Jump to content

JohnC

Members
  • Posts

    2,062
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JohnC

  1. I remember when Peters announced that the show was going to be reduced to an hour a day instead of the regular two hour show. My impression from listening to him after making that announcement is that he didn't seem too happy with that reduction on air.
  2. Where I haver a different perspective from you on this locker room attitude issue is that it is rare that there is as much unanimity and warmth among all the players and even the coaches in the room that you seem to believe exists in most locker rooms. Considering the wide array of personalities and different nationalities and backgrounds it is not as tightly knitted as you make it out to be. That's all I'm saying. No more, no less.
  3. There is no question that he should start off in Rochester. Even his former coach who gloats over him said the best approach to take in his development would be to start off in the AHL in order to better acclimate to the North American game.
  4. The player I see being called up and sticking is Peterka. Moving up in the draft to select him will prove to be one of the better hockey decisions this organization has made in a number of years.
  5. So what! One ex-teammate criticized him. Not every high profiler player, especially on a losing team, is going to be beloved. In the real world of the locker-room there are factions within the room, as there are in every work place setting. I'm not suggesting that Jack was a perfect teammate or captain. He had flaws (like everyone else) that related to being an intense player who wanted to win on a losing and bottom-feeding team. He showed his emotions when frustrated because he cared. That intolerance for losing shouldn't be an attribute to skewer him for. On the contrary that attitude should have been exhibited even more so from other players. You might remember in a game against Toronto at home when the visitor fans were taking over the arena when their team seemed to control the play. Jack's response was to make a dynamic play that resulted in a goal. For a short time he silenced the boisterous visiting crowd. Whatever faults he has I'll take that unbridled passion over an attitude of resignation. As I have repeatedly stated I'm not against trading him if the return is substantial. But it seems to me that people are wanting to dispatch him for pennies on the dollar because they resent how he has handled this very challenging situation. @Thorny or someone else some time ago put up a link cataloging Jack's goals . The number of dynamic plays was stunning. Jack hasn't played for some time. Sometimes we forget how good he is.
  6. I'll take this ear over the prior eras. Your last paragraph aptly points out why I have the position that I do. When you refer to the Gordie Howe era you looking back more than a half century ago. As time passes by things change and for the most part for the better. As I said before my preference is a minority view: Fighting should not be part of the game. It's archaic and goes against the spirit of player safety.
  7. There is a good chance that Jack might not be able to play for quite awhile. So there is no need to be forced into making a decision regarding him. Situations that have deteriorated and appear to be irreconcilable between the parties involved can dramatically change over time. That doesn't mean that it will change but there is the possibility that it could change. What I have been saying is that regarding the Jack saga there is still plenty of time to allow this situation to play out before foreclosing any option.
  8. The Neanderthal era of hockey is long gone. Thankfully, fighting for the sake of fighting is mostly nonexistent. As you point out what you should want out of your players is hard hitting and play. The goon hockey of that Punch era won't and shouldn't be tolerated in this era of skill, speed and toughness. I'm aware that I am in the minority on this issue but if I had it my way anyone who instigates a fight would be suspended 10 games for a first time offense, suspended 20 games for a second offense and then banished from the league for a year for a third time offense. It's dangerous and its stupid. If you want to see some contrived fighting it would be better to go to a Wrestlemania match.
  9. Your points are well taken. WGR's Paul Hamilton commented that when Granato took over he demanded that the players practice harder and smarter. If a drill resulted in sloppy passing or play he would stop the drill and have it done over. The critical issue wasn't the length of the practice as it was the intensity of it. The players played harder and the staff coached harder. I'm really eager to see how this rebuilding team responds to this coach now that he is in control. A coach can't control the talent level on the team but he can control the effort level. This should be a much more energetic and entertaining team than last year's team under Krueger.
