HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

It's the Pens... Like We Expected Something Else?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-06-2013, 11:54 AM
  #126
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
Ugly:

This board is going to be unbearable this year. A lot of people thinking with their hearts, and not their heads.
I can take losing, what I canīt take is Porter getting more minutes then Grigs, Girgs, Larsson, Vanek ect...

Sure he works hard but he has no place on this roster moving forward.

heartsabres* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 12:08 PM
  #127
Dubi Doo
Registered User
 
Dubi Doo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,380
vCash: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresfuture View Post
I can take losing, what I canīt take is Porter getting more minutes then Grigs, Girgs, Larsson, Vanek ect...

Sure he works hard but he has no place on this roster moving forward.
I'm not talking about what's happening right now. I'm talking about everyone crapping on the future success of this team based on 3 games. I've read multiple posts saying this team is 4+ years away from being average.

Dubi Doo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 12:19 PM
  #128
Armond White
Go Sabres!
 
Armond White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oakland Zoo
Country: United States
Posts: 10,291
vCash: 500
Stafford was awful tonight, as were most of the veterans. Only players that stood out for me were Larsson, Girgensons, Pysyk and Enroth. I've come to accept Kevin Porter as the guy on the team that exists to make sure that the tank succeeds.

Armond White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 12:26 PM
  #129
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armond White View Post
Stafford was awful tonight, as were most of the veterans. Only players that stood out for me were Larsson, Girgensons, Pysyk and Enroth. I've come to accept Kevin Porter as the guy on the team that exists to make sure that the tank succeeds.
If Rolston wants effort then he should put Grigs back in the Q and call up Matt Freaking Ellis

heartsabres* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 12:51 PM
  #130
1972
Registered User
 
1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
I'm not talking about what's happening right now. I'm talking about everyone crapping on the future success of this team based on 3 games. I've read multiple posts saying this team is 4+ years away from being average.
4 seasons is not along time considering this is only year two of the rebuild. Find me a team that was in our position and became a threat in the league in less than 4 seasons. You can say Montreal but the only reason they were so bad was because injuries, you could saw Ottawa but they also had a franchise center and defenseman already in place.

Also, everyone just thinks its a given that we will win because we have a lot of quality prospects but the fact of the matter is that so many other teams have just as good of prospects and they have young game breakers, look at a team like Tampa for example, they have the depth of our pool and have a young 50 scorer along with Drouin and Hedman. I would take any 3 of those guys over anyone in our organization.

What veterans are going to show these young players how to be pros? Having young guys learn from guys who have lost year after year isn't a recipe for suscess is it? Its like learning how to become wealthy from someone who is broke. If your organization doesn't have a winning culture you need to create one which is going to take time.

I think it would be more moronic to think that we are going to be good in the next couple years with our best two players with one foot out the door and Myers not really showing any signs of being a game changer.

And by "average" I mean a team that can win a few games in the playoffs.

Optimism is nice but I am just calling it the way I see it, the NHL is a tough league to win in and young players take years to develop consistency.


Last edited by 1972: 10-06-2013 at 01:27 PM.
1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 12:57 PM
  #131
Stop Winnin
TANK ON BOYS
 
Stop Winnin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 8,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
I'm not talking about what's happening right now. I'm talking about everyone crapping on the future success of this team based on 3 games. I've read multiple posts saying this team is 4+ years away from being average.
It's not ridiculous at all. Especially considering that Miller and Vanek will not be on this team next year. We're going to be an incredibly inexperienced team with average NHL'ers.

We'll probably be in the McDavid sweepstakes.

Stop Winnin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 01:09 PM
  #132
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
I'm not talking about what's happening right now. I'm talking about everyone crapping on the future success of this team based on 3 games. I've read multiple posts saying this team is 4+ years away from being average.
I'm a little concerned about how disorganized they look so far, but you're right. What matters is not how they look right now, but how they look in March and April. I wish it was just rookies and prospects that look lost, but it's Hodgson, Ennis, Stafford, Ott, and Vanek sometimes. I'm hesitant to knock any of the D-men, other than McBain's predictable poor defense, due to the mess in front of them.

Passing is terrible, and none of the FWs seem to have a plan even if they do collect a pass. Other teams are one-touching around Buffalo, but Sabres think twice and get checked/dispossessed. I'm hoping for now that they aren't on top of Rolston's scheme and need more time (and more talent, eventually).

