Coach Discussion: Dan Bylsma

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I'm not saying I do. I'm just saying you can't fire him based on his results. And if you want to fire him based on his system, why the hell was he hired in the first place?

Murray's locked in for a while with this guy.

It's why I don't feel the need to complain about every single lineup/system issue that bugs me. There's gonna be people with 5000 posts of nothing but anti-Bylsma before he's finally fired. He just went .500 on a western Canada road trip with 2 lines and McCabe (even though he tried to break up 1 of those lines). He's going to have the full and he's going to have too strong of a roster to completely implode. We are Bylstuck until 2018.

Since I don't want to talk Bylsma, when can I start on Risto/Khulikov/Bogo's start to the season?

 

[brian_griffin]

On the game:

I watched the other feed tonight, they said it was a goal but it didn't even look like NDL touched it. Glad to see they gave it to Baptiste about the only good thing tonight.

Question to the board: On the Sabre goal, why doesn't Grant get credit for it because he was the Sabre closest to the Canuck who kicked it in? Is it because the Canuck who kicked it in never truly possessed the puck?

On systems:

Uh no, stokes, every team in the NHL doesn't run the same systems.

That you actually believe that tells everyone all we need to know about why you hold the misguided opinion you do or did.

Most of you opinions are centered around getting players with the elite physical tools, and that's the only way to glory.

Except that coaching changes mid season, along with a new system, is exactly how Chicago and LA won their first Cups. Same players, different result. How does that happen again?

Sullivan comes into Pittsburgh, implements a tempo system, and the Pens win the Cup without any major in season play acquisitions.

How'd that happen?

Systems matter and they are different.

100% agree here. All systems are not the same, and all coaches don't have universal ability to exploit or neuter other systems.

No offense, you don't know what you are talking about. There isn't some secret Bylsma system vs. the secret Babcock system. It's checkers, not chess. Every coach in the league knows what every other coach is running and they know how to run them.

As for why different coaches get different results with the same team, it usually is a new voice to respond to and a fresh set of eyes. Minnesota fired Yeo, the new coach came in and ran the exact same system, yet somehow Minneaota caught fire. It happens sometimes. It's almost never system related. Have you ever played organized sports at a high enough level where you were dealing with these types of things? It doesn't sound like it.

I call B.S. Stokes, you're smarter than that too. It is absolutely possible for a coach to mismatch system with talent.

I'd be shocked if Bylsma was fired. He's only in his second year and the team improved like 27 points in his first year. The critiques we have of him are all extensions of critiques from Pittsburgh -- they should've been baked into the hiring decision. And the team just finished three head coaches in less than three years when he came on board -- he was supposed to be the stable foundation around which young players actually learned the NHL game.

He's got to fail to meet expectations 2 years in a row to get the can. He's got until the end of next season.

It's borderline disingenuous to suggest the majority of the Sabres improvement last season didn't arise from the latent talent on the roster.

I'm not saying I do. I'm just saying you can't fire him based on his results. And if you want to fire him based on his system, why the hell was he hired in the first place?

Murray's locked in for a while with this guy.

Because a competent NHL-level coach who truly was the "student of the game" he professed he became in his year away from hockey would better match system with available talent.

Which has a higher probability of maintaining puck possession ~115' from a team's own goal line to the opponent's blue line?
(a.) a system where the forwards leave the D-zone early, the D-men skate 20-30 feet, then attempt 60-foot stretch passes to the opponents half of the neutral zone? versus
(b.) a system of puck support beginning in the D-zone at the faceoff dot with 5-6 crisp passes over the 90 remaining feet, passes every 2-3 strides (10-15') between players staggered 12-15' apart.

==========
Still hoping Murray can somehow get another upgrade at D, either hand.

 

[Jame]

I'm not saying I do. I'm just saying you can't fire him based on his results. And if you want to fire him based on his system, why the hell was he hired in the first place?