  10. Why are you requiring that he be stripped of his captaincy? If he regains his health (and that is an open question) he will continue to be our best and most dominant player. The time not to have bestowed the captaincy on him is when he first entered the league. That was an organizational mistake, and not his. The more favorable time to bestow the captaincy on him is when he is the most dominant and productive player on this team. And assuming that he fully regains his health that is the caliber of player he is. What I find odd is the cavalier way many fans are demanding that one of the best players in the league be dispatched without much regard for the return. A segment of the fanbase (not all) act as if this is a necessity for this woebegone franchise to regain its honor after perceiving that their star play disrespected the organization. What the hanging crowd isn't aware of is that this befuddled organization is not held in high regard by the league because of the shoddy manner this franchise has been operated. As I said in prior posts I'm open to moving him if the return merits it. However, I would be more than happy to retain him if it is in the best interest of the franchise. I'm simply not foreclosing the retention options as many are.
  11. I agree with everything you said. And I would like to add that this is not an easy situation for this talented and passionate player. Because of his serious injury he has been sidelined for an extended period of time. Added to that stress is the unknown and dispute over what the best course of treatment should be. It can't be easy for this young player to face the possibility that he many never be the player he once was or even put himself at risk where his physical well-being will be in jeopardy for the rest of his life. So I'm not going to be as harsh in judging him and his responses to the situation as the majority of people are. I'm very be open to retaining him if the situation develops where that becomes the best option for the team and the player.
  12. Putting aside the team's record under Granato there was a clear line of demarcation between the team's performance under him compared to under Krueger. And that demonstrable change occurred with a minimal opportunity to practice. One failed coaching effort was more about the team being forced to conform to the coach's archaic system while the more successful coach focused on putting the players in the best situation to succeed. Very often when people try to demonstrate to others how smart they are they end up demonstrating how obtuse they are. Granato is the right coach at the right time for the Sabres. In making the coaching selection KA made the right choice.
  13. One of the things I like about Granto, especially compared to Krueger, is that he is more open-minded. An example of that was his willingness to move Reinhart to center and play the younger players. If something didn't work he would try something different. Krueger is in general a very smart person, obviously so. On the other hand Granato is a much more creative hockey person compared to Krueger who was too rigid and ideological with his hockey views.
  14. Just because it is out there doesn't mean that it is true. The best player on the team is a competitive person who desperately wants to win. There is no doubt that he has exhibited his frustration with this long-term franchise malaise. Do you think that he was the only player exasperated with the organizational dysfunction and constant losing? So were Reinhart, Risto and unnamed other players. Reinhart was dealt because of his impending UFA status and his refusal to contractually to commit to the team. So trading him made sense. But Jack is in a different situation in that he is contractually locked up for the long-term. As poisonous as the situation may seem now there is plenty of time to see if this relationship can be salvaged. Don't misconstrue my position on Jack. If the organization can make a bonanza deal for him I would be all for it. But if not, then wait until he heals and see exactly where things stand at that later point.
  15. Attached is a Buffalo News link written by Lance Lysowski on his observations about these two prospect games. His observations coincide with the views made by others here. He noted that Murray stood out for his physical play and also noted Peterka's play stood out. The general observation is that there are prospects in the pipeline but it is going to take time before they are ready for NHL play. He also made comments about Ruotsalaninen and whether his role will be at wing or center. https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/sabres-observations-brett-murray-emerging-as-an-effective-power-forward/article_8ed5da4c-1887-11ec-91a6-a7cbb207617f.html#tracking-source=home-trending
  16. Everything you say is about the past. What if the situation changes and there is a changing of attitude from the player and the organization? Those who act as if all the fault of this deteriorated relationship is due to the player are not accounting for the half generation of dysfunction coming from this befuddled organization. How could it not be understood why player/s would want to escape such a losing and chaotic situation? What I object to is this mischaracterization of Jack as if he is a bad guy and a cancer in the room. Nothing is further from the truth. He gets along with his teammates. What you haven't heard during this extended interlude is any of his teammates anonymously criticizing him. That is telling. Has he been the best captain? No. But there is a legitimate question as to why a young player should have been bestowed with that responsibility when he wasn't ready for it. Again, another one of the organization's long list of mistakes. It is more likely than not that when he gets healthy he will be dealt. And if dealt it would be a blunder to trade him unless there is a maximum return The point I'm making is that it would be wise to keep the retention option open.