Sabresfansince1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 02:05 PM
  #133
dotcommunism
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royisgone View Post
I don't ever recall it being this bad. These games are unwatachable for me.
It's been three games. Are you seriously saying you don't remember them looking this bad over a three game stretch before?

Three games

dotcommunism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 02:20 PM
  #134
Dubi Doo
Registered User
 
Dubi Doo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,380
vCash: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy Regier View Post
4 seasons is not along time considering this is only year two of the rebuild. Find me a team that was in our position and became a threat in the league in less than 4 seasons. You can say Montreal but the only reason they were so bad was because injuries, you could saw Ottawa but they also had a franchise center and defenseman already in place.

Also, everyone just thinks its a given that we will win because we have a lot of quality prospects but the fact of the matter is that so many other teams have just as good of prospects and they have young game breakers, look at a team like Tampa for example, they have the depth of our pool and have a young 50 scorer along with Drouin and Hedman. I would take any 3 of those guys over anyone in our organization.

What veterans are going to show these young players how to be pros? Having young guys learn from guys who have lost year after year isn't a recipe for suscess is it? Its like learning how to become wealthy from someone who is broke. If your organization doesn't have a winning culture you need to create one which is going to take time.

I think it would be more moronic to think that we are going to be good in the next couple years with our best two players with one foot out the door and Myers not really showing any signs of being a game changer.

And by "average" I mean a team that can win a few games in the playoffs.

Optimism is nice but I am just calling it the way I see it, the NHL is a tough league to win in and young players take years to develop consistency.
Chicago went from 13th in the conference in 2006-2007 to 4th in the conference 2008-2009 to winning the cup in 2009-2010. Pittsburgh went from last in the conference in 2005-2006 to second in the conference by 2007-2008. LA went from last in the conference In 2008-2009 to winning the cup in 2011-2012. Boston went from 13th in the conference in 2006-2007 to winning the conference in 2008-2009. Shall I keep going?

It's called a rebuild for a reason, and we have to be patient. It sucks monkey balls. I know. I want to pull my hair out while watching these games, but I know what Buffalo has in the pipelines.

And let's not down play our prospect pool. We may have the deepest pool in the league. We need more scoring potential, but I'm sure that will be addressed when we trade Vanek and Miller. I also believe those two will bring us a veteran top-6 winger.

I would love to trade Vanek for Simmonds. Not sure what would need to be added either way, but it would give us toughness and scoring on the wings. Which is desperately needed.

Dubi Doo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 02:23 PM
  #135
1972
Registered User
 
1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,010
vCash: 500
?....

1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 02:45 PM
  #136
1972
Registered User
 
1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
Chicago went from 13th in the conference in 2006-2007 to 4th in the conference 2008-2009 to winning the cup in 2009-2010. Pittsburgh went from last in the conference in 2005-2006 to second in the conference by 2007-2008. LA went from last in the conference In 2008-2009 to winning the cup in 2011-2012. Boston went from 13th in the conference in 2006-2007 to winning the conference in 2008-2009. Shall I keep going?

It's called a rebuild for a reason, and we have to be patient. It sucks monkey balls. I know. I want to pull my hair out while watching these games, but I know what Buffalo has in the pipelines.

And let's not down play our prospect pool. We may have the deepest pool in the league. We need more scoring potential, but I'm sure that will be addressed when we trade Vanek and Miller. I also believe those two will bring us a veteran top-6 winger.

I would love to trade Vanek for Simmonds. Not sure what would need to be added either way, but it would give us toughness and scoring on the wings. Which is desperately needed.
I would do that trade too. And I do agree with what you said about our prospect pool.

here is the thing though, most of those teams that you used as an example were over a four year rebuild.

Ill will start with Pittsburgh even though it shouldn't apply since they landed two franchise changers in the draft that would turn any franchise around, once things got sorted out in that franchise and they actually commited to a rebuild they started in 2003 with MAF and never made the playoffs until 2007 so that is 3 seasons which is very good but again they got Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin...

Chicago's rebuild started in 2004 and never made the playoffs until 2009, so that would be 5 years. The start of their rebuild is actually pretty similar to where we are at now.

