Our impressions of the Sabres if they'd lost to a different team

by Sky Kalkman on May 5, 2011 12:31 PM EDT

Going into the Flyers series, the scouting report I heard on Philadelphia was "lots of forward depth, with both a good forecheck and ability to score, plus a surprising goalie dilemna." Coming out of the series, the conclusion was that the Sabres struggled to move the puck out of their own end and made the series close by slipping in some questionable goals. Those conclusions seem somewhat predictable given the Flyers scouting report, no?

Well, what if Buffalo had played the Caps? Or the Penguins? Or the Bruins? Or the Lightning? Those teams are similar in talent to the Flyers (or were during the regular season), but with different strengths and weaknesses. If the Sabres had taken each of them to seven games, in what ways would the team have looked good? Bad? And how do those answers differ from our reaction to the Flyers series?

I think those are important questions, because the goal next year isn't to have the best chance to beat the Flyers, it's to have the best chance to beat anyone who shows up. And if the team overreacts to raw impressions, without considering the context of those impressions, that's setting them up for bad moves.

This is a fanpost written by a member of the community, it doesn't necessarily express the views or opinions of Die by the Blade

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Honestly

I don’t know. I usually judge things by the regular season, which isn’t always the best barometric. The Sabres played really well against the Bruins this season, and have played well against Thomas his entire career, but I’m honestly not sure they could beat them in the playoffs. I would have expected to handle the Lightning, but they’ve played well. I would have been disappointed with a loss to them. The Flyers I figured were a 50-50 shot. I thought the Sabres had a decent chance to knock them off and I was right. So mild disappointment that they have not done so pretty much characterizes how I feel. I didn’t think the Sabres had any shot against the Penguins and was happy they didn’t play them. I just think they don’t match up well. I think the Sabres could have knocked off the Caps because they did match up well with them. But I would have felt the same about the Caps as I did about the Flyers.

by Philaster on May 5, 2011 1:28 PM EDT reply actions

I still contend that if we had played the Bruins in Round 1, the team would have just slightly more stake in proving themselves and getting revenge from last year, and maybe could have closed out in a way the Canadiens could not.
Then we would have gotten the Crapitals in Round 2, who obviously flopped bigtime against Tampa. So we would eventually be facing Philadelphia or Tampa in the ECF (most likely Tampa, because Philly is shitting the bed bigtime), and then our chances would be decent for an upset into the SCF. But since it didn’t happen this way, it’s all moot point. Stupid tiebreaker with MTL ended up making all the difference in matchups.

by lassathrax on May 5, 2011 4:59 PM EDT reply actions

The premise is flawed.

It assumes we lose to those other teams in 7. We might have beaten Washington in 5, beaten the Penguins in 7, or got sept by Boston. We can’t know these things for sure.

Save Jenrry Mejia!

by Ogre39666 on May 5, 2011 7:39 PM EDT reply actions

Sure, we don't know what would have happened.

Feel free to suggest what you think the most likely outcome would have been. But the important question, I think, is what our impression of the Sabres would be if they’d played a different team. What would the style of the games have looked like, and how would our conclusions about the Sabres strengths and weaknesses be different?

I’m a hockey noob, but I’ll take a shot at the Caps, as an example. They have a stud playmaker in Ovechkin, a mediocre power play, great penalty kill, don’t draw many penalties, and are generally defensively oriented. So the games might have been low scoring, with the Sabres get shut out on their PP chances, and Ovechkin being involved in the difference-making goal in a few games.

Our conclusions might be that the offense needs a kick in the pants — we need to bring in one or two guys who can score, especially on the power play. Maybe we even conclude that Vanek’s not the answer because he has two goals instead of five and that Gerbe and Ennis won’t make it in the NHL as serious offensive threats. On defense, we focus less on the failure of the defensive depth to handle an onslaught of forwards and instead focus on getting a single additional high-end defender who can handle studs like Ovechkin.

Same Sabres team, but different game flow because of the opponent. Your version?

@Sky_Kalkman

by Sky Kalkman on May 5, 2011 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Except for a few exceptions, I don't think 4-7 games should drastically alter your view of a team when you have a whole seasons worth of information and I highly doubt Darcy and Co. are judging this team solely from the 7 games they played against Philly.

But FWIW, I think we could have beaten Washington.

Save Jenrry Mejia!

by Ogre39666 on May 5, 2011 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree that 4-7 games shouldn't significantly alter our impressions.

What makes you think we would have beaten the Caps? How would those games have played out?

@Sky_Kalkman

by Sky Kalkman on May 6, 2011 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions

I think we had a decent chance to beat them

because their defense isn’t very good, Backstrom did his usual disappearing act, and Boudreau would have gotten even more out-coached than Laviolette did.

Save Jenrry Mejia!

by Ogre39666 on May 6, 2011 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions