Toggle sidebar

Sabres Management and Coaching Thread

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
haseoke39 said:
I really don't know if that's true, outside of Lafontaine not liking it. Whether Darcy was setting up the tank is speculation, but I'd imagine more likely than not. At least most people around here thought he was.
Click to expand...

Outside of the President of Hockey Operations disagreeing with it? Yea... aside from that :rolleyes:

Again, there is a big difference between what Regier was doing (deconstruction, acquire futures, begin the rebuilding process) and what Murray went in a did (actively build the worst team possible).

Lafontaine actually got rid of the best possible tank coach (Rolston), to try and bring in someone to motivate the team... he wasn't about tanking.
 
Just wondering if anyone can explain to me exactly what our d-zone coverage and breakout schemes are? It seems to me as if Bylsma wants a sort of zone/man hybrid coverage in the d-zone and wants our forwards to shoot up the ice for a stretch pass from the d (who are all completely incapable of making that pass consistently besides #55 and #29). Also is there any reason why Disco is sticking with this? It's clearly not working and last night's game is proof of how easy of a system it is to defend against (exactly what the leafs did in the first period). To me he needs to go if this team wants to be a playoff team.
 
darcyRegier said:
Just wondering if anyone can explain to me exactly what our d-zone coverage and breakout schemes are? It seems to me as if Bylsma wants a sort of zone/man hybrid coverage in the d-zone and wants our forwards to shoot up the ice for a stretch pass from the d (who are all completely incapable of making that pass consistently besides #55 and #29). Also is there any reason why Disco is sticking with this? It's clearly not working and last night's game is proof of how easy of a system it is to defend against (exactly what the leafs did in the first period). To me he needs to go if this team wants to be a playoff team.
Click to expand...

Why are you asking Darcy? Are you looking for someone to coach your next team? Because, I have three words for you: STANLEY CUP WINNER....You can ignore the rest of everything else...

But seriously, All your questions are questions we all ask ourselves every game. NONE of the defense we have on this team can make that pass consistently. It's a system that you're not going to be able to accomplish consistently.

The way Dan wants to play goes against everything that Murray wants to implement for this team. I honestly think the ONLY reason why he's not fired yet, is because Tim would be sending a horrible message, regardless how valid it is, to fire a guy less than two years into his 5 year contract. He now has 2 full years in, I think Tim can justify it.
 
kummelweck said:
Most of the talk has been around getting rid of Bylsma to fix the sabres. What GM would be a better option if they sabres got rid of Murray?
Click to expand...

Kyle Dubas the AGM of the Leafs - they took Babcock from under our noses, I want Dubas and Keefe as our next GM/Coach tandem.
 
Jame said:
Outside of the President of Hockey Operations disagreeing with it? Yea... aside from that :rolleyes:

Again, there is a big difference between what Regier was doing (deconstruction, acquire futures, begin the rebuilding process) and what Murray went in a did (actively build the worst team possible).

Lafontaine actually got rid of the best possible tank coach (Rolston), to try and bring in someone to motivate the team... he wasn't about tanking.
Click to expand...

I agree about Lafontaine. But Darcy's approach and Murray's could very well be distinguished only by time. Darcy followed the first part of the tank roadmap perfectly. Murray's part of the journey is just a little more flagrant because he no longer has much to sell in the effort to stay in the same position.
 
Samsonite23 said:
Flynn and Mitchell actually went on to become 2/3rds of the best 4th line in the league. Genius? No. They were obvious trades to make that made the team worse.
Click to expand...

:huh:

GMTM traded away useful players to secure the worst record. Both Flynn and Mitchell played well for the Sabres, though in 3rd and sometimes 2nd line roles for the team. Mitchell especially helped the team win by providing stability at center.

But you trade them away in a tank where McEichel is the goal. All day. Getting Eichel is far more important than retaining two 4th liners.
 
darcyRegier said:
Just wondering if anyone can explain to me exactly what our d-zone coverage and breakout schemes are? It seems to me as if Bylsma wants a sort of zone/man hybrid coverage in the d-zone and wants our forwards to shoot up the ice for a stretch pass from the d (who are all completely incapable of making that pass consistently besides #55 and #29). Also is there any reason why Disco is sticking with this? It's clearly not working and last night's game is proof of how easy of a system it is to defend against (exactly what the leafs did in the first period). To me he needs to go if this team wants to be a playoff team.
Click to expand...

Please be an ongoing novelty account
 
haseoke39 said:
I agree about Lafontaine. But Darcy's approach and Murray's could very well be distinguished only by time. Darcy followed the first part of the tank roadmap perfectly. Murray's part of the journey is just a little more flagrant because he no longer has much to sell in the effort to stay in the same position.
Click to expand...

That's fair, but that still leaves the hiring of Lafontaine and his direction.

Nothing about Regier's actions were "tank" oriented. They were rebuild oriented. "There's going to be some pain", isn't the same thing as "we're going to actively create one of the worst teams of the modern era"

A tank move doesn't bring Moulson in return for Vanek.
 
Jame said:
That's fair, but that still leaves the hiring of Lafontaine and his direction.

Nothing about Regier's actions were "tank" oriented. They were rebuild oriented.

A tank move doesn't bring Moulson in return for Vanek.
Click to expand...

Is it fair to assume that NYI would have given up 1 Moulson worth of additional futures in that trade?

Spreading the hit among current and future assets makes a trade more palpable for them.
 
