Speculation: Coaching Search - Part III: Dan Bylsma deal "imminent"

[Jame]

27-25-5
18-3-4

Blysma
Therrien

Which goes with which?




If anything he took a team going nowhere and won the cup. Even more impressive.

That wondeful system you give Therrien credit for was barely over .500
Blysma took someone elses failing system and won the cup with it.

The Therien system that went to the cup finals the previous year
And won the cup the following year.

Therien was fired because the players led by ego-maniacal Crosby turned on him (just like they would do only a few years later on Bylsma). Therien wasn't Shero's hire. And when the team was floundering with core players on IR, it was Shero's opportunity to get his guy.

They still went to two straight cups with the players Therien developed and the system he implemented. It's not debatable. It's a fact that Byslma did not implement his system mid season....

 

[Sideline]

Am I living in a bizarro world?

Pittsburgh would of missed the playoffs with the record Pittsburgh had when Therrien got fired.

Edit: mis-read the post you were responding to.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[CatsforReinhart]

The Therien system that went to the cup finals the previous year
And won the cup the following year.

Therien was fired because the players led by ego-maniacal Crosby turned on him (just like they would do only a few years later on Bylsma). Therien wasn't Shero's hire. And when the team was floundering with core players on IR, it was Shero's opportunity to get his guy.

They still went to two straight cups with the players Therien developed and the system he implemented. It's not debatable. It's a fact that Byslma did not implement his system mid season....

And would of missed the playoffs the year they won the cup when Blysma took over. I know, lets forget that part.

They won NOTHING with Therrien.

 

[OkimLom]

So winning a Stanley cup and having a 252-117-32 record doesn't matter because it was Therrien who got that for him?

I don't get that arguement. Also Blysma had Malkin and Crosby so it is easy to win the cup. Interesting they have one Stanley Cup together and that is with Blysma.

When Therrien got fired Pittsburgh was 2 games above .500. 27-25-5 with Crosby and Malkin. Blysma took over and the team went 18-3-4 and won the cup.

I see people say that was Therrien who won the cup. I can see the argument getting Therrien out of the locker room inspired Pittsburgh to play harder arguement.

Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?

Where in my post did I say that? All I'm saying is that the only thing I'm going to care about is what he does with Buffalo. Pittsburgh winning a Stanely Cup, regardless how they did it, has nothing to do with Buffalo going forward. Both organizations were in different points when he came on.

Bylsma's value of being the head coach of the Buffalo Sabres should only pertain to with what he does with Buffalo, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Edit: mis-read the post you were responding to.

Since when does system = coach

Is that what we are talking about? I am getting the feeling that people seem to feel that way. According to Jame systems win cups not coaches.

So we don't need a coach we just need a system?

 

[cheesedanish87]

So DB's system causes injuries to the best players on the team?!?!? That's just great....

Pens fans actually thought that at the beginning of the year.

 

[Jame]

Am I living in a bizarro world?

Pittsburgh would of missed the playoffs with the record Pittsburgh had when Therrien got fired.

So what is more impressive
Winning a stanley cup with someone else's failing system
Winning a stanley cup with your own system

According to JAme even though Pittsburgh would of missed the playoffs it was acutally Therrien and his record that would of missed the playoffs that won that cup.

I am thinking I am the one that should be doing the face palming.

You are in Bizzarro world. It seems you don't understand the difference between the intangible impact changing a coach can have and what he's being hired to do in Buffalo. Bylsma was a positive in changing the lockerroom in Pitt... OBVIOUSLY. Therien had lost the room, the team was struggling and injuries were a component of that. There struggle was not surprising, given how common it is for a cup Losing team to struggle in the following year. Again, key injuries exasperated the problem. Add in a GM who was not tied to the coach, and the opportunity for change was obvious.

Bylsma came in, and re-invogorated the room. Players feel that relief when a new coach comes in, and the previous guy who had been grinding on them all year is removed.

But NONE of this has anything to do with the core arguments that have been made AGAINST Bylsma.

His system sucked and he developed nothing...

He's not being hired into a room with a cup contending system and developed players.... he's being hired to implement a system and develop players... and those two areas were FAILURES on his resume.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

The Therien system that went to the cup finals the previous year
And won the cup the following year.

Therien was fired because the players led by ego-maniacal Crosby turned on him (just like they would do only a few years later on Bylsma). Therien wasn't Shero's hire. And when the team was floundering with core players on IR, it was Shero's opportunity to get his guy.

They still went to two straight cups with the players Therien developed and the system he implemented. It's not debatable. It's a fact that Byslma did not implement his system mid season....

So Jame aruges coaches have a huge impact but

Systems win Stanley cups in this post.

