Sabres Management and Coaching Thread

[brian_griffin]

No, because there's no such thing as a factual mistake that doesn't depend on opinion.

???????

2+2=5 is a factual mistake, an objective error. There is no subjectivity to it.

I'm pretty sure you and Okimlom are agreeing, and rebutting the pigpen65 position that Murray has made excessive objective mistakes which logically, objectively, argue for his dismissal.

==============
There are two types of mistakes: Errors of omission, and errors of comission.

Omission = one fails to do what one is either objectively tasked or for which one is implicitly responsible.

Comission = one does something incorrectly.

==============
Some people say there is no point in firing Dan A. Bysmal now, wait until offseason. I disagree. Fire Bylsma now, make one of the assistants the interim coach, then do the search in the offseason.

Murray and/or Pegulas should take that action with Bylsma regardless of whether Murray will be retained or not.

==============
It's a burning boat. Time to jump into the water rather than waiting to moor with a rescue ship or a solid pier in order to disembark.

 

[joshjull]

Who cares about what his opinion of Bylsma is, it doesn't take away from the rest of the article being seemingly valid.

Never hurts to get multiple perspectives on the situation. Having someone that respects Disco as a coach make an argument like this is a good take to read.

 

[haseoke39]

???????

2+2=5 is a factual mistake, an objective error. There is no subjectivity to it.

I'm pretty sure you and Okimlom are agreeing, and rebutting the pigpen65 position that Murray has made excessive objective mistakes which logically, objectively, argue for his dismissal.

==============
There are two types of mistakes: Errors of omission, and errors of comission.

Omission = one fails to do what one is either objectively tasked or for which one is implicitly responsible.

Comission = one does something incorrectly.

==============
Some people say there is no point in firing Dan A. Bysmal now, wait until offseason. I disagree. Fire Bylsma now, make one of the assistants the interim coach, then do the search in the offseason.

Murray and/or Pegulas should take that action with Bylsma regardless of whether Murray will be retained or not.

==============
It's a burning boat. Time to jump into the water rather than waiting to moor with a rescue ship or a solid pier in order to disembark.

2+2=5 has nothing to do with GMs, and every decision a GM makes is going to be subject to argument. Pigpen never said anything about his opinions being ultimately objective and above the assail of argument. Demanding that pigpen produce truly objective mistakes in support of his argument is just undermining the purpose of the conversation altogether. So no, I'm not trashing pigpen, he has an opinion and that's cool. Saying his opinion doesn't meet the requirement of objectivity is just being snide and asking him to do something impossible.

 

[brian_griffin]

2+2=5 has nothing to do with GMs, and every decision a GM makes is going to be subject to argument. Pigpen never said anything about his opinions being ultimately objective and above the assail of argument. Demanding that pigpen produce truly objective mistakes in support of his argument is just undermining the purpose of the conversation altogether. So no, I'm not trashing pigpen, he has an opinion and that's cool. Saying his opinion doesn't meet the requirement of objectivity is just being snide and asking him to do something impossible.

OK, I understand. Sorry.

=====
And, for the record, I think a little differently. Because I believe there is a lot of subjectivity in those assessments of the past, I prefer to ask whether a coach / GM can lead a team to a Cup. Murray might (he might not). Bylsma, I believe, will definitely not.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

I actually really like the system that Bylsma is employing right now quite a bit. For some reason it just doesn't fit with the playing style of these particular players, so it's frustrating that he is so incorrigible and unwilling to adjust. But I don't begrudge him for preferring this system to others -- I generally might agree with him, all else being equal.

I'm not sure how to properly evaluate a coach, admittedly, but he just seems to be lacking in so many areas. So I'm starting to feel like the issue is more the coach himself, not the system.

 

[jBuds]

I actually really like the system that Bylsma is employing right now quite a bit. For some reason it just doesn't fit with the playing style of these particular players, so it's frustrating that he is so incorrigible and unwilling to adjust. But I don't begrudge him for preferring this system to others -- I generally might agree with him, all else being equal.

I'm not sure how to properly evaluate a coach, admittedly, but he just seems to be lacking in so many areas. So I'm starting to feel like the issue is more the coach himself, not the system.