Murray's locked in for a while with this guy.

With an extension, Murray can make a change if he doesn't like the results of the system.

 

[Icicle]

We play a 1-1-3 with our counter-attack being dump and chase. It is probably one of the most embarrassing systems I've ever seen.

Bylsma should know better than this. Managing the lines like its lacrosse on the overtime does not make up for this abysmal game planning. No group of players are going to succeed doing this crap.

 

[Paxon]

I'm pretty tired of hearing about system. Everyone in the NHL runs the same things. There isn't some magic formula. If you want to whine about Bylsma, whine about how he rides his players into the ground so they aren't useful at the end of the game/season.

Simply not true. Any system an NHL coach runs will be familiar to players as they've seen it all, but teams very clearly do not run the same systems. The Sabres are not aggressive enough in many areas by design.

 

[Jame]

I hope we fire Bylsma right after Eichel and Kane return, then we can attribute an improved Corsi to the coaching change

 

[JOVIS*]

And the beauty about it bridge jumpers, is the roster is not done being tweaked, added, subtracted and changed. The roster is infinitely better than...



2013-2014


2014-2015

And will get better.

Byslma will be let go if he doesn't wise up. If you don't feel this in your gut, there is something wrong with your gut.

this is proving the point on Bylsma. the roster appears much better on paper, but on the ice the team does not look demonstrably better. if so its only in a matter of small degrees. Bylsma should be fired... and BEFORE its too late to salvage THIS season (Thanksgiving is traditionally a good time marker for whether or not you are making the playoffs). there is no downside to firing Dan Bylsma. We can say how good they looked and go back to this familiar refrain that EVERY goalie the sabres play stands on his head...what terrible luck!!! good well coached teams make their own luck.

tim Murray has a lot of blood on his hands here also. Obviously this take has the benefit of hindsight... but the Myers deal was a DISASTER. It was an F-5 tornado blowing away much of our organizational depth for ostensibly NOTHING, and we werent even insured.

 

[Reddawg]

If Tim is anything like his uncle Bryan, Bylsma probably doesn't make it to the end of next season.

Next season is supposed to be the start of our Cup window...if he's not the guy, figure it out and deal with it now. Bob Hartley is available.

 

[CrazyPsycho]

Seems an odd time to be pushing the Myers thing.

And for stokes, you think Ted Nolan was running the same stuff as everyone else?

 

[brian_griffin]

"Bylzzzzma. Developed especially for people who experienced either no or ineffective results when using Kuhmpete."

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

A positive possession forward is being benched for a bottom 3 forward in the entire league and Disco refuses to spin off one of his top line wingers to take advantage of mismatches.

 

[BowieSabresFan]

Blysma!!!!

Have at it folks.

 

[Jame]

I told you so

 

[Der Jaeger]

No offense, you don't know what you are talking about. There isn't some secret Bylsma system vs. the secret Babcock system. It's checkers, not chess. Every coach in the league knows what every other coach is running and they know how to run them.

As for why different coaches get different results with the same team, it usually is a new voice to respond to and a fresh set of eyes. Minnesota fired Yeo, the new coach came in and ran the exact same system, yet somehow Minneaota caught fire. It happens sometimes. It's almost never system related. Have you ever played organized sports at a high enough level where you were dealing with these types of things? It doesn't sound like it.

Whatever. As many folks in this thread already said, your first paragraph is BS.

Just because coaching run different systems doesn't mean your second paragraph isn't true. Team improve from coaches changing the system: Chicago, LA, and Sullivan with Pittsburgh are examples. Coaches can also keep the same system and win: Bylsma in Pittsburgh during the Cup season is an example of that.

It's not one of the other; it's both, and for different situations.

As Zip replied, you saw Sullivan change the Pens system with no major player acquisitions or changes, and they experienced a major change in metrics and game play. It wasn't because Sullivan is a Penguin whisperer either.

