Aladyyn
they praying for the death of a rockstar
Why would you give the GM the opportunity to hire a 2nd coach? Obviously if the 1st one doesn't work out everything is a failure
Sabres Management and Coaching Thread
- Thread starter dotcommunism
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Why would you give the GM the opportunity to hire a 2nd coach? Obviously if the 1st one doesn't work out everything is a failure
Sabre Dance
Make Hockey Fun Again
- Jul 27, 2006
- 12,643
- 2,410
OkimLom
Registered User
- May 3, 2010
- 15,884
- 7,350
So we're going Hyperbole Negative today huh?
Some Bullet Points:
- When we started the rebuild in earnest in 2012 we thought by 2016/2017 or so we'd have a cup contender in place. What evidence from Darcy gave you the thought that we would've had a Cup Contender in place by THIS season?
- Sabres had their #1 D in place prior to Murray getting here along with the ammo required to trade for RoR. His name was Ehrhoff and he wasn't going to be staying here for that long of a rebuild, and he didn't have a contract teams wanted(you could thank Darcy and the NHL for that)
- And does anyone else realize that Murrays first draft here is one of the absolute worst we've had in recent history? Outside of our #2 pick in Sam Reinhart (which gets zero credit since it's a no brainer type pick) we will almost assuredly get ZERO NHL regulars out of it. We had 6 picks in the top 74. He drafted Reinhart (no brainer). At 31 he made a massive blunder drafting someone who refused to sign for us, and besides that passed up on Barbashev, Hawryluk and Demko. At least we used Lemieux in the Kane trade. Ah yes, the Heavy Talented 2014 draft where there have been 9 guys who have played at least a game starting in the 2nd round to that #74 pick, with two guys with a little over 60 games played, and those 9 guys averaging 20 games played. We're really missing out on those players. Tim drafted a guy who potentially could play the game Kane plays, saw he wasn't going to be a longterm asset and traded for Kane himself with the pick with other pieces. That's solid asset management. Whether you agree with the pick or not, he used it instead of letting it rot and become a devalued asset.
- Drafting Demko most likely prevents Murray from pissing away a 1st in one of the best drafts of the last 20 years. Tells me you don't understand the reasoning of Murray getting Lehner. We would've traded for Lehner even if we drafted Demko.
- The defense is an absolute wreck. He inherited a franchise that had Risto, Myers,McCabe, Zadorov, Pysyk and McNabb on the blue line. Of the guys moved who are we really missing? IMO, the only thing we're missing is the depth they provided, not the talent they had. Also, this obsession with McNabb from the collection of posters is so comical.
Am I the only one that thinks of the rebuild starting the day we drafted Jack Eichel? Up until then, we were tearing things down - getting ready to rebuild. Pieces were being accumulated - but we were still in tear-down mode until that draft.
So, in my mind, we are finishing up year two of the rebuild.
So, in my mind, we are finishing up year two of the rebuild.
Sabre Dance
Make Hockey Fun Again
- Jul 27, 2006
- 12,643
- 2,410
I can agree with that. I do think Murray took some swings to speed up the rebuild though, especially on defense. I think he felt his top 4 was pretty set this year with Ristolainen, Bogosian, Kulikov, and McCabe. I thought the top 4 was at least good enough to get 90 points this year. Injuries probably held them back more than Bylsma IMO.
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
Going on your timeline ... then that would mean we are still rebuilding. Ok. I agree.
And we are in the 2nd year of building the team from the bowels of hell. I can see that being a reasonable idea.
If one does not count the "tear down" phase of a rebuild. A lot of fans do.
The entire process is moving out talent, replacing with mostly AHL fodder. Icing a terrible team with a coach who isn't very good. Finishing last or next to last.
Then drafting well.
^ That, by many is part of the full proper rebuild.
Wrong. Bogo and Kulikov were bonafide top 4 defensemen in the NHL before they got stuck playing in Bylsma's joke system.