Coaches that have "their" systems are fine and well and dandy... and you can applaud them at times for establishing or identifying something they think works, and harping on it ad nauseum.

Two big issues with that as it pertains to Bylsma are:

A ) he's clearly not beating the drum hard enough

But more importantly,

B ) this isn't the early nineteen aughts... coaching has come a long way. My version of the best coach is one who can look at his pieces and formulate a successful game plan conducive to the skill set the unit possesses as a whole.

Easiest display of this would be a coach who preaches dump and chase, but gets hired to man a roster heavy on possession and carrying. Installing your prior system with a roster of movers who can all handle and enter with possession is hard headed and ... wrong.

 

[jBuds]

I also loathe the idea that he was adamant, in the immediate aftermath of his hiring, that his year out of the game allowed him to learn and improve, yet the same problems that got him ran out of PIT have manifested themselves ten fold here.

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

I also loathe the idea that he was adamant, in the immediate aftermath of his hiring, that his year out of the game allowed him to learn and improve, yet the same problems that got him ran out of PIT have manifested themselves ten fold here.

Yes, this always felt like lip service to me. I guess, to be fair, a new coach isn't going to say, "hey, i learned nothing since being fired!" But at the same time, it felt especially disingenuous and the results in buffalo have supported that.

 

[sincerity0]

The Pegulas directly interfering with management is the absolute last thing I want.

I don't think the Pegula's should interfere unless absolutely necessary. I used the example of the Bills trading up for Sammy Watkins. It was widely viewed that Doug Whaley was trying to save his job with new ownership coming in. He traded up in a heavily stacked WR class and paid a ransom for it.

My point was that the Pegula's need to let Murray do his job, but not at the expense of the future. As I stated, if Murray trades a bunch of futures, fails and gets fired, the problem he started is over for him. Yet, for the Pegula's they are still entrenched with the problem.

Schopp brought the point up of the fans and owners being the only ones with long term commitment to the team. It was on a different topic but attributing it to this situation is fair.

Bending over backwards to establish Bylsma as a "good coach" is funny. Davis was defending Bylsma in the midst of his running O'Reilly/Risto into the ground and not playing kids at the 25 game mark, his opinion here is not valuable.

I actually really like the system that Bylsma is employing right now quite a bit. For some reason it just doesn't fit with the playing style of these particular players, so it's frustrating that he is so incorrigible and unwilling to adjust. But I don't begrudge him for preferring this system to others -- I generally might agree with him, all else being equal.

I'm not sure how to properly evaluate a coach, admittedly, but he just seems to be lacking in so many areas. So I'm starting to feel like the issue is more the coach himself, not the system.

I mean, Bylsma won a cup. It is 100% fair to argue both points, is he a good coach or a bad coach? As Doug stated it is definitely difficult to analyze a coach because we are not on the ice during practice, we are not in the film room, we are not in the locker room between periods.

The one thing that is easy to analyze is the players' reactions. The #1 job of the coach is to be the leader of the team. They set the tone, the system, they are the number one teacher, mentor and adviser of every player on the team. When players are publicly voicing displeasure with the team, the coaches, the system, etc, that is a bad look for the coach.

Coaches, just like Presidents get a mandate of rule after their hire. The players, fans and management buy into the coaches' teaching abilities, system and persona. If that mandate is lost, they lose credibility. Once credibility is lost, it is extremely difficult to get back (aka: "losing the room.")

If Byslma has lost the room it would be better to fire him and start afresh. While the criticism of Disco is 100% valid given the obvious problems with his scheme, I am not sure it valid to let him go, yet. Murray assembled an absolutely atrocious defense with two legitimate NHL defenseman. Risto and McCabe are the only two dmen that would be on a legitimate contender. Murray brought in Bogo, Kulikov and Gorges who are all equally as terrible. There is only so much a coach in the NHL can do with inferior talent.

 

[sincerity0]

Coaches that have "their" systems are fine and well and dandy... and you can applaud them at times for establishing or identifying something they think works, and harping on it ad nauseum.