  17. Odds are if Jack heals and gets back on the ice and plays at the level that we have seen him play his trade value increases. On the other hand there is another side to this situation: If he regains his form this Granato coached team because a much better team. You don't think the coach wouldn't want that? The core of Jack's disgruntlement is that he intensely wants to win. And playing for the Sabres has not afforded him that opportunity. It's easy to understand why he is dissatisfied with his situation. There are plenty of people who say that he lacks leadership. Well maybe in a classical hockey sense (compared to a player like Okposo) that is a fair description of him but there are other ways to demonstrate it. He does it through his play. Without question he plays hard, and offensively he is one of the more productive players in the league. At a different level that represents leadership on the ice through his prolific production. If the GM decides to move him he should only do it if the return is commensurate for a top tier player in this league. That means a lot in return! If not, then keep him and do everything you can and as fast as you can to give him more support. My point is don't preclude keeping him if that is the best option.
  18. It was enjoyable watching a hockey game with fans in the arena. You can't make fair judgments on players in such an early setting. Just a few observations: I thought UPL looked very composed and efficient with his movements. Both Peterka and Weissbach stood out. Weissback can create opportunities with his speed. I see Peterka moving up to the big club sometime during the season. As I said before I'm not against UPL making the roster if the intention is to play him. If not, then get him a lot of playing time in Rochester. With our history of goalies getting hurt it wouldn't be surprising to see him called up.
  19. You are taking a static perspective on a roster that is rapidly being reshuffled with the cap money in the not too distant future differently redistributed, significantly so. In one or two years Miller, Butcher, Eichel and Okposo will be gone. This team is going through a rapid transition where much of the roster is being turned over to younger players who are moving up the ranks. The process going on can be painful but it is the right approach to take. There are problems and there are solutions. The tandem of Butcher and Miller you cite as troublesome will soon be replaced by players such as Power, Samuellson, Johnson and maybe Bryson. With a little more patience I'm confident that you will become less stressed.
  20. His development might be delayed but on the other hand being exposed to the higher level of play could, even if then sent down, might also serve as a learning experience that in the long run prove to be more beneficial than detrimental. I'm just not as worried as others are about this early exposure to the league. Very often more learning takes place failing at higher levels than succeeding at lower levels. It should also be noted that everything have said about UPL making the roster is predicated on him earning his spot.
  21. I'm not suggesting that he should automatically be given a roster spot. But if in training camp and preseason games he outperforms the other players at the position he should be given an opportunity to be on the roster. I say that with the proviso that he gets an abundance of playing time. It would make no sense to have him on the roster only to sit idly on the bench. If the strategy is to play him every third game then it would be better for him to be in Rochester playing full-time. I'm not as fearful as many are here that he will be overwhelmed in the NHL and permanently be damaged as a player. Because this roster is being rebuilt this would be a good time to see what he is capable of without hurting a team that most objective observers believe will be struggling to win many games. (That doesn't mean that this team can't be competitive and entertaining.) The more conservative and conventional approach of playing him in Rochester and then bringing him up if his play warrants it is what is going to happen. But in every training camp there are players who surprise and outplay expectations. If he falls into that category then he should be given the opportunity.
  22. I live in the Wash/Md area. The media reports here were that Seattle and Washington made a pre-expansion draft deal for them to take Vanacek instead of taking defenseman Brendon Dillon. There were suggestions that the Vanacek trade back for a second-round pick was part of the side deal. I can't say for sure but that is what appears to have happened with the Vanacek exchange (as you indicated). As we have both discussed in prior exchanges it seems that KA is investing in UPL as one of their goalies sooner than most of us thought. It seems that the Ullmark departure accelerated the schedule for him. It may turn out that UPL plays a full season, or near full season, in Rochester before being called up. Candidly, I just don't know how this situation (as with the Jack situation) is going to shake out when the season starts???
×
×
  • Create New...