Again, I don't care what system they used. In fact I would like to see you argue that it is easier to win a Stanley cup with another coaches system taking over mid season.

So basically Any coach wins that stanley cup that season according to your post.

Wow.

 

[Sideline]

Since when does system = coach

Is that what we are talking about? I am getting the feeling that people seem to feel that way. According to Jame systems win cups not coaches.

So we don't need a coach we just need a system?

I mis-read the post you were responding to above. So I deleted my response

To your question: you need a system and a coach that gets players to buy into it. In the years I've watched Bylsma he's great at getting players to buy what he's selling, but his system and adjustments are not particularly good.

The further he took things away from Therrien's system the worse the team got in the playoffs.

 

[Jame]

Since when does system = coach

Is that what we are talking about? I am getting the feeling that people seem to feel that way. According to Jame systems win cups not coaches.

So we don't need a coach we just need a system?

i dont even...

 

[OkimLom]

Am I living in a bizarro world?

Pittsburgh would of missed the playoffs with the record Pittsburgh had when Therrien got fired.

So what is more impressive
Winning a stanley cup with someone else's failing system
Winning a stanley cup with your own system

According to JAme even though Pittsburgh would of missed the playoffs it was acutally Therrien and his record that would of missed the playoffs that won that cup.

I am thinking I am the one that should be doing the face palming.

The quote you bolded, which you responded to, which I then responded to you for:

Bylsma won a cup with the team someone else developed and the system someone else implemented.

True or False - Bylsma took over a team someone else developed? True
True or False - Bylsma used the exact same system Therrien used/implemented? True
True or False - Bylsma won a Stanley Cup with the team he took over that was using the system the previous coach implemented? True

Now the argument can be made with how much of an impact Bylsma had on the morale of the team, how much an impact his line juggling had on the team, how well he kept on the players to sticking to the system in place. Those can be argued about and are most likely the keys to your debate with the Bylsma vs Therrien debate of who won the Stanley Cup.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

You are in Bizzarro world. It seems you don't understand the difference between the intangible impact changing a coach can have and what he's being hired to do in Buffalo. Bylsma was a positive in changing the lockerroom in Pitt... OBVIOUSLY. Therien had lost the room, the team was struggling and injuries were a component of that. There struggle was not surprising, given how common it is for a cup Losing team to struggle in the following year. Again, key injuries exasperated the problem. Add in a GM who was not tied to the coach, and the opportunity for change was obvious.

Bylsma came in, and re-invogorated the room. Players feel that relief when a new coach comes in, and the previous guy who had been grinding on them all year is removed.

But NONE of this has anything to do with the core arguments that have been made AGAINST Bylsma.

His system sucked and he developed nothing...

He's not being hired into a room with a cup contending system and developed players.... he's being hired to implement a system and develop players... and those two areas were FAILURES on his resume.

So now it was injuries even though in 10-11 Blysma had to deal with injuries and lost Crosby and Malkin for half the season and finished 49-25-8.


What is your next arguement? It was luck in 10-11?

 

[Jame]

The quote you bolded, which you responded to, which I then responded to you for:

Bylsma won a cup with the team someone else developed and the system someone else implemented.

True or False - Bylsma took over a team someone else developed? True
True or False - Bylsma used the exact same system Therrien used/implemented? True
True or False - Bylsma won a Stanley Cup with the team he took over that was using the system the previous coach implemented? True

Now the argument can be made with how much of an impact Bylsma had on the morale of the team, how much an impact his line juggling had on the team, how well he kept on the players to sticking to the system in place. Those can be argued about and are most likely the keys to your debate with the Bylsma vs Therrien debate of who won the Stanley Cup.

it's really that simple

 

[Djp]

Why do we want Bylsma as coach?

 

[CatsforReinhart]

The quote you bolded, which you responded to, which I then responded to you for:

Bylsma won a cup with the team someone else developed and the system someone else implemented.

True or False - Bylsma took over a team someone else developed? True
True or False - Bylsma used the exact same system Therrien used/implemented? True
True or False - Bylsma won a Stanley Cup with the team he took over that was using the system the previous coach implemented? True

Now the argument can be made with how much of an impact Bylsma had on the morale of the team, how much an impact his line juggling had on the team, how well he kept on the players to sticking to the system in place. Those can be argued about and are most likely the keys to your debate with the Bylsma vs Therrien debate of who won the Stanley Cup.

True of False - Pittsburgh would've missed the playoffs that year with the record Therrien had? True
True or False - in 10-11 Pittsburgh lost Malkin, Staal and Crsoby for half the season and still finished 49-25-8 True

 

[Jame]

Why do we want Bylsma as coach?

