JohnC

We are going to come out of this draft with a very good prospect. It will take some time for development but so what? That's the normal process. Last year the GM acquired Skinner from a trade, Montour from an in-season trade and Pilut from the free agent market. If we get three to four prime time players through trades and free agency and with the improvement of our young players such as Mitts, Tage, Olofsson and Borgen this roster should be upgraded.

Could you give me a little time to go to the shoe store and buy some heavy duty steel tip work boots? Am I allowed more than one kick? I want to give each foot an opportunity to feel the exhilaration of you writhing on the ground holding your squished nuts.

I understand your point but in a certain respect I disagree with it. In hockey compared to most pro sports (football, basketball and baseball) a new coach can come to a staggering team and reinvigorate it with some personnel and structural adjustments. Make no mistake what I am saying. I'm not saying that a new coach can make a mediocre team a cup winning team but a new coach bringing in a tight playing system can elevate a team from being outside the playoffs into the playoffs. Being a cup contender is not what is expected for a new Sabre coach. What is expected is employing a system and utilizing the personnel smartly so that it can get to the stage of qualifying for the playoffs. That's not an exotic expectation. We have enough core pieces (as you pointed out) that there is enough to work with to move up the ranks. I'm not disagreeing with your point. What I am saying is that with the right coach and player additions making the playoff as a fringe qualifier is doable.

Your above response is very sharp and keen. Botterill made it clear what he found most untenable was that the same defensive mistakes were made throughout the season. There was no learning curve. The GM acknowledged that the roster didn't have sufficient secondary scorers. And the onus was on him. That issue can be addressed by bringing in more talent and further development of the youngsters. But what he was not going to accept is the repeated same defensive lapses from the same collection of players. The next coach is going to be less tolerant and more demanding. If the players can't execute a basic defensive system in their zone they won't be playing.

There are plenty of credible experienced coaches floating around that the Sabres can choose from. That's not what I'm concerned about. The onus is on the GM to bring in talent to make this a more complete team. In my mind unless a credible second line is constructed and more scoring comes from the lower lines this team will continue to falter. We have emerging young talent in Mitts, Tage and Olofsson. Mitts and Tage were in elevated rolls that they were not ready for. I consider Oloffsson already a capable second-line talent. The primary debilitating issue was about the talent level. How that chasm is filled is what I will be watching for.

Because the writer covers the Kings he should have some insight in who the organization is considering. Elliotte Friedman, who covers the league, also noted that LA is seriously considering him, as are the Sabres. According to Frieman McLellan has some relationship with the top people in the King organization. I'm not making any prediction because I just don't know. If I had to make a guess who the next coach will be, especially if McLellan goes to LA, I would put my money on Alan Vigneault, the former coach of the Rangers.

I have nothing but admiration for Skinner. Whether he was scoring prolifically or in and extended scoring drought his effort-level stayed constant. He is a feisty SOB and a tough player to play against. I'm hopeful that he will be signed. It is a good situation for him and the organization.

With respect to where any of those two picks are located it doesn't matter. I strongly believe that the other one will be dealt off for a player or be involved in a trade package where we will get a front line player. Despite the chorus of opposition from the frenzied crowd here I hope the organization keeps Housley, even if he is on a short leash next year. In my opinion we need coaching continuity instead of resorting to churning coaches when there are struggles. This is a much better team than it was last year. And hopefully that trend will continue and the upward trajectory will be even steepe next yearr. The GM has to make it a priority to add a second line center and build a credible second line to augment the productive first line. Mittelstadt is going to be a good player but he is not ready to be a second center yet. This is a young team with plenty of potential to grow. Dahlin, Olofsson, Nylander, Borgen, Pilut and Tage were all essentially rookies. They all should be better next year. Will Risto be dealt for a second line player? There were many reports that he was offered on the market this season. Although I get irritated by his dumb play I suspect that he will play better with less playing time. There are plenty of people here who have succumbed to the miasma of pessimism with this team. I'm not one of them. My recommendation is mostly stay the course. I understand why people have been frustrated and want to tear this team to shreds and go back to the drawing board. That would be a big mistake. It takes time to rebuild. This team is not in the beginning stage of the process but closer to being past the middle. If this organization has the courage to follow their plan/conviction the fans will be rewarded in the not too distant future.

Babock's wife would not stand for the relocation. You will end up having another year to continue with your haranguing of Housley. I will just remain quiet and privately snicker at your discomfort. I believe that one of the first round picks was used in the Montour deal. I'm not sure which one?

If Ed Oliver was on the board when our pick came up he would more likely be the pick. As much as there is a demand for a pass rusher at the end position it is even more challenging to find an interior pass rusher. There are few players that have that inside ability.

I'm not inclined to root against either of these teams. Let them battle it out and let the better team prevail. The aspect of this matchup that makes this an intriguing contest for me is how differently each team is built. There is no question that the Leafs are a prolific scoring team with potency coming from different lines and multiple players. The issue for them (as I see it) is are they built for the regular season where there is a lot more room for the offense to flourish at the expense of playoff hockey which is a tighter, more physical and more defensive brand of game? It seems to me that the Bruins are more suited to that tougher and more restrictive brand of play. If Toronto wins the series they will probably continue on with what they are doing. For the sake of argument what will happen if the Leafs are decisively eliminated by the Bruins in the playoffs? Will they change to a more Lou Lamorillo (sic) brand of tight fisted hockey or will they continue on with their explosive offensive style of hockey where they simply outgun the opposition?

