one of our best players. There’s a fundamental disconnect on what we think the Buffalo Sabres are 

[ska-T Palmtown]

3 minutes ago, Thorner said:

If there was a possibly of signing Marner, for example, I would focus far more energy there than on a hypothetical 2nd pairing D man

BPA. Bottom 10 team

 

Playoffs should be something we think our roster has a lock on not just a chance at 

We are saying the same thing ... I think adding Marner or someone of his ilk would drastically improve our team defense more than finding the ideal #6 (or even #4) D-man. Not only would his spot on the ice improve d-zone coverage dramatically - one would have to assume he would help others be better.

[Thorner]

The sabres “goals for” being so high is a *product of* their goals against being bad; and vice versa 

I’m not sure enough people understand this 

It’s not football 

Hockey is a *fluid* game 

“goals for”. I do not care. Half the data. Less than half. Painfully cherry-picked.

the stat alone has zero context. All goals count for the same when that’s not a reality: it’s a necessary macro view for stat keeping purposes. It doesn’t take in account when they are being scored, the fact we are ridiculous front runners, etc etc. And, again, the biggest thing, the goals against or goals for lead to 

Edited Monday at 06:21 PM by Thorner

[ska-T Palmtown]

1 minute ago, Thorner said:

Yes it does lol 

Nylander would be one of our best players. There’s a fundamental disconnect on what we think the Buffalo Sabres are 

I think the point I am trying to make is that the Sabres are not (-15) (and as you pointed out, it was way worse before this meaningless late season tease) because they did not score enough, it is because they did such a horrendous job of preventing the other team from scoring.

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

I think the point I am trying to make is that the Sabres are not (-15) (and as you pointed out, it was way worse before this meaningless late season tease) because they did not score enough, it is because they did such a horrendous job of preventing the other team from scoring.

That may be true, but there isn’t a cap on goals for 

We aren’t so damn good offensively that any single player we could add wouldn’t be totally utilized 

We would benefit from every single goal Mcdavid added, not one would be extra  

Not one would be worth less than one JBD prevents 

BPA

[Thorner]

Win 10-9. 
 

win 

Just freaking win already 

[ska-T Palmtown]

Just now, Thorner said:

That may be true, but there isn’t a cap on goals for 

We aren’t so damn good offensively that any single player we could add wouldn’t be totally utilized 

Yeah, for sure. Now that I reconsider my own points a little ... most of the current forwards are meh to bleh with respect to their d-zone job anyway - so if you swap out a 15 goal winger for 44 goal Nylander, perhaps all you do is add 29 goals to the goal total with minimal impact on the GA number?

I just want progress in not looking like a complete clown show in their own end. It is just embarrassing to watch.

[ska-T Palmtown]

1 minute ago, Thorner said:

Win 10-9. 
 

win 

Just freaking win already 

I will be amongst the first people to faint from unfathomable joy should the Sabres ever return to the playoffs - but I gotta be honest, getting swept and utterly wasted in round 1 will not be that great of a feeling, lol. So, I am hoping (against ALL odds) that the Sabres become a better team, in all facets, next year.

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

Yeah, for sure. Now that I reconsider my own points a little ... most of the current forwards are meh to bleh with respect to their d-zone job anyway - so if you swap out a 15 goal winger for 44 goal Nylander, perhaps all you do is add 29 goals to the goal total with minimal impact on the GA number?

I just want progress in not looking like a complete clown show in their own end. It is just embarrassing to watch.

Me too but maybe Nylander scores 44 and we utilize benson to shut down the opposing team’s top guy exclusively and not even worry about offence 

- - - 

ultimately the only thing that matters is that the roster is put in a better position than, “well, it could go right.” Which is essentially what living up to playoffs being the mandate is

Edited Monday at 06:31 PM by Thorner

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

This is a heated exchange so I wade in with caution and with genuine interest as to what else, in hockey, defines a successful offense than goals? Or is it better to just say "we are 9th best in goals scored" and note that adding forwards that can score better than the current group need not be near the top of the priority list? 

I ask because I don't think "add more scoring" fixes the Sabre next year. *Scoring forwards* are not the issue, but as I, and many many others have lamented, *TEAM* defense should be a primary concern this offseason. I think it is ever-so-slightly above "average NHL goaltending" only because in some sample size UPL played around that level ... I have yet to see this team play good team defense consistently. 

Please note that in my world, "team defense" likely means getting a better assistant coach that can help fix whatever it is that we watch in front of the Sabres' goal.

I think sometimes this conversation bogs down in a weird conflation with "offence" meaning forwards and "defence" meaning defencemen.

Really it's about the differential, isn't it?