Two big issues with that as it pertains to Bylsma are:

A ) he's clearly not beating the drum hard enough

But more importantly,

B ) this isn't the early nineteen aughts... coaching has come a long way. My version of the best coach is one who can look at his pieces and formulate a successful game plan conducive to the skill set the unit possesses as a whole.

Easiest display of this would be a coach who preaches dump and chase, but gets hired to man a roster heavy on possession and carrying. Installing your prior system with a roster of movers who can all handle and enter with possession is hard headed and ... wrong.

]I also loathe the idea that he was adamant, in the immediate aftermath of his hiring, that his year out of the game allowed him to learn and improve, yet the same problems that got him ran out of PIT have manifested themselves ten fold here.[/B]

I love this point -- we often say that players don't change after a certain point. It's extremely rare for a below average college player to turn on the jets and become a fantastic NHL player. Why? Because by a certain point the players "are who they are."

Why would a coach (and former player) who has been in the league for two decades suddenly change his philosophy about the entire game? An organization needs to be dynamic in order to be a consistent contender. Look at the Patriots, Pens and Blackhawks. The Patriots offense has evolved drastically over the last 16 years and because of that they are staying ahead of the competition. All three of those teams can player a variety of game styles. Bylsma consistently wants to play a slow, methodical, dump and chase style. That matchup may not be good vs every team, and the goal is to maximize your wins.

In essence, there is no problem with having an identity of the kind of game you want to play. I think that if the Sabres move on from Bylsma they should bring in a coach who is not married to a system. The problem with systems is that they are concrete regardless of the players. The goal should be to acquire the best players and mold a system to these players to maximize synergy.

Bylsma and Murray have failed to do this so far.

 

[flashsabre]

Pegula's biggest problem is his eagerness to sign management long term. The Bylsma 5 year deal was not necessary and the contract extension before the season for Murray was pointless. Murray had not earned that yet. Now, if he wants to fire either or both, he is eating a lot of years and money on their contracts. Maybe he doesn't care about that but I have to believe the amount of years left on both men's deals equals the amount of rope he is willing to give them.

 

[Icicle]

Bylsma won a cup employing the previous coach's system. He then changed to his and woefully underperformed with all-star players until they got frustrated enough to boot him. Then they win again shortly after.

We don't need to re-experience history.

 

[TehDoak]

Pegula's biggest problem is his eagerness to sign management long term. The Bylsma 5 year deal was not necessary and the contract extension before the season for Murray was pointless. Murray had not earned that yet. Now, if he wants to fire either or both, he is eating a lot of years and money on their contracts. Maybe he doesn't care about that but I have to believe the amount of years left on both men's deals equals the amount of rope he is willing to give them.

It's terry's money. It's not like a player where you are punished for signing a bad coach contract.

Buffalo isn't considered a premier destination for coaching. We learned that from Babcock, we learned that for YEARS of Bills coaches. Terry uses money and stability as bait to bring top tier talent to Buffalo.

Terry wants to use a 5 year deal to lure in coaches who wouldn't normally consider Buffalo? That's his business.

 

[Zip15]

Bylsma won a cup employing the previous coach's system. He then changed to his and woefully underperformed with all-star players until they got frustrated enough to boot him. Then they win again shortly after.

We don't need to re-experience history.

"Woeful underperformance."

Points (Conference Standing, League Standing)

2009-10: 101 (3rd, 8th)
2010-11: 106 (T-2, 4th)
2011-12: 108 (2nd, 4th)
2012-13: 123 [82-game pace] (1st, 2nd}
2013-14: 109 (2nd, 6th)

Top three in the conference every year, outside the top-6 in the league once. "Woeful underperformance."

You can (try to) make a point without woeful hyperbole.

 

[Sabreality]

My biggest concern is Murray waits too long and we again miss out on a top coaching candidate (Gallant, Hitch, Mac or young guns like Keefe or Green). Imagine getting a lame-o like Hartley, ugh.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

I'm now predicting a "soft" landing for Bylsma somewhere within the organization. I mean he certainly knows how to operate a pencil sharpener don't you think?

 

[Zip15]

My biggest concern is Murray waits too long and we again miss out on a top coaching candidate (Gallant, Hitch, Mac or young guns like Keefe or Green). Imagine getting a lame-o like Hartley, ugh.