If you think that systems don't matter, and all coaches run similar systems, you are the one that doesn't know what you're talking about.

 

[joshjull]

Right, he did nothing but continue Therrien's system that had the Penguins playing at a sub-47% CF%, and they magically turned into a 54%-plus CF% for the remainder of the season. That's the fourth biggest possession improvement of all-time between two coaches coaching at least 20 games for the same team in the same season. Just kept on doing everything that the previous coach was doing, with no differences whatsoever in system play. Mmmhmmm, yep.

I figured you'd try this and leave out the proper context.


Gonchar was a horse for the Pens the year before during their run to the Cup Finals. He was hurt before the season started. The Pens lost some key forwards during the offseason that helped that run (Malone/Hossa). They were never replaced.

Therrien's team was handicapped before the season started. The last game he coached for the Pens was Gonchar's 1st game back in the lineup (That would be game 57). Not long Gonchar's return and Therrien's firing, the Pens acquired Guerin and Kuntiz. Thus completely rebuilding their top 6.

Disco coached a a team with Gonchar, Guerin and Kunitz that year. Therrien did not. To state the obvious, that influx of top players, more than anything, led to their resurgence. Disco's biggest contribution was not being Therrien. As a players coach, he lighten the mood in Pittsburgh after a task master like Therrien. Many of the top players reportedly had grown tired of his harsh coaching style.

But by all means lets pretend it was Disco's system that turned things around.

 

[Zip15]

I figured you'd try this and leave out the proper context.


Gonchar was a horse for the Pens the year before during their run to the Cup Finals. He was hurt before the season started. The Pens lost some key forwards during the offseason that helped that run (Malone/Hossa). They were never replaced.

Therrien's team was handicapped before the season started. The last game he coached for the Pens was Gonchar's 1st game back in the lineup (That would be game 57). Not long Gonchar's return and Therrien's firing, the Pens acquired Guerin and Kuntiz. Thus completely rebuilding their top 6.

Disco coached a a team with Gonchar, Guerin and Kunitz that year. Therrien did not. To state the obvious, that influx of top players, more than anything, led to their resurgence. Disco's biggest contribution was not being Therrien. As a players coach, he lighten the mood in Pittsburgh after a task master like Therrien. Many of the top players reportedly had grown tired of his harsh coaching style. The "but Crosby and Malkin" line of argument also implicitly concedes that Bylsma's teams have success when he has good rosters (hardly an earth-shattering concept that teams with good players win more, by the way).

But by all means lets pretend it was Disco's system that turned things around.

I'm not saying it was all Bylsma. That'd be equally as foolish as saying "Bylsma had no role in it" and "he made no changes at all to Therrien's system," as is usually argued by those who seek to negate or marginalize every success Bylsma has ever earned in his coaching career.

Even if one assumes that Bylsma made mere "tweaks" to Therrien's system during the Cup season, Bylsma's teams still had plenty of success of after the Stanley Cup in what was unquestionably his system. This fact is usually met with "but Crosby and Malkin!" by those who worship at the Altar of Babcock, and ignore that Babs also had two of the 10 best forwards on the planet during the same time period (and Lidstrom for a good chunk of that time).

 

[Jame]

I'm not saying it was all Bylsma. That'd be equally as foolish as saying "Bylsma had no role in it" and "he made no changes at all to Therrien's system," as is usually argued by those who seek to negate or marginalize every success Bylsma has ever earned in his coaching career.

Even if one assumes that Bylsma made mere "tweaks" to Therrien's system during the Cup season, Bylsma's teams still had plenty of success of after the Stanley Cup in what was unquestionably his system. This fact is usually met with "but Crosby and Malkin!" by those who worship at the Altar of Babcock, and ignore that Babs also had two of the 10 best forwards on the planet during the same time period (and Lidstrom for a good chunk of that time).

and those Bylma regular season successes continue to ignore his post season dismantling year after year by coaches who know what they are doing.

