Post-Game Talk (GBU): #1 The Song Remains the Same

[Sabre Dance]

What are you even arguing anymore?

I don't know. I was lost many posts ago.

 

[ThunderD]

Ditto. His message was stale after being here for so long, but at this point he'd actually do the current roster a lot of good.

I never got why people push this idea of Ruff was here too long. He went to the Cup Finals with guys like Hasek, Peca, Zhitnik, etc. He won the President's Trophy with a completely different group in Drury, Briere, Vanek, Pomminville, Miller, etc. Some of those guys left obviously and we were already bringing in new blood with Myers, Ennis, etc for the next playoff team. Go through the tank and almost no one is here now.

Just because he is here for a long time for the fans doesn't mean he is stale to the players. If he was coach now how many guys on this team would've heard his message from the 2010 team that won the division?

 

[ThunderD]

ROR should obviously be captain, whether he is Drury level or not. why is Gionta still captain? Why are we the only team with an undersized aging 4th liner as our captain? besides of course for all the cliches constantly churned out by the media about how GREAT and wonderful he will be for all our young players. How much worse could this team and its young players have possibly have been since we've signed Gionta? and even better he isn't ready to retire...so maybe we will get him for 3 more years


At 37 with deal expiring next year, Gionta says he has no plans for retirement
http://buffalonews.com/2016/04/10/gionta/

I always thought that Gionta would play this last year, then it would hold the C for Eichel who would be more worthy after a good sophomore year. That may not hold true if the injury affects him. As well, Eichel never won anything in the NHL so clearly he is a piss-poor leader*

*denotes sarcasm

 

[joshjull]

He is no Chris Drury.

Drury won a Cup as a 3rd line center behind two Hall of Famers in Sakic and Forsberg and a core group that already had a Cup win 5 years earlier. You didn't think he was the #1 center or the driving force of their success did you? He was similar to what Roy was on our Presidents trophy team.

I'm fairly confident if ROR was a 3rd line center and had two hall of famers ahead of him. He would do just as well as Drury if not better.

 

[Paxon]

Drury won a Cup as a 3rd line center behind two Hall of Famers in Sakic and Forsberg and a core group that already had a Cup win 5 years earlier. You didn't think he was the #1 center or the driving force of their success did you? He was similar to what Roy was on our Presidents trophy team.

I'm fairly confident if ROR was a 3rd line center and had two hall of famers ahead of him. He would do just as well as Drury if not better.

But Drury won so he is a winner and ROR lost so he is a loser!!

 

[tsujimoto74]

Drury won a Cup as a 3rd line center behind two Hall of Famers in Sakic and Forsberg and a core group that already had a Cup win 5 years earlier. You didn't think he was the #1 center or the driving force of their success did you? He was similar to what Roy was on our Presidents trophy team.

I'm fairly confident if ROR was a 3rd line center and had two hall of famers ahead of him. He would do just as well as Drury if not better.

And we've come full circle to him winning with Canada again.

 

[Sabre Dance]

Drury won a Cup as a 3rd line center behind two Hall of Famers in Sakic and Forsberg and a core group that already had a Cup win 5 years earlier. You didn't think he was the #1 center or the driving force of their success did you? He was similar to what Roy was on our Presidents trophy team.

I'm fairly confident if ROR was a 3rd line center and had two hall of famers ahead of him. He would do just as well as Drury if not better.

Man Sabre fans are so sensitive.

The point wasn't that Ryan O'Reilly is a bad player because he never won. I was saying no one has won on the Sabres, basically saying they don't know how to win. Ryan O'Reilly is included in that argument because he has never had consistent team success in the NHL.

Gionta is that guy, but he is finished. It's not all about cups, I'm just talking consistent team success. Kyle Okposo may be the only top 6 player that expects to win.

 

[Aladyyn]

Sam Reinhart captained Canada to a U18 WJC gold medal. He had an "A" and was the leading scorer for a gold medal winning U20 team.

Jake McCabe captained a WJC winning US team.

Rasmus Ristolainen scored the WJC winning goal for Finland and was named the best defenseman of the tournament.

Losers.

 

[brian_griffin]

Man Sabre fans are so sensitive.