Again with Los Angelas added key pieces like Dustin Brown (2003), Anze Kopitar (2005) Jonathan Quick (2005) and finally made the playoffs in 2010 which is well over 4 years

Ill give you Boston because they were very good before the lockout and brutal after and rebuilt in only a couple years.

Saying a team rebuilt in a year or two because they went from 13th to 5th for example is foolish and I think you know that, Its like saying the Islanders rebuilt in one year because they went from a bottom feeder to almost beating Pittsburgh in the first round when the reality is that the rebuild started in 2008 when they had alot of picks and it snowballed from there. A rebuild shouldn't take too long once you get those building blocks in place (Kane, Toews, Tavares ect..) but they usually start a year or two before teams get those players.

We could go from 22nd to 30th to 30th to 20th to 5th, that's usually how a rebuild works

1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 04:33 PM
  #137
static80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy Regier View Post
I would do that trade too. And I do agree with what you said about our prospect pool.

here is the thing though, most of those teams that you used as an example were over a four year rebuild.

Ill will start with Pittsburgh even though it shouldn't apply since they landed two franchise changers in the draft that would turn any franchise around, once things got sorted out in that franchise and they actually commited to a rebuild they started in 2003 with MAF and never made the playoffs until 2007 so that is 3 seasons which is very good but again they got Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin...

Chicago's rebuild started in 2004 and never made the playoffs until 2009, so that would be 5 years. The start of their rebuild is actually pretty similar to where we are at now.

Again with Los Angelas added key pieces like Dustin Brown (2003), Anze Kopitar (2005) Jonathan Quick (2005) and finally made the playoffs in 2010 which is well over 4 years

Ill give you Boston because they were very good before the lockout and brutal after and rebuilt in only a couple years.

Saying a team rebuilt in a year or two because they went from 13th to 5th for example is foolish and I think you know that, Its like saying the Islanders rebuilt in one year because they went from a bottom feeder to almost beating Pittsburgh in the first round when the reality is that the rebuild started in 2008 when they had alot of picks and it snowballed from there. A rebuild shouldn't take too long once you get those building blocks in place (Kane, Toews, Tavares ect..) but they usually start a year or two before teams get those players.

We could go from 22nd to 30th to 30th to 20th to 5th, that's usually how a rebuild works
Excellent read here, and spot on IMO.

static80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 05:22 PM
  #138
Dubi Doo
Registered User
 
Dubi Doo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,380
vCash: 2225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy Regier View Post
I would do that trade too. And I do agree with what you said about our prospect pool.

here is the thing though, most of those teams that you used as an example were over a four year rebuild.

Ill will start with Pittsburgh even though it shouldn't apply since they landed two franchise changers in the draft that would turn any franchise around, once things got sorted out in that franchise and they actually commited to a rebuild they started in 2003 with MAF and never made the playoffs until 2007 so that is 3 seasons which is very good but again they got Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin...

Chicago's rebuild started in 2004 and never made the playoffs until 2009, so that would be 5 years. The start of their rebuild is actually pretty similar to where we are at now.

Again with Los Angelas added key pieces like Dustin Brown (2003), Anze Kopitar (2005) Jonathan Quick (2005) and finally made the playoffs in 2010 which is well over 4 years

Ill give you Boston because they were very good before the lockout and brutal after and rebuilt in only a couple years.

Saying a team rebuilt in a year or two because they went from 13th to 5th for example is foolish and I think you know that, Its like saying the Islanders rebuilt in one year because they went from a bottom feeder to almost beating Pittsburgh in the first round when the reality is that the rebuild started in 2008 when they had alot of picks and it snowballed from there. A rebuild shouldn't take too long once you get those building blocks in place (Kane, Toews, Tavares ect..) but they usually start a year or two before teams get those players.

We could go from 22nd to 30th to 30th to 20th to 5th, that's usually how a rebuild works
The key word was 'average'. If the team isn't average in 4 years (+), then something went terribly wrong. I think in 4 years they'll be a playoff team on the cusp of becoming a contender (If all goes right). I think a cup contender is likely 5 years away, but making the playoffs is likely 2 years away.

Considering the rebuild started last season...4 years from now we'll be in year 5. Pittsburgh made the playoffs in 2001-2002, and then didn't make it again until 2006-2007. Take out the lock out, and they became a playoff contender in 4 years. They became a contender in 5 years.