 

[Jame]

I figured you'd try this and leave out the proper context.


Gonchar was a horse for the Pens the year before during their run to the Cup Finals. He was hurt before the season started. The Pens lost some key forwards during the offseason that helped that run (Malone/Hossa). They were never replaced.

Therrien's team was handicapped before the season started. The last game he coached for the Pens was Gonchar's 1st game back in the lineup (That would be game 57). Not long Gonchar's return and Therrien's firing, the Pens acquired Guerin and Kuntiz. Thus completely rebuilding their top 6.

Disco coached a a team with Gonchar, Guerin and Kunitz that year. Therrien did not. To state the obvious, that influx of top players, more than anything, led to their resurgence. Disco's biggest contribution was not being Therrien. As a players coach, he lighten the mood in Pittsburgh after a task master like Therrien. Many of the top players reportedly had grown tired of his harsh coaching style.

But by all means lets pretend it was Disco's system that turned things around.

How many times does the same thing have to be pointed out to the same people?

 

[Sabretooth]

At this point I think we can forget about whatever bylsma did in the past and just focus on what he's done/is doing with the sabres. The time for leaning on his cup and his past regular season winning percentage for justification has long passed being relevant at this point now that he's been here for a year+. It was a fine discussion before/just after he was hired when there was no other material to discuss before he gave us a body of work with the sabres to analyze, but if it doesn't translate to success with the sabres then what does it matter if he was a genious 8 years ago or not?

I hated the hiring at the time and bylsma hasn't won me over since but I think I've been pretty willing to give him a clean slate and be open-minded or at least accepting of the fact that he's the sabres coach now. Hell I've been more patient than people who were neutral or even liked the hiring yet hate him now. There's some things I'm willing to give him props for but overall there's still much more stuff that's frustrating.

 

[sabrebuild]

Real question, with those bylsma successes, what coach in the league would not have been able to succeed in the regular season with that pens team?

In all honesty, stokes, assuming the players respected him on a basic professional level could have won 45-50 games a year in the regular season.

For most of his time there he had prime malkin, crosby, staal. Neal, letang, kunitz.

I mean zip, lets throw in your babs had top talent in datsyuk and zetterberg to even out the talent disparity.

2011-2012
Zetterberg 69 points in 82 games
Datsyuk. 67 in 70
Filppula 66 in 81
Kronwall 36 in 82
Lidstrom age 41, 34 points in 70

Pens roster 11-12
Malkin, 109 pts in 75 games
Neal, 81 in 80
Kunitz, 61 in 82
Letang, 42 in 51
Crosby, 37 in 22.

Its just not close, the pens teams were stacked with talent, and considerably better high end talent.

Dats never broke 100 pts in a season in his career.

Crosby has done it 5 times even with injuries.

Zetterberg has never broken 100 pts.

Malkin has done it 3 times.

Take it as you will, and I freaking love how zetterberg and datsyuk play the game. But they are not on the same talent level or production level of either sid or malkin.

 

[ThunderD]

On the game:
Question to the board: On the Sabre goal, why doesn't Grant get credit for it because he was the Sabre closest to the Canuck who kicked it in? Is it because the Canuck who kicked it in never truly possessed the puck?

Whenever a puck goes in, it is rewarded to the last player who touched it from the scoring team, not the one closest to the net. Think of how many times players shoot pucks that go off of other players. If it goes off an offensive player, he gets the goal for the tip-in. If it goes off the defensive player, the shooter gets the goal.

As for Bylsma, there is clearly a system in place here, I can't believe this is being debated. To put it in simpler terms, does anyone remember when he first started running the 1-3-1 on the PP last season? It was different than the typical umbrella approach. The same thing happens on offense and on defense during 5-5. That is system. Putting 4 forwards out there with 1 defenseman that other teams have done, that is players but running the same umbrella system.