The point wasn't that Ryan O'Reilly is a bad player because he never won. I was saying no one has won on the Sabres, basically saying they don't know how to win. Ryan O'Reilly is included in that argument because he has never had consistent team success in the NHL.

Gionta is that guy, but he is finished. It's all about cups, I'm just talking consistent team success. Kyle Okposo may be the only top 6 player that expects to win.

<Recalls Boston winning their 1st Cup in 40 years, Chicago their 1st Cup in over 40 years, LA their first Cup ever (in over 40 years).>

<Considers the notion consistent team success can never germinate from within the team, with only a couple of "proven, ordained from on-high winning players".>

<Considers the notion only winners will ever keep on winning. Recalls the Canadiens, Islanders, & Oilers dynasties of the late '70s and 1980s, each supplanted by their successor. Ponders how that could have happened if the incumbent champion were such "winners"?>

<Considers Edmonton Oilers and ponders the genius of signing Lucic and Ferrence, because otherwise that roster will never learn how to win.>

<Rejects poster's premise.>

 

[Sabre Dance]

Sam Reinhart captained Canada to a U18 WJC gold medal. He had an "A" and was the leading scorer for a gold medal winning U20 team.

Jake McCabe captained a WJC winning US team.

Rasmus Ristolainen scored the WJC winning goal for Finland and was named the best defenseman of the tournament.

Losers.

NHL success? You know, their actual career that pays them.

 

[Aladyyn]

NHL success? You know, their actual career that pays them.

I guess they should have won the Cup in their first NHL season. Nice expectations...

 

[Sabre Dance]

<Recalls Boston winning their 1st Cup in 40 years, Chicago their 1st Cup in over 40 years, LA their first Cup ever (in over 40 years).>

<Considers the notion consistent team success can never germinate from within the team, with only a couple of "proven, ordained from on-high winning players".>

<Considers the notion only winners will ever keep on winning. Recalls the Canadiens, Islanders, & Oilers dynasties of the late '70s and 1980s, each supplanted by their successor. Ponders how that could have happened if the incumbent champion were such "winners"?>

<Considers Edmonton Oilers and ponders the genius of signing Lucic and Ferrence, because otherwise that roster will never learn how to win.>

<Rejects poster's premise.>

We love to have it both ways. I read all the stories about Drury putting up a picture of the cup in the locker room. How Drury new how to win.

Now it doesn't matter because we have no one that plays an important role that has won in the NHL. Now we just shrug it off like it doesn't matter.

 

[Punished ROR]

Man Sabre fans are so sensitive.

The point wasn't that Ryan O'Reilly is a bad player because he never won. I was saying no one has won on the Sabres, basically saying they don't know how to win. Ryan O'Reilly is included in that argument because he has never had consistent team success in the NHL.

Gionta is that guy, but he is finished. It's all about cups, I'm just talking consistent team success. Kyle Okposo may be the only top 6 player that expects to win.

And the point you're making is tautological: "You have to win to be a winner." Well, sure.

But what if a team's system actively hampers the players' ability to win? (Are you willing to concede this is a possibility?)

Several posters have laid out numerous, well-reasoned arguments as to why our system is ineffective and not making use of the talent we have. If you want to respond to those arguments logically, with how our roster of 'losers' is failing us, please do so. But merely pointing at players on the roster and yelling "they're not winners!" doesn't add much to the debate at hand. It is a hot take, though.

 

[Dreakon13]

Man Sabre fans are so sensitive.

The point wasn't that Ryan O'Reilly is a bad player because he never won. I was saying no one has won on the Sabres, basically saying they don't know how to win. Ryan O'Reilly is included in that argument because he has never had consistent team success in the NHL.

Gionta is that guy, but he is finished. It's all about cups, I'm just talking consistent team success. Kyle Okposo may be the only top 6 player that expects to win.

I suppose this sort of thing happens with a younger team, most players here either haven't had a chance to win anything or were dragged through "the tank". So are you suggesting that it's the losing atmosphere from the tank that poisoned guys? The fact that Murray brought in guys like Kane and ROR that don't have a cup to their name?