Chicago officially bottomed out in 2003-2004. The year prior they were 9th in the conference, and the year prior to that they made the playoffs. They were 4th in the conference by 2008-2009. Take out the lock out year, and it took them 5 years from start to finish to make the playoffs, and 6 years to become a contender.

Again...we're in year two. So if it takes an additional 4 years just to be average, then fire Regier and start from scratch, because all the other rebuilds I'm looking at took around 4-5 years from bottoming out to building a legit playoff team on the cusp of contending. Hell, Philly rebuilt in one season going from a playoff team in 05-06 to last in the conference in 06-07 and back in the playoffs in 07-08.

Fortunately for us Regier has been stock piling 1st and 2nd round picks giving us a deep prospect pool much quicker than it took Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc... We don't need to bottom out an additional year or two to build a solid foundation. It's already built. We've also had the luxury of having some valuable assets to trade (Pommers, Regher, Sekera, Roy, Leopold, Goose, and now Vanek and Miller). This will only speed up the process.

Finally...our prospects are valuable assets. We have one of the deepest pools in the league. Surely we can trade our surplus of youth for some proven NHL players when the time's right. Like Minnesota trading for Pominville.

Not sure why you and so many other posters are adding multiple years to the time table based on three games. It's baffling to me, but what ever. We'll see where we're at in 4 years.

And to nail the point on the head, the Buffalo Sabres made the playoffs in 2000-2001. They didn't make it again until 05-06. Which happened to be the most complete team the Sabres have ever assembled. They had one top-5 pick. Exclude the lock out year, and it took Regier 4 years to build a legit contender.


Last edited by Dubi Doo: 10-06-2013 at 05:43 PM.
Dubi Doo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 05:59 PM
  #139
French Connection
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
Chicago went from 13th in the conference in 2006-2007 to 4th in the conference 2008-2009 to winning the cup in 2009-2010. Pittsburgh went from last in the conference in 2005-2006 to second in the conference by 2007-2008. LA went from last in the conference In 2008-2009 to winning the cup in 2011-2012. Boston went from 13th in the conference in 2006-2007 to winning the conference in 2008-2009. Shall I keep going?

It's called a rebuild for a reason, and we have to be patient. It sucks monkey balls. I know. I want to pull my hair out while watching these games, but I know what Buffalo has in the pipelines.

And let's not down play our prospect pool. We may have the deepest pool in the league. We need more scoring potential, but I'm sure that will be addressed when we trade Vanek and Miller. I also believe those two will bring us a veteran top-6 winger.

I would love to trade Vanek for Simmonds. Not sure what would need to be added either way, but it would give us toughness and scoring on the wings. Which is desperately needed.
What is in the prospect pool as I don't see much. A true #1 is required and we do not even come close and on top of that Darcy seems to forget that his first few picks should be forwards and not D.

French Connection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 06:12 PM
  #140
Zman5778
Registered User
 
Zman5778's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: York, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,646
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Zman5778 Send a message via MSN to Zman5778 Send a message via Yahoo to Zman5778
Quote:
Originally Posted by French Connection View Post
What is in the prospect pool as I don't see much. A true #1 is required and we do not even come close
Then you must be assuming worst case scenarios everywhere.

We have one of, if not the, deepest stable of defensive prospects around. Even ignoring Myers.....Risto, Zadorov, Pysyk, McCabe are all pretty much locks to be top 4 defensemen in the NHL. At WORST, Zads and McCabe are really good 5th defensemen.

Offensively, Armia has the CEILING of a first-line winger. Will he get there? Who knows. He has the release of one, and the shot of one....it's up to him now.

Grigorenko most certainly has the ceiling of a #1 center. Every game he makes that one or two plays where it's blatantly obvious that his offensive game is unlike anything we've seen since LaLa. But again, it's up to him. He needs to work on getting stronger, more consistent and showing more fight. He might be the most boom-or-bust prospect in the NHL right now.

Girgensons might not be a #1 center, but if everything goes right, he MIGHT be a #1 winger in the Dustin Brown mold -- a do everything, gritty winger with some snipe to his game. At worst, he's likely an elite-level third line winger.

Compher and Hurley are a bit young to project right now, but everything I'm ready says that Compher is certainly a top 6 prospect. Hurley certainly has skill.