He will not get fired anytime soon. You just don't fire a guy who lost Eichel and Kane for this amount of time whether the system is good or bad, like it or not. That means we are going to have to be in terrible shape in order for something to happen and it won't be anytime soon while key players are out.

 

[joshjull]

I'm not saying it was all Bylsma. That'd be equally as foolish as saying "Bylsma had no role in it" and "he made no changes at all to Therrien's system," as is usually argued by those who seek to negate or marginalize every success Bylsma has ever earned in his coaching career.

Fair enough. But many who bring up him winning the Cup do so as if its the final word. As in, he won a Cup so he's obviously real good coach and the criticisms of what he is doing in Buffalo are wrong. Which is silly. Not saying you're in that group btw.

Even if one assumes that Bylsma made mere "tweaks" to Therrien's system during the Cup season, Bylsma's teams still had plenty of success of after the Stanley Cup in what was unquestionably his system. This fact is usually met with "but Crosby and Malkin!" by those who worship at the Altar of Babcock, and ignore that Babs also had two of the 10 best forwards on the planet during the same time period (and Lidstrom for a good chunk of that time).

Its hard to evaluate Disco because he only has his time in Pittsburgh to look at and because of how things played out initially. His white hot success and Cup win after getting named head coach mid season and then not getting back.

Babcock had success with the Ducks before going to Detroit. Lindy had success with two very different styles of play and groups of players in Buffalo before having success in Dallas. Hitch has had success in various places. Therrien has had success in a few places. Coach Q had some success before going to Chicago. The point being is they have records of success to varying degrees with different rosters and organizations. Disco does not. Thats not remotely his fault. But it does make it harder to evaluate him as a coach. Since we only have his body of work with the Pens to look at.

Fair or not many wonder how much of a role Disco could have had in the Pens Cup win. Since he took over a team that had already made in to the Finals the year before. So going back was not unexpected. They Pens also got an influx of talent (Gonchar/Guerin/Kunitz) at the same time Disco took over which rejuvenated the team. He didn't change the basic approach the team had but made some minor tweaks (I actually give him credit for that since it was smart to stay with what had worked before). They got a break in the Finals because Datsyuk was hurt and either missed games or played as a shell of himself. Something that wasn't the case the year before.

Many view that run as perfect storm of things breaking for the Pens leading to their Cup win. Which in fairness is something that needs to happen to some degree for every team to win. But since he never got that level of success again in the playoffs with the Pens. Its made many question how much of the Cup win can be attributed to Disco.

 

[joshjull]

Whenever a puck goes in, it is rewarded to the last player who touched it from the scoring team, not the one closest to the net. Think of how many times players shoot pucks that go off of other players. If it goes off an offensive player, he gets the goal for the tip-in. If it goes off the defensive player, the shooter gets the goal.

As for Bylsma, there is clearly a system in place here, I can't believe this is being debated. To put it in simpler terms, does anyone remember when he first started running the 1-3-1 on the PP last season? It was different than the typical umbrella approach. The same thing happens on offense and on defense during 5-5. That is system. Putting 4 forwards out there with 1 defenseman that other teams have done, that is players but running the same umbrella system.

He will not get fired anytime soon. You just don't fire a guy who lost Eichel and Kane for this amount of time whether the system is good or bad, like it or not. That means we are going to have to be in terrible shape in order for something to happen and it won't be anytime soon while key players are out.

No one is debating if there is a system. They are criticizing it.

 

[Paxon]

No one is debating if there is a system. They are criticizing it.

This isn't debating if there is a system, but it's debating that it doesn't matter:

I'm pretty tired of hearing about system. Everyone in the NHL runs the same things. There isn't some magic formula. If you want to whine about Bylsma, whine about how he rides his players into the ground so they aren't useful at the end of the game/season.

 

[ThunderD]

This isn't debating if there is a system, but it's debating that it doesn't matter:

Thank you, poor way to describe it on my part.