The fundamental disagreement we have had for the past six months or so is the same. My primary thesis is that the talent level is not sufficient. We have a number of good prospects such as Mitts and Tage who simply weren't ready to play the meaningful roles that they were given. Although I understand why ROR was traded make no mistake that at least for the short term (this season) that it was a major setback for a roster that didn't have much margin for error to begin with. On the issue of Housley we won't come to an agreement. Our positions are irreconcilable. I'm not declaring him the long-term answer at a HC but the source of this team's struggles relates to its current talent base. Whether Housley is dispatched or not the solution to this team's struggles revolves around adding more talent.

Someone makes an ill-conceived point and I give a brief response in rebuttal. Isn't that how this board is supposed to work? There wasn't an extended and wasteful effort in exchanging with the poster who responded to me. If one wants to discuss the game I thought the Sabres played fairly well against a very good team. This was one of their few tighter games (over the last third of the season) in which they kept up the effort throughout the game. Even when there were some bad and damaging calls against them they didn't deflate as they usually do. To their credit they continued to push on. For much of the season there are valid reasons to criticize this team's performance. This was not one of them. That was my underlying point with my response.

If you criticize a player when he doesn't play well that is fair. When you criticize a player who did play well that is not. Jack was the best player on the ice yesterday. That was an obvious fact.

I agree with you that the Sabres got cheated out of the high sticking goal by the Preds. And the referee blew the call by blowing the whistle prior to Sheary's goal. The whistle should not have been blown on the Pred penalty because they didn't touch the puck. But in the grand scheme of things who cares? Getting a better draft position is making a positive out of a negative situation. What I liked about this game is that the Sabres played a tight game against a top echelon team that was playing for a better playoff position. As it was noted on the broadcast Jack played an exceptional game. He was the best player on the ice. I thought the difference in this game (also noted on the broadcast) is that the Pred's goalie didn't allow many rebounds. The best that happened in this game was that Skinner finally scored. To his credit all through his extended goal scoring drought he always played hard and his game didn't change. The best pass in this game was Nylander's pass to Sheary for a breakaway that wasn't converted. I like Olofsson a lot. Obviously, the GM has to make some deals to bring in more talent. What is more important is how much better will Nylander, Olofsson, Mitts and Borgen, Pilut and Tage be next year?

You are pithy.

If you can get an outside or inside pass rushing lineman why would the Bills consider an interior lineman who can't get much of a push from his position? I'm not suggesting that he won't be an immediate plug and play player but as you smartly noted the positional value doesn't rise to the level where we are drafting in the first round. Ed Oliver is the player with the attributes that we need from a highly drafted DT.

Your post is well stated and reasoned. However, I disagree with it. This was a hoax. No doubt about it. But let's put this incident in context. It was done at a time when police and community relations were at a tinder box level. It was done at a time where the inner city murder rate was escalating and seemed to be uncontrollable. Much of it due to retaliatory gang violence. The local police are struggling with a lack of the credibility from a large segment of the communitybut also national credibility. What Smallette did with his staged event is created an incident with a dangerous volatility that might not have been easily contained. There is a big difference between lighting a match in the playground and lighting a match near a gas line. I agree with your assessment that this case would have become a circus if it went to trial with the final outcome maybe resulting in a insignificant sentence. So what! Some cases are easy to bring to trial without much commotion and simple cases. On the other hand its not surprising that a high profile case can turn into a very rambunctious and loud event. Ask Martha Stewart how her trivial charge turned into a world event? Inconvenience in adjudicating shouldn't be the standard as to why someone is not tried. Although this case turned out to be a circus it should have gone to trial if the defendant wasn't willing to plead guilty and acknowledge the facts of this case. Whether the outcome would have been a conviction, non-conviction or hung jury at least the law would have been equally and rightfully applied.

If you are able to watch the playoff run it will be appreciated if you can give some summaries. You have a keen eye and an ability to give an accurate and fair representation of the play on the ice. I know it is a small sample of games in the NHL but Olofsson, Nylander, Borgen, Pilut and Tage have shown that with more development these players are NHL caliber players. If you add Mitts to this young mix that elevates the promise of the group. Without a doubt the GM has to make deals to improve the roster but there is a core of young players who in a year or two will be credible NHL players.

You are pithy.

We are not disagreeing. What I'm saying is that I'm not hung up on the individual ranking of players as much as considering the grouping of players. Without a doubt a first, second or third rated in the player in a draft is more likely to be in a separate talent category than let's say an 11-to 15 ranked players. As you well know the development of a board and the criteria under consideration varies for teams. There is no question that New England has their own emphasis of measurements that factor in intelligence and position flexibility that other teams might not emphasize. Their board is going to be much different compared to the Cowboy board.

If you draft players where they are ranked and that results in filling holes then you have succeeded. I would rather draft a player ranked nine on my board that fills a major need than draft a player ranked eight on my board that doesn't. Sticking with your board makes a lot of sense. But it should not be sacrosanct because the rankings are never precise. Religiously sticking to one's board without considering your needs never made complete sense to me because it is not unusual for the lower ranked player to turn out to be better than the higher ranked player. Let's not forget that where Josh Allen was drafted was not where he was ranked on the big board.

What's the definition of irredeemable? As long as he is happy and isn't behind the wheel just let him be.

I always thought that you behaved soberly. Now, I have to do a reassessment.

I stand corrected. Thank you. The prevailing history of mediocrity is directly related to the incompetent people who were hired.