I've read enough about Gallant's and Hitch's usage since their respective terminations to be very wary of both.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

I love this point -- we often say that players don't change after a certain point. It's extremely rare for a below average college player to turn on the jets and become a fantastic NHL player. Why? Because by a certain point the players "are who they are."

Why would a coach (and former player) who has been in the league for two decades suddenly change his philosophy about the entire game? An organization needs to be dynamic in order to be a consistent contender. Look at the Patriots, Pens and Blackhawks. The Patriots offense has evolved drastically over the last 16 years and because of that they are staying ahead of the competition. All three of those teams can player a variety of game styles. Bylsma consistently wants to play a slow, methodical, dump and chase style. That matchup may not be good vs every team, and the goal is to maximize your wins.

In essence, there is no problem with having an identity of the kind of game you want to play. I think that if the Sabres move on from Bylsma they should bring in a coach who is not married to a system. The problem with systems is that they are concrete regardless of the players. The goal should be to acquire the best players and mold a system to these players to maximize synergy.

Bylsma and Murray have failed to do this so far.

Good points in your post. Adaptability goes two ways... players adapt to systems, coaches adapt their systems to players. I don't see that working very well right now here in ol' Sabreland.

And in this age of video, there's no reason for any coach not to understand and be prepared for what his opponents are going to throw at his team. Bylsma fails repeatedly IMHO at having this figured out. To me, he's essentially a 1 dimensional coach and I've played for a number of them who always end up becoming "Mike Keenanian" in their approach to the game. Dan doesn't have that perogative in the modern age. His credibility rises or falls on his players belief that his approach works or it doesn't. Right now, it ain't working......

When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, the whole world is a nail.

 

[Sabreality]

I've read enough about Gallant's and Hitch's usage since their respective terminations to be very wary of both.

just throwing out examples, but I still like Gallant (Hitch not so much). The improvements he showed from year 1 to 2 in FLA were impressive and I'm not so sure he was on board with the roster turnover management layed on him this season, a lot of new faces on the back end. Sample size is still pretty small, I think he's going to be a good coach in this league going forward. I just dont want to be the 4th or 5th team to name a new coach, Murray needs to get to the front of the line asap.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

"Woeful underperformance."

Points (Conference Standing, League Standing)

2009-10: 101 (3rd, 8th)
2010-11: 106 (T-2, 4th)
2011-12: 108 (2nd, 4th)
2012-13: 123 [82-game pace] (1st, 2nd}
2013-14: 109 (2nd, 6th)

Top three in the conference every year, outside the top-6 in the league once. "Woeful underperformance."

You can (try to) make a point without woeful hyperbole.

This is the thing that made me turn on Bylsma, the lack of regular season winning *or* effort to establish his best lineups and get growing players a variety of situational experience.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

I'd roll the dice on Keefe - 3 years at $2M per - if it doesn't work out easy to fire without worrying about the cost.

Todd Nelson is a younger guy who did a decent job as an interim coach in Edmonton and now coaching Grand Rapids with a .693 points percentage.

 

[Zip15]

Murray's job likely hinges on what happens after he hires his next coach. For that reason, I think he turns to someone with whom he's familiar, which is why I think the next coach is likely Paul MacLean (if Bylsma is fired before next season) or Luke Richardson (Bylsma fired during 2017-18 season).

 

[brian_griffin]

This is the thing that made me turn on Bylsma, the lack of regular season winning *or* effort to establish his best lineups and get growing players a variety of situational experience.

Perhaps to Bylsma's credit, NHL Playoff OT is still 5-on-5, which means 2 defensemen on the ice. Maybe he's been preparing for success...

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

Murray's job likely hinges on what happens after he hires his next coach. For that reason, I think he turns to someone with whom he's familiar, which is why I think the next coach is likely Paul MacLean (if Bylsma is fired before next season) or Luke Richardson (Bylsma fired during 2017-18 season).

I am very wary of AHL coach hires. I would rather MacLean, as he has actual NHL HC experience.

 

[Gabrielor]

I just hope the next coach is smart, respected by his players, and most importantly, can put our talent in the best position to succeed.