Most importantly, I think people are hung up on the fact you've done well enough explaining your thoughts on what might be wrong, but haven't offered your thoughts on how to fix it. Do you pay a premium and ship out ROR/Kane for a center/winger with a cup? What about Eichel or Reinhart? Do you have them sit in the press box and bring in more top 6 guys with cups so they can watch how "winners" play?

You can see why this is spiraling to kind of a ridiculous place.

 

[Sabre Dance]

I suppose this sort of thing happens with a younger team, most players here either haven't had a chance to win anything or were dragged through "the tank". So are you suggesting that it's the losing atmosphere from the tank that poisoned guys? The fact that Murray brought in guys like Kane and ROR that don't have a cup to their name?

Most importantly, I think people are hung up on the fact you've done well enough explaining your thoughts on what might be wrong, but haven't offered your thoughts on how to fix it. Do you pay a premium and ship out ROR/Kane for a center/winger with a cup? What about Eichel or Reinhart? Do you have them sit in the press box and bring in more top 6 guys with cups so they can watch how "winners" play?

You can see why this is spiraling to kind of a ridiculous place.

I didn't mean to say it's all about cups. I'm talking more about team success, which we don't have many players that have had team success.

It's not what we have, it's more what we don't have. If we could find a player to help calm our defense down, similar to what Teppo did in the mid 2000's I think it would really benefit our team. I don't know who is available, but a veteran D man who has been through the battles and still has top 4 minutes left in the tank.

Alexander Edler for example. Canucks are rebuilding. Go get him. He would calm our D and make everyone better.

 

[joshjull]

Man Sabre fans are so sensitive.

The point wasn't that Ryan O'Reilly is a bad player because he never won. I was saying no one has won on the Sabres, basically saying they don't know how to win. Ryan O'Reilly is included in that argument because he has never had consistent team success in the NHL.

Gionta is that guy, but he is finished. It's all about cups, I'm just talking consistent team success. Kyle Okposo may be the only top 6 player that expects to win.

The point is many Sabres have won. But you refuse to accept it because you keep making up new qualifiers as to what "winning" is.

Put plain, you're making no sense and look more and more ridiculous the harder you fight.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

Yeah, Jack Eichel, who has been on successful teams his whole life until last year, doesn't expect to win anymore. The one season totally jaded him.

It's a foolish argument.

 

[Sabre Dance]

The point is many Sabres have won. But you refuse to accept it because you keep making up new qualifiers as to what "winning" is.

Put plain, you're making no sense and look more and more ridiculous the harder you fight.

I've always maintained NHL success, consistent winning. Everyone else is talking about winning Midget Hockey championships as a qualifier.

 

[joshjull]

And the point you're making is tautological: "You have to win to be a winner." Well, sure.

But what if a team's system actively hampers the players' ability to win? (Are you willing to concede this is a possibility?)

Several posters have laid out numerous, well-reasoned arguments as to why our system is ineffective and not making use of the talent we have. If you want to respond to those arguments logically, with how our roster of 'losers' is failing us, please do so. But merely pointing at players on the roster and yelling "they're not winners!" doesn't add much to the debate at hand. It is a hot take, though.

I'm guessing he doesn't actually understand the specifics of those criticisms. He can't tell you how having the F3 high and between the dmen impacts the forecheck, the cycle and Montreal's ability to break out. So he can't actually argue against the criticism of it. He resorts then to the team is a "bunch of losers" as his response. That seems to be a recurring theme with many Disco defenders.

 

[Sabre Dance]

I'm guessing he doesn't actually understand the specifics of those criticisms. He can't tell you how having the F3 high and between the dmen impacts the forecheck, the cycle and Montreal's ability to break out. So he can't actually argue against the criticism of it. He resorts then to the team is a "bunch of losers" as his response. That seems to be a recurring theme with many Disco defenders.

Actually I've pointed to everything, Owner, GM, coach, and players. Some people like to pinpoint the problem like they actually know what the problem is.

I don't know what the problem is. I've got people saying it's the coach, but then say we need 2 top 4 defensemen. I mean which is it?

Every coach needs good players. Most people agree the players aren't good enough.

