JohnC

I agree with you that the roster is not good enough. I have been saying that for a long time. Where the team is located in the standings is a reflection of the talent level. Where I disagree with you is that I don't believe that our GM is over-rating his talent level. The obvious follow-up question is what do you do to address that talent deficit? Our roster has four rookies on it: (Dahlin, Mitts, Tage (technically not a rookie) and CJ Smith. That's a lot of young players getting substantial playing time on a NHL team. There are players in the pipeline. They will be more ready next year or a year later. There are many people loudly calling for trades. What I say to those calling for trades is that at this stage of the season you are not going to get meaningful help unless you are willing to give up valuable assets. What is to be gained for a marginal playoff team to make such a deal? If there is to be a Skinner caliber deal it will be done in the offseason around the draft. More players will be available in deals at that time. There is no magical solution to our struggles due to our lack of talent. The primary issue isn't the coach. It is what he has to work with. If you put things in perspective and compare where we are now compared to last year it is fair to say that we have made a major stride. Contrary to the despair exhibited by many the trajectory is up, not down. It's going to take time. Either you accept that brutal reality or you get frustrated. The course that the GM has set is sound. It's not a status quo approach as many have described it to be. It is the right approach and only smart approach to take. I strongly support it. For those voices who are mostly blaming Housley for the team's standing I say you are wrong. The issue is talent. We simply don't have enough of it at this time. Getting another coach next year will not advance our team as much as it would set us back. This constant back and forth and changing of staffs is more detrimental then helpful. We need more continuity there less instability there.

I just watched them play. If you like to watch the Islanders then watch them. You make your choice as to who to watch and I will make my own.

If you like to watch the Islanders then go watch them and enjoy the experience.

I'm not sure if you were referring to me but if you are when did I say that draft picks should never be traded? That is an outright baseless fabrication (assuming you are referring to me.) Let's be clear, I'm not against making deals. What I'm strenuously against is dealing off valuable assets for a short term and immediate gain just to potentially help this team make a wild-card playoff spot. I'm hoping that our GM can make a deal/s in the offseason when bigger deals are more likely to occur. An example of that would be the Skinner deal which has worked out wonderfully for us. I don't want to be rude but I don't appreciate your gross mischaracterization of my position. Maybe I'm inaccurately jumping to a conclusion because you are referring to another John's position?

The Sabres are probably going to be 25 or more points better than the previous year. And with the development of their young players they should be better next year. The course they are on is very sound and is working. With respect to the Islanders I have little interest in watching them. From an entertainment standpoint they are very bland and not worth watching. If you like watching them then knock yourself out. It's not a style of hockey I'm interest in.

I wouldn't mind getting another prime rookie prospect with one of our two top picks. I have been touting Jonah Williams because although he isn't the most physically imposing player he is the most technically sound player of the prospects. He's a plug and play player. I don't care where he plays on the line I consider him a worthy pick.

No I didn't. I was living out of town so I didn't watch many Sabre games. Last year, I had the hockey package. I stopped watching the games. They were unpalatable. I also was not going to renew the football package if Tyrod was going to be our starter for the following season. He was traded. So I renewed.

I don't disagree with anything you said. What I would like to add is that I think this regime would be willing to spend some extra cash to get a dependable receiver for Allen. Getting a #1 caliber receiver is difficult to acquire from the market. Recognizing that there are some good quality #2 caliber receivers and TEs out there that should help put the our young qb in a better position to succeed.

As you noted Barzal is an electrifying talent. The shame of his circumstances is that his talent is being suppressed in this robotic stifling defensive style of play. A player capable of making beautiful plays is submerged in a stifling system. The game and the fans lose out not being able to see him exhibit his special talents. I'm not criticizing anyone who prefers or is more amenable to that boss Lou style of play. I'm just not one of them, and will never be. Watching sports for me is not a life and death activity (hyperbolic point). It's about the entertainment value. When not satisfied I go to another option. Simple as that.

I did watch the whole game. If this style of game was replicated in most of the Sabre games I would not buy the Directv Hockey Central package. I wouldn't waste my time and money. That is not to say that I wouldn't root for the team but I wouldn't spend much time watching such a grinding and unentertaining product. With respect to the Buffalo Bills and the Tyrod Taylor era I didn't watch all the games because the offense was so inept it was unwatchable. On some good weathered weekends I preferred being outside instead of being stuck inside watching bad football. We simply have different preferences. I'm not saying you are wrong. What's right for you isn't right for me.

Maybe you could care less about a dreary style of play but hockey fans in other markets would not bother to watch that grinding style of play on a consistent basis. And I'm sure the people involved in selecting National and Canadian Hockey Nigh games would not select those suffocating teams to be showcased on their channels because few people would watch. If the style of play that we watched yesterday was replicated by all the hockey teams the NHL would be extinguished due to a lack of interest. You may be a purist. That's fine. For me, sports is about entertainment. If that type of game we witnessed happened with a great frequency I would not choose to watch. And I'm sure a lot of people would have the same sentiment. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong. All I'm saying is your preference is not my preference.

The Sabres are not a losing team. They are an emerging team that is getting better. They are not there yet but their near term future is bright. (My opinion.) If I had to watch that grinding style of play that was exhibited yesterday on a full time basis I would tune out. I'm not criticizing your preference for a particular style of play. That's your choice. But for me I have little interest in watching the current Islander/Lou style of play. As I said in a prior post Skinner would not sign with a team that played that tight style of play. And neither would a lot of talented free agents want to play in such a rigid system. I'm not sure Jack would want to spend his career playing such a controlled system. Sports for me is an entertainment. When it isn't I change the channel.