Bogosian
15-17 (Bylsma 2 years)
GF 2.03
GA 2.81
-0.78
13-15 (Not Bylsma 2 years)
GF 2.36
GA 2.30
+0.06
Kulikov
16-17 (Bylsma 1 year)
GF 1.17
GA 2.18
-1.01
14-16 (Not Bylsma 2 years)
GF 2.26
GA 2.14
+0.12
Franson
15-17 (Bylsma 2 years)
GF 1.78
GA 1.91
-0.13
13-15 (Not Bylsma 2 years)
GF 2.48
GA 2.78
-0.30
Here's a fun one...
Orpik 5 years with Bylsma, in the prime of his career....
2.68
2.41
+.27
Orpik, after everyone thought he was done (he looked it in Bylsma's turd system)
Orpik 3 years with Trotz, on the back 9 of his career...
2.88
2.24
+0.64
Sabre Dance
Make Hockey Fun Again
- Jul 27, 2006
- 12,643
- 2,410
For me it's probably having a top 2 D and top 6 centers solidified. Then fill in the blanks. Right now we are waiting for that #2 D to emerge.
When the previous failed core/team structure is gone, and the new building blocks / foundational pieces are in place.
The rebuild is already complete. It was done the day we acquired ROR and Eichel.
The rebuild being complete and the team being successful are two separate things. T
Sabre Dance
Make Hockey Fun Again
- Jul 27, 2006
- 12,643
- 2,410
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
- Nov 18, 2010
- 4,477
- 1,853
Kulikov has been playing through an injury all year. In his case, you can't pull up those stats and say it tells the whole story.
That's impressive.
You have an opinion, and you want to take actions that reflect the lack of confidence you have in your own opinion.
Bogo's been playing through injuries his entire career.
The Bylsma effect trumps all variables.
struckbyaparkedcar
Guilty of Being Right
Coller was on the Hockey PDO Cast to discuss his new gig covering the Wild, and cited Bylsma's impact on Orpik and Risto as evidence coach effects were real and he needed to develop a more nuanced understanding of Corsi.
Sabre Dance
Make Hockey Fun Again
- Jul 27, 2006
- 12,643
- 2,410
Not that. If it isn't coaching then we may be in trouble. So I hope it's as simple as coaching.
Aladyyn
they praying for the death of a rockstar
Jim Carr's Rug
Registered User
Gabrielor
Registered User
I think a rebuild is done when you first make the playoffs. Edmonton thought they had their new core a couple of times, and only now on the cusp of the playoffs do people consider their rebuild complete.
Once we make the playoffs, the rebuild is over, and the push to a championship begins.
Once we make the playoffs, the rebuild is over, and the push to a championship begins.
In my opinion its once you have most of your new core in place. So once we had risto, eichel, reinhart, and ROR. Okposo might be a part of the core, but I would say once we had jack and ROR.
They are all silly labels though. Truth is we tore the team down like few teams in any sport have ever done. We have done a great job (and lucky) to have established this new core. Becoming good is going to take some time.
Which is why I still hold out some hope for Bogo. I mean, how many defensemen have gone from capable second pairing guys to hot garbage in the prime of their careers?
The way Bylsma uses him highlights his worst weakness (long passes to exit the zone) and muzzles his greatest assets (skating the puck out of the zone and joining the rush on offense).
I want to see how he does with better coaching. Murray would get pennies on the dollar by trading him anyways.
joshjull
Registered User
Its not besides the point. If you don't see tactics during a game then you don't understand coaching very much. Its a tad absurd to then claim coaching isn't the issue when you don't even see it taking place during a game.
I don't have to think about it because I've never said any such thing. This has been a fundamental problem with debating you. You have this annoying habit of lumping together every criticism any poster has ever made against Disco as if its a singular view. One held by all of his critics. Then waste time trying to take us down rabbit holes debating things we never said or dealing with the silly over the top statements you like to throw out there.