To me "offence" means "ability to score goals", plain and simple. The Sabres are 7th in goals for per game this season right now.*

One of the reasons why is because their defencemen are so good at offence: Byram, Power and Dahlin are literally 6th, 24, and 35th in points by defencemen: 4th, 14th and 16th in ES points. They are also a reason why the team is 29th in goals against.

Replace them with 3 Brent Pesces and I bet good money Peterka and Thompson and Tuch will certainly score fewer goals. The hope is they allow fewer as well. The key is finding the balance.

If Dylan Cozens (for illustration purposes) weighs down every linemate he plays with, you get better replacing him with a player who doesn't. Doesn't matter if that player does it primarily through offence or defence. he just needs to be a "plus" or even just less of a minus.

Bowen Byram is good offensively and lacking defensively. He's also +12 in a first-pairing role on a minus hockey team. Sure you can replace him with a player who's better defensively, but if that player is a -8 in the same role, he didn't actually make the team better.

EDIT: I see you guys already covered this in the time it took me to write it. 😄

***

*(Unrelated, but an interesting discovery: the Sabres were 22nd in goals for at Christmas time. They've been the league's best offence since — from 2.82 g/GP up to 3.64. Not sure what's changed, but that's over 42 games, a full half-season sample. To Thorny's point, their goals against also went up, but not nearly as much — 3.47 to 3.55; they have improved both their record and their goal differential by scoring more goals.)

Edited Monday at 06:59 PM by dudacek

[SABRES 0311]

I think Krebs could be a good 3C with Greenway on his wing. A scoring winger on the opposite wing would be ideal IMO.

[mjd1001]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

*(Unrelated, but an interesting discovery: the Sabres were 22nd in goals for at Christmas time. They've been the league's best offence since — from 2.82 g/GP up to 3.64. Not sure what's changed, but that's over 42 games, a full half-season sample)

Probably a few factors but I personally put it mostly on one thing: The availability and health of Tage and Dahlin.

[mjd1001]

2 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I think Krebs could be a good 3C with Greenway on his wing. A scoring winger on the opposite wing would be ideal IMO.

They actually have played together a handful of games last year.  I don't remember anything particular about it, but their numbers are 'in the middle' together (not good, but not bad.)

If you want to look at it even though the sample size is small, when they were linemates and on the ice they were -2 in goal differential. Krebs without Greenway was +5. Greenway without Krebs was +8.  So in that one area they were better apart, not together.  Again, small sample size, we dont' know who the other winger was, and Krebs seems to be playing differently this year than last year.

[ska-T Palmtown]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think sometimes this conversation bogs down in a weird conflation with "offence" meaning forwards and "defence" meaning defencemen.

Really it's about the differential, isn't it?

To me "offence" means "ability to score goals", plain and simple. The Sabres are 7th in goals for per game this season right now.*

One of the reasons why is because their defencemen are so good at offence: Byram, Power and Dahlin are literally 6th, 24, and 35th in points by defencemen: 4th, 14th and 16th in ES points. They are also a reason why the team is 29th in goals against.

Replace them with 3 Brent Pesces and I bet good money Peterka and Thompson and Tuch will certainly score fewer goals. The hope is they allow fewer as well. The key is finding the balance.

If Dylan Cozens (for illustration purposes) weighs down every linemate he plays with, you get better replacing him with a player who doesn't. Doesn't matter if that player does it primarily through offence or defence. he just needs to be a "plus" or even just less of a minus.

Bowen Byram is good offensively and lacking defensively. He's also +12 with first-pairing role on a minus hockey team. Sure you can replace him with a player who's better defensively, but if that player is a -8 in the same role, he didn't actually make the team better.

EDIT: I see you guys already covered this in the time it took me to write it. 😄

***

*(Unrelated, but an interesting discovery: the Sabres were 22nd in goals for at Christmas time. They've been the league's best offence since — from 2.82 g/GP up to 3.64. Not sure what's changed, but that's over 42 games, a full half-season sample)

I never mind extra insight. I work in a heavily regulated industry where ensuring everyone's concerns are heard and explored is the norm.

So much nuance is lost in a forum style chat that it is always great to have that explanation.

The Sabres have both out-scored and under-defensed the Eulers who are comfortably sitting in third in their division. The only way I would be comfortable going into next year with only an improved offense is if the concept is to still be top-10 in GF, but have such outlandishly good puck possession numbers that the other teams don't even have the puck enough to out score the Sabres. But, I don't think that is a very realistic scenario, so the top of my personal wish list is improved team defense.

[HumanSlinky39]

He's a useful player as a 4C who can occasionally move up to 3C as needed. One thing I can say about Krebs is that he gives full-effort every shift, and I very rarely notice him for negative reasons. Offensively, he's pretty limited. He'll  probably never be a 40-50 point guy, but for what we need him, he's fine being a 25-30 point guy as a 4C/3C who can agitate and disrupt the other team.

[Indabuff]

5 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Just so bizarre