The prospects are there.....granted, we'd need most to hit their ceilings....but the talent is there.

Zman5778 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 06:39 PM
  #141
Takeo
Registered User
 
Takeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,208
vCash: 500
How does Regier justify going into a season with his best player and goaltender, essentially the core of the roster, having one step each out the door? How is this stabilizing or productive for a young roster?

Takeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 07:01 PM
  #142
tsujimoto74
Registered User
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stop Winnin View Post
It's not ridiculous at all. Especially considering that Miller and Vanek will not be on this team next year. We're going to be an incredibly inexperienced team with average NHL'ers.

We'll probably be in the McDavid sweepstakes.
I can't say I disagree. A lot of people seem to think being young means we can only get better, but in spite of how young (and bad) we already are, I think it's very likely that the only way to go when Van and Miller leave is down. I don't see any scenario where our prospects can step in to fill holes that big. Grigorenko or Armia, I guess, could break out and put up some points, but there's still no way either replaces Vanek *next year*. And I think Ullmark is the brightest spot in our goalie pool, but he's probably another year or two away after this season passes.

Gonna be a long road, I think. And I do think we'll end up getting at least one of those top 3-5 picks a lot of us have been clamoring for.

tsujimoto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 07:10 PM
  #143
wunderpanda
Sabretage
 
wunderpanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotland View Post
Need more Swedes?

Can anyone let me know what the actual lines were, I can see Grigs was on the 4th but who was shifted and to where? Why only one faceoff for Larsson?
http://www.leftwinglock.com/line-com...F&gametype=1#A

Looks like he was stuck with McCormick

wunderpanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 07:10 PM
  #144
dotcommunism
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post
How does Regier justify going into a season with his best player and goaltender, essentially the core of the roster, having one step each out the door? How is this stabilizing or productive for a young roster?
Because he, like, wants to get good value for them when he trades them and the cap crunch didn't exactly help as far as the trade market's concerned

dotcommunism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 07:14 PM
  #145
Silence Of The Plams
All these feels
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dotcommunism View Post
Because he, like, wants to get good value for them when he trades them and the cap crunch didn't exactly help as far as the trade market's concerned
Feeling this way too. Good value and more would definitely help us out

Silence Of The Plams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2013, 09:00 PM
  #146
Layne Staley
The Future
 
Layne Staley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,411
vCash: 500
If this how bad we are WITH Vanek and Miller how bad will we be without them ? How is losing 60 games a season and having virtually no vets to help take some pressure off them kids going to help them develop? Just icing a roster of all young guys is a recipe for disaster and won't help them develop better. Too bad Darcy did jack **** this off season and let quality players sign elsewhere while he depended on his mediocre roster to somehow be competitive and/or fun to watch. This season isn't going to even be a good one for a developmental aspect of it if we are getting outplayed/crushed every game. Guys like Grigs are looking lost out there. Porter should not even be on the Sabres, he is not NHL caliber. Even if Darcy signed even two or three hi energy/character veterans it would have helped tremendously with our rooks/young guys. Instead our team is full of rookies/young guys, a bunch of AHL scrubs and then a handful of average NHLers and then our 3 legit elite players, Vanek, Miller and Ehrhoff. If we are going to trade Miller and Vanek we might as well trade Ehrhoff too.

I'm not expecting to be a contender or even win a playoff round but atleast show some heart/willingness to win and be competitive. Make an actual ****ing attempt to earn a playoff spot instead of icing a garbage team which is making us a laughingstock of the NHL. Pegula is showing more and more every day that he is the NHL equivalent of Daniel Snyder, only much much worse. We were so much better off with Tom Golisano

Layne Staley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2013, 08:25 AM
  #147
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by msm29 View Post
My apologies if this comes across as the drunk ramblings of a guy coming home from the bar at 4:30 a.m.
The worst thing about this season so far? This team has no identity.

It's been an issue since 06-07. Most of the Cup contenders can be pigeon-holed into one group (PIT/CHI-offensive, BOS-physical, LA/STL-defensive, etc.). What are the Sabres, or what are they trying to be?

That's the biggest problem for me right now. If the young kids on this team (Grigs, Girgs, etc) are the ones expected to lead this franchise to a Cup, Rolston and co. need to decide what type of team they want. If you want to be a physical team, demand that of the young players now. Want to play defense? Make them make a commitment.