You also don't seem to pay very close attention to the discussions. Myself and others who like what Murray's done on balance are waiting to see how deals with his coaching situation among other things. We view Murray as having more good than bad in his resume but that view may change depending on the summer. We are constantly evolving in our view of Murray.
Your agenda appears to be making ridiculous over the top assertions, admitting you know little about coaching then say coaching isn't the problem.
Its not hard to understand how someone can like the GM on balance while not liking the coach on balance. We can even walk and chew gum.
This is another example of you admitting you don't understand or know much about coaching. Yet you're sure it doesn't matter and its not an issue because Disco won with the Pens.
As for coaching vs talent and how much each matters to success, it depends.
Every team needs coaching but if you're one of the more talented teams in the league your not going to need as much as a team in the middle of the pack talent wise. Or to put it another way, the less talent you have the more your going to have to rely on your coach to maximize the talent you do have. The less talented a team is, the smaller the margin for error that coach has for mistakes. That doesn't mean the coaches of talented teams have no impact. But they can make more mistakes in player usage, tactics, etc on balance than the coach of a less talented team can.
In the playoffs coaching becomes more important for a variety of reasons. Talent still matters but the gaps between teams is smaller with the weaker teams out of the mix. You need coaching AND talent to win in the playoffs ( a little luck helps as well, particularly on the injury front). Not many teams go far with only one.
Last edited:
Sabre Dance
Make Hockey Fun Again
- Jul 27, 2006
- 12,643
- 2,410
Its not besides the point. If you don't see tactics during a game then you don't understand coaching very much. Its a tad absurd to then claim coaching isn't the issue when you don't even see it taking place during a game.
I don't have to think about it because I've never said any such thing. This has been a fundamental problem with debating you. You have this annoying habit of lumping together every criticism any poster has ever made against Disco as if its a singular view. One held by all of his critics. Then waste time trying to take us down rabbit holes debating things we never said or dealing with the silly over the top statements you like to throw out there.
You also don't seem to pay very close attention to the discussions. Myself and others who like what Murray's done on balance are waiting to see how deals with his coaching situation among other things. We view Murray as having more good than bad in his resume but that view may change depending on the summer. We are constantly evolving in our view of Murray.
Your agenda appears to be making ridiculous over the top assertions, admitting you know little about coaching then say coaching isn't the problem.
Its not hard to understand how someone can like the GM on balance while not liking the coach on balance. We can even walk and chew gum.
This is another example of you admitting you don't understand or know much about coaching. Yet you're sure it doesn't matter and its not an issue because Disco won with the Pens.
As for coaching vs talent and how much each matters to success, it depends.
Every team needs coaching but if you're one of the more talented teams in the league your not going to need as much as a team in the middle of the pack talent wise. Or to put it another way, the less talent you have the more your going to have to rely on your coach to maximize the talent you do have. The less talented a team is, the smaller the margin for error that coach has for mistakes. That doesn't mean the coaches of talented teams have no impact. But they can make more mistakes in player usage, tactics, etc on balance than the coach of a less talented team can.
In the playoffs coaching becomes more important for a variety of reasons. Talent still matters but the gaps between teams is smaller with the weaker teams out of the mix. You need coaching AND talent to win in the playoffs ( a little luck helps as well, particularly on the injury front). Not many teams go far with only one.
You can make it about me all you want, but I just want to see the Sabres winning again.
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
Dude ... seriously?
Most posters enjoy reading the majority of what others type. Unless ones mouth (fingers) get ahead of their brain.
Then you can expect push back.
We all .... wait wait wait ... i mean 99% of us want the Sabres to do well and win again. This push back has nothing to do with that.
When you (and a few others) let the mouth (fingers) get ahead of the brain, it comes across as ignorant, or illogical or both. Think it through before typing.... Some don't have that ability. But i think you do.
I like (mostly) what Murray has done since he's arrived. I dislike (mostly) what Bylsma has done since he's arrived. Can you understand the difference? Is that illogical to you?
- Status