You and I have different tastes. I hate his brand of hockey. Sports are supposed to be entertaining. This suffocating style of play is unwatchable, at least for me. Jeff Skinner does not sign a deal with a Lou influenced team. I can guarantee you that. Few talented free agents would be interested in playing for an organization promoting such an antiquated brand of hockey. I'm very confident in saying that Tavares is relieved that he doesn't have to play for a team run by this old school tight fisted boss. If you like watching this style of play then that's your choice. If the Sabres were winning with greater frequency playing that wretched way I would tune out. I'm not saying this to be dramatic. From an entertainment standpoint it is unappealing. I would not pay a penny for a ticket to watch such a grinding style of play that shackles the talents of the players. I have little interest in garbage hockey. If you want to kill this sport then make Italian Lou the commissioner. Some people are enthralled with the stone age. I'm not one of them.

Absolutely not! You can take your Italian Lou dinosaur approach to hockey and watch robotic hockey. The problem with these rigid and soulless systems is that it kills the product and results in talented players wanting out and talented players not wanting in. If you think that Eichel would relish playing this brand of hockey you are mistaken. If he had problems with Bylsma and his structured system how do you think he would tolerate the old school Lou system? If you find this type of suffocating hockey entertaining then good for you. It's not something I would find acceptable. If it were the case I would exercise my prerogative and change the channel to watch a college game. No thank you!

The Lou Lamoriello and Trotz effect has transformed a reeling franchise with the loss of Tavares to a playoff secured team. Watching the Islanders you see a team where everyone is committed to defense first. This is a playoff style of play. The negative side to that suffocating defensive style of play is that from an entertaining standpoint it is joyless. This Islander brand of game is not comparable to Lou's Jersey Devil brand of hockey of trapping because with the Islanders there is more north/south play and less plugging the middle. I'm a Sabre fan and I like good hockey. But the reality of yesterday's game was that although the game was intense throughout there were few scoring chances. If I had to watch this style of hockey all the time I would be less enthusiastic about the sport. There is a lot of great offensive players in this league. In this style of play the creativity of the players is suppressed. I came away from this big win very conflicted about the game and the entertainment value. The reality is this is not the brand of hockey I would want to watch all the time. And I'm aware that playoff hockey is qualitatively different from regular season.

My first star would go to Ullmark for his timely fantastic saves. My next star goes to Jack. His pass to Pommer was exquisite. My third star would be shared by Larrson and his line. He stole a goal from Okposo. This line battles and battles. This was a tight checking playoff type game that didn't allow for much room for the offense. The defenders from both teams tightly checked their men when the opposition had the puck and didn't allow much space to maneuver. This was a grinding type of game that most casual fans wouldn't enjoy because of the limited scoring chances. But I consider this one of the Sabres best game of the season because they played hard from the beginning to the end. I'm not sure how much playing time Huntwick got but I thought he was very steady and efficient. He smartly plays within his limits. You have to give the Islanders credit for their consistent hard play. From an entertainment standpoint you are not getting much bang for your dollar. This is a reflection of the Lou Lamorella (sic) school of hockey. Barzal is really good.

We can go around this carousel and not come to a conclusion. Let's just let the season play out and then see where it goes. We clearly disagree on this issue and the imperative for a coaching change. My priority is increasing the talent level more than addressing the coaching issue.

If the GM retains Housley why do you think he would do so?

I'm not going to waste my prayers on you because you are irredeemable. I will apply them to less hopeless and more worthy causes.

I don't know what the GM's points expectation is but my sense is that he desires stability and continuity in an organization that has a history of turbulence and churning through staffs. In making a determination the GM is going to focus on the issues of whether the younger players are getting better and are the players collectively playing hard? I would say yes to both of these issues.

Do you believe that the GM is going to replace Housley after this season?

You are meticulous in your research. Some people are too determined to chase the bogeyman instead of looking at the facts and context. I salute you for your stellar research on this and other issues. ?

The hypothetical world usually doesn't translate to the real world. It may be useful and entertaining for the talk shows and blog world but considering our situation and his situation I see a deal happening. Anything can happen so I wouldn't be foolish to guarantee any outcome. For the sake of offering a hypothetical if a deal isn't worked out then the Sabres would move on and use his cap space for another good player.

The problem with trading Skinner and getting assets in return is that the return wouldn't be as significant as one would think. Trading off a good player to another team as a rental will not get you much in return. The "stay the course" approach that you ascribe to me doesn't mean that if a deal makes sense you shouldn't make it. It just seems to me that dealing off Skinner when we are in a playoff battle (whether we make it or not) makes little sense especially when the return isn't very great. I really don't care too much about the Sobotka issue. . He is a veteran role player who is useful as a penalty killer and taking draws in the defensive end. At this stage in his fading career he is played for defensive reasons. If I had a say I would play CJ Smith more but I'm not going to be bothered by a fringe issue. A coach makes a lot of decisions. No one is going to agree with everything he does. Some decisions work out and some don't.

Skinner's current contract has a no-trade (limited designated teams) clause. On top of that the GM has repeatedly stressed that he wants his team to experience the stress of vying for a playoff spot. He also wants his Rochester players to have the same stress experience. Whether you believe the Sabres will make the playoffs or not they are still meaningfully competing for a wild-card spot. In addition, if Skinner was traded prior to the trade deadline in the midst of a playoff run what message are you sending to your team that you take winning seriously? How do you think that Jack would respond to such a critical player being dispatched? Anything is possible but I just don't see Skinner being traded unless the contract talks get out of hand. From what I heard the parties are engaged and the talks are substantive. So I would say a trade deal for Skinner is improbable.