This team doesn't hit, doesn't prevent goals and doesn't get chances. I'm no expert, but those three things feel like the most basic styles of play. Where exactly is this thing headed?
If these are indeed drunk ramblings, they are WAY more coherent than a lot of posts I read here (including many of mine).

brian_griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2013, 09:03 AM
  #148
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,488
vCash: 500
I am not over-reacting after 3 games. I expect BUF this season to score 210-230 goals (higher end if Vanek held to deadline, lower end if not), and give up 250-260 goals. I think they'll win ~1/3 their games, lose ~half in regulation, and lose ~1/6 in overtime/shootout. So something like 27-41-14 = 68pts. I'd put my 95th confidence interval at 70 +/-10 pts.

They've had lights-out goaltending, and have only given up 2.33GA/Gm against 3 playoff teams. We know their offense was going to be, well offensive. [Disclaimer: I only saw the nearly-forecheck-free DET game.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresfuture View Post
They are not the reason why the team loses but what about the players, draft pics and or prospects we would have in place of them? Perhaps we would have a center on this team that could actually do something.

Sabres with Enroth in net + players for Miller> Sabres with Miller(IMO of course)
Maybe not this year, but for future, certainly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
I can't say I disagree. A lot of people seem to think being young means we can only get better, but in spite of how young (and bad) we already are, I think it's very likely that the only way to go when Van and Miller leave is down. I don't see any scenario where our prospects can step in to fill holes that big. Grigorenko or Armia, I guess, could break out and put up some points, but there's still no way either replaces Vanek *next year*. And I think Ullmark is the brightest spot in our goalie pool, but he's probably another year or two away after this season passes.

Gonna be a long road, I think. And I do think we'll end up getting at least one of those top 3-5 picks a lot of us have been clamoring for.
While this is true, I'm equally concerned about the loss of Vanek & Miller from a Vet leader perspective. At the NHL level, I wouldn't be surprised if nearly every player has "captained" or "led" a team at some point in their youth, incuding most the Sabres. But, what this current team needs (especially in the absence of Vanek and Miller) are a couple talents on offense that are as old or a little older than the core they are building around (CoHo, Myers, Weber, and then the youngsters). BUF will have to overpay for a couple of those players, but I agree with the other poster who said Wayne Simmonds would be ideal: great contract, good production, 25yo, and Philly in Cap trouble.

I want every personnel move done this year to be focused on the roster two years out.
I also want all this year's game plans and player development plans focused on the roster two years out.

brian_griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2013, 10:10 AM
  #149
TragicallySabres
Registered User
 
TragicallySabres's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Buffalo
Posts: 57
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresfuture View Post
I have to respectfully disagree. I think if we end up top 3 it is the perfect draft to trade down or out of. If we are first overall why not explore the options of trading for NHL ready prospects? I hate to pigeon hole the sabres into thinking the 1st overall pick is Reinhart or bust. Perhaps Edmonton would be willing to trade one of Hall, RNH, Eberle or Yakapov for the Ekblad(and what ever to even out) if that is an option.

Trade is an example....try not to look so much into it.
I see what you're saying, and if such a scenario was possible, I suppose it could be worth looking into. I didn't mean to come across as Reinhart or bust, I was just saying that if we ended up drafting high enough, say 1st overall, and Ekblad was slotted to go there, I'd rather go offense as it seems to be our need. Kind of like how many had Seth Jones going 1st overall, but he slipped to 4th with so many teams going offense instead (that's just a mild comparison, not trying to compare any players).

TragicallySabres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2013, 11:02 AM
  #150
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TragicallySabres View Post
I see what you're saying, and if such a scenario was possible, I suppose it could be worth looking into. I didn't mean to come across as Reinhart or bust, I was just saying that if we ended up drafting high enough, say 1st overall, and Ekblad was slotted to go there, I'd rather go offense as it seems to be our need. Kind of like how many had Seth Jones going 1st overall, but he slipped to 4th with so many teams going offense instead (that's just a mild comparison, not trying to compare any players).
Good analysis. I think what ever we do, though, don't trade out of the better player to get the more NHL-ready guy. Patience rewards. Best offensive guy you can get. I think a guy like Nylander would be available at 3 and would be perfect to give us a legitimate top line winger.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. Đ2014 All Rights Reserved.