 

[brian_griffin]

I didn't mean to say it's all about cups. I'm talking more about team success, which we don't have many players that have had team success.

It's not what we have, it's more what we don't have. If we could find a player to help calm our defense down, similar to what Teppo did in the mid 2000's I think it would really benefit our team. I don't know who is available, but a veteran D man who has been through the battles and still has top 4 minutes left in the tank.

Alexander Edler for example. Canucks are rebuilding. Go get him. He would calm our D and make everyone better.

But Teppo Numminen's NHL career was never flush with "team winning" until he joined Buffalo.

I've always maintained NHL success, consistent winning. Everyone else is talking about winning Midget Hockey championships as a qualifier.

Your entire premise is that year-over-year changes in team performance around the league is based on the transfer between team rosters of "winners" who "know how to win" in the NHL. You reject the notion changes in team performance can come from player growth (or decline), overall talent (or lack of), roster fit/composition (or mis-fit), injuries (or lack of), in-game coaching, fit between team system & players, etc.

You persist in a Harry-Potter-like belief losing teams have seven horcruxes of "losing" which can only be found and destroyed by acquiring some "winning wizard" from another NHL team who can vanquish them.

The most credence I'll give to your tautology is a "poor locker room culture", (as intangible as that is).

I'll take dumb luck as a greater factor on year-over-year team success (or lack of) than this mythical "can only win with NHL winners" thesis.

 

[joshjull]

Actually I've pointed to everything, Owner, GM, coach, and players. Some people like to pinpoint the problem like they actually know what the problem is.

I don't know what the problem is. I've got people saying it's the coach, but then say we need 2 top 4 defensemen. I mean which is it?

Every coach needs good players. Most people agree the players aren't good enough.

You're not understanding the conversation. We are making specific criticisms of specific in game strategies, tactics and player usage. You never actually address those specific criticisms. You never say, well that specific strategy, tactic or player usage makes sense because ...... Instead we get this ridiculous argument over players not being "winners".

There are only two reasons why you wouldn't address those specific criticisms. 1) you know we're right so you try to change the topic. 2) you don't understand what's being criticized well enough to make a counter argument.

 

[Sabre Dance]

But Teppo Numminen's NHL career was never flush with "team winning" until he joined Buffalo.

Your entire premise is that year-over-year changes in team performance around the league is based on the transfer between team rosters of "winners" who "know how to win" in the NHL. You reject the notion changes in team performance can come from player growth (or decline), overall talent (or lack of), roster fit/composition (or mis-fit), injuries (or lack of), in-game coaching, fit between team system & players, etc.

You persist in a Harry-Potter-like belief losing teams have seven horcruxes of "losing" which can only be found and destroyed by acquiring some "winning wizard" from another NHL team who can vanquish them.

The most credence I'll give to your tautology is a "poor locker room culture", (as intangible as that is).

I'll take dumb luck as a greater factor on year-over-year team success (or lack of) than this mythical "can only win with NHL winners" thesis.

This is going away from what my original point was. I was commenting on Bylsma is the problem. What I was saying is how do we know, this team has never won before, even Ryan O'Reilly.

People then took that and ran with it. I don't know if Bylsma is the reason we aren't winning because they have never won. It would be a different story if Bylsma took over a winning team and they regressed.

 

[Sabre Dance]

You're not understanding the conversation. We are making specific criticisms of specific in game strategies, tactics and player usage. You never actually address those specific criticisms. You never say, well that specific strategy, tactic or player usage makes sense because ...... Instead we get this ridiculous argument over players not being "winners".

There are only two reasons why you wouldn't address those specific criticisms. 1) you know we're right so you try to change the topic. 2) you don't understand what's being criticized well enough to make a counter argument.

I don't watch the game the same way you would. I don't see strategy and tactics live during the game.

When people say Bylsma's system I don't know what they mean. All I see is if it's working or not. I have asked people critical of Bylsma to name some replacements, no one can.

 

[Steddy33]

I don't watch the game the same way you would. I don't see strategy and tactics live during the game.

When people say Bylsma's system I don't know what they mean. All I see is if it's working or not. I have asked people critical of Bylsma to name some replacements, no one can.

No one can or its completely pointless to?