Why do the Sabres want him?

I would guess:

in no particular order:
Connection to USA hockey
Cup/Adams resume
He's buying in to analytics
And has used them to augment his system / philosophy

 

[Jame]

That hypothetical got him fired. I see you ingnored the part where Malkin, Crosby and Staal lost around combined 120 man games and Blysma still finished 49-25-8

it's a fine anecdote. if you throw enough of them at the wall, someone might think you have a coherent argument

 

[FearTheBeard]

I know some have made the point that MAF's abysmal playoff numbers were a result of Bylsma's system, but I don't know how that would explain Vokun's 2.01 GAA and .933 SV% in 11 playoff starts in 2012-2013. I do agree his system wasn't perfect, but I think he's taking way too much blame for things out of his control (MAF, insanely low shooing % against B's)

 

[SackTastic]

Bylsma was an assistant under Therrien, so of course he was going to use much of the same systems and strategy. He wasn't going to reinvent the wheel. However, Bylsma managed to get the same players in the same system to perform where Therrien wasn't, and it worked. **

**(Unless you think the only change the team needed was the voice at the top.)

That team won. They didn't do it on autopilot. Bylsma was a part of that. He didn't just stand on the bench with Therrien's whiteboard hoping something good would happen.

 

[Jame]

Bylsma was an assistant under Therrien, so of course he was going to use much of the same systems and strategy. He wasn't going to reinvent the wheel. However, Bylsma managed to get the same players in the same system to perform where Therrien wasn't, and it worked. **

**(Unless you think the only change the team needed was the voice at the top.)

That team won. They didn't do it on autopilot. Bylsma was a part of that. He didn't just stand on the bench with Therrien's whiteboard hoping something good would happen.

no disagreement.

But his success is very much tied to that scenario....

Our scenario is much different, and the components of what WE need from a coaching hire are not exactly "successes" on Bylsma's resume.

Bylsma's resume is the exact opposite of what I preferred.

I would've preferred a coach with no cup on his resume and a barely average record... with a history of developing players, a system that I believe can be successful with young players and can be grown in to a post season system. That's the exact opposite of Bylsma

 

[OkimLom]

True of False - Pittsburgh would've missed the playoffs that year with the record Therrien had? True
True or False - in 10-11 Pittsburgh lost Malkin, Staal and Crsoby for half the season and still finished 49-25-8 True

Maybe I'm missing what the debate is here.

I'm showing facts of what Happened after a quote was portayed as an argument:

Bylsma took over a team someone else developed
Bylsma used the exact same system Therrien used/implemented
Bylsma won a Stanley Cup with the team he took over that was using the system the previous coach implemented

And it sounds like the debate is Pittsburgh won the cup because of Bylsma, which in the same post of the facts I said:

Now the argument can be made with how much of an impact Bylsma had on the morale of the team, how much an impact his line juggling had on the team, how well he kept on the players to sticking to the system in place. Those can be argued about and are most likely the keys to your debate with the Bylsma vs Therrien debate of who won the Stanley Cup.

And then you say:

True or False - in 10-11 Pittsburgh lost Malkin, Staal and Crsoby for half the season and still finished 49-25-8 True

To which I then have to ask:

Is the Debate: Is Bylsma a good coach? or Was Bylsma the reason Pittsburgh won the cup?

 

[vcv]

no disagreement.

But his success is very much tied to that scenario....

Our scenario is much different, and the components of what WE need from a coaching hire are not exactly "successes" on Bylsma's resume.

Shero is a horrible GM and gave Bylsma next to nothing to work with outside of their top 4 players. Nothing at all for depth.

I'm curious to see what Bylsma can do with star players AND actual depth.

The reality is that Bylsma was able to push the team over the hump right away. The years following they had some playoff success but were never able to even get back to the hump, always falling just short. Whether that's more damning on Bylsma or on the GM is a debate that won't end any time soon.

 

[Jame]

Shero is a horrible GM and gave Bylsma next to nothing to work with outside of their top 4 players. Nothing at all for depth.

I'm curious to see what Bylsma can do with star players AND actual depth.

I'm scared of his impact on very very young potential star players...

 

[joshjull]

Bylsma was an assistant under Therrien, so of course he was going to use much of the same systems and strategy. He wasn't going to reinvent the wheel. However, Bylsma managed to get the same players in the same system to perform where Therrien wasn't, and it worked. **

**(Unless you think the only change the team needed was the voice at the top.)

That team won. They didn't do it on autopilot. Bylsma was a part of that. He didn't just stand on the bench with Therrien's whiteboard hoping something good would happen.

Bylsma was never Therrien's assistant. He was promoted from their AHL team when Therrien was fired.