OkimLom said:
Why are you asking Darcy? Are you looking for someone to coach your next team? Because, I have three words for you: STANLEY CUP WINNER....You can ignore the rest of everything else...

But seriously, All your questions are questions we all ask ourselves every game. NONE of the defense we have on this team can make that pass consistently. It's a system that you're not going to be able to accomplish consistently.

The way Dan wants to play goes against everything that Murray wants to implement for this team. I honestly think the ONLY reason why he's not fired yet, is because Tim would be sending a horrible message, regardless how valid it is, to fire a guy less than two years into his 5 year contract. He now has 2 full years in, I think Tim can justify it.
Click to expand...
Hey I'm the GMOAT don't talk down to me!
But seriously how does someone draft girgensons and grigorenko in the top 15 (although he did get Mccabe in the 2nd round)? And seriously Kassian at 13th?? And don't even get me started on Armia. At least he didn't take Nurse over Risto though
 
Did the sabres damage their organization worse by tanking in the McDavid/Eichel draft than the Leafs did for the Matthews/Laine draft?
 
The tank helped us get Eichel, sure, but we still are awful. We're just awful with a superstar on our team. This argument is like: would you rather be the Islanders during the Dipeitro years or the Tavares years?

Answer: who cares, they both are joke teams.

And will still be awful next year. Since our GM doesn't seem to think coaching is important, and doesn't seem to have a plan to fix the defense, I'm much more worried about the future than the past. Definitely not advocating firing Murray (yet), but I do think it's time he answer some real questions about this rebuild.
 
NEcoli said:
You really think Babcock chose the Leafs because of Dubas? Or because it's Toronto?
Click to expand...

what? Dubas had absolutely nothing to do with Babcock signing with Toronto. I think having the chance to coach a legendary franchise that hadn't won a Cup in 50 years in hockey's biggest media market was why he chose Toronto - it's also been reported his wife preferred Toronto as a place to live.

Dubas made a reputation for himself as an analytics driven progressive young GM running the Sault Ste Marie Greyhounds, getting that franchise to the Memorial Cup and an OHL Championship. As the GM of the Toronto Marlies he's had success both on the W/L side and in developing players for the NHL.
 
SnuggaRUDE said:
Is it fair to assume that NYI would have given up 1 Moulson worth of additional futures in that trade?

Spreading the hit among current and future assets makes a trade more palpable for them.
Click to expand...

No, not fair to assume the Isles would've done the deal without moving Moulson's salary. But it is fair to assume there was another deal out there that was just futures...

Regier preferred the deal that was a 1st and a comparable scorer.... because he wasn't tanking, he was rebuilding.
 
Jame said:
No, not fair to assume the Isles would've done the deal without moving Moulson's salary. But it is fair to assume there was another deal out there that was just futures...

Regier preferred the deal that was a 1st and a comparable scorer.... because he wasn't tanking, he was rebuilding.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Getting back Moulson is classic Regier striking while he can get a massive overpayment. Even a tanking GM makes that move if he can get more assets for Moulson down the line.

After all, McEichel wasn't for another year. Regier, in November 2013, is tearing everything down to finish at the bottom, but it's not life or death whether he finishes 29 or 30 in that season.
 
haseoke39 said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Getting back Moulson is classic Regier striking while he can get a massive overpayment. Even a tanking GM makes that move if he can get more assets for Moulson down the line.

After all, McEichel wasn't for another year. Regier, in November 2013, is tearing everything down to finish at the bottom, but it's not life or death whether he finishes 29 or 30 in that season.
Click to expand...

Thank you... Regier wasn't tanking. Now that that's settled.

(A protected 1st and a player pegged as a 2nd round deadline value.... is not a massive overpayment for nearly a full year of Vanek)
 
I'll just say that at the time Regier was fired, a lot of posters here were calling for a massive tank job to get cornerstone forwards to build around at the top of the draft. We were pleased as peaches at how Darcy was handling part one of that plan. The fact that Murray had to deal with Lafontaine by the time he was hired doesn't necessarily convince me that either the Pegulas had an anti-tanking approach before he came here or that Darcy wasn't doing what we thought he was doing either. If Darcy had stayed on, you can't promise how it would have turned out, but I think with McEichel staring at him, he probably continues the tear-down and similarly brings in scrub talent for at least one more year.

That's just my honest impression of how things were going between two guys whose private plans we'll never know.
 
Jame said:
What you call "word games", i call a very real difference between Rebuilding and Tanking.
Click to expand...

I think Regier's primary goal was to get to the top of the draft, not just acquire assets and get younger. So that's tanking to me.

The fact that there's a crop of 4-5 players in a similar tier "at the top of the draft" in 2014 and exactly 2 in 2015 changes how desperately you need to finish precisely 30th to accomplish your goal.

So that's all I'm pointing out when I say he didn't need to finish dead 30th to achieve his goal in 2014.
 
haseoke39 said:
I think Regier's primary goal was to get to the top of the draft, not just acquire assets and get younger. So that's tanking to me.

The fact that there's a crop of 4-5 players in a similar tier "at the top of the draft" in 2014 and exactly 2 in 2015 changes how desperately you need to finish precisely 30th to accomplish your goal.

So that's all I'm pointing out when I say he didn't need to finish dead 30th to achieve his goal in 2014.
Click to expand...

Going in to the 2013/Risto draft, Regier was still talking about re-signing Miller and Vanek. He was totally in rebuild mode. He was never a tanker.

Yes, he talked about getting to the prime area / top 3-5 of any draft (through the rebuild process), but he was never a tanker. That was all Murray.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom