spndnchz Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Go Sabres!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverenough Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Just win baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Just win baby. Well said. On a side note, is looking good while losing the opposite of looking bad while winning? GO SABRES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Detroit certainly did get their start to dominance by sucking. They sucked so bad they got to draft Steve Yzerman at #4, Joe Murphy at #1 who was shrewdly moved, and the "good" Primeau at #3. And then they were very quickly on there way to a dynasty. They sustained it through excellent management but it took a decade of gawd awful play to get the resources needed to start the ball rolling. And the Bruins had their suck year that resulted in Kessel at #5. Yeah, Kessel isn't with them, but the fruits of that bad season resulted in assets that paid off in a Stanley Cup. The Flyers got JVR at #2 overall after their worst season in team history. No JVR isn't all world but it's hard to say the team didn;t suck before building the current team when they did in fact suck before building the current team. I'm not saying sucking is the only way to win a cup, but it is hard not to notice that many, many teams used sucking to collect that first piece needed. Of course, Edmonton and NYI will show that sucking doesn't work if your management is lousy too. At the end of the day you need talent acroos the board and shrewd management that can foresee opportunities to turn resources into depth at all positions. And really, IMO that last phrase about mgt is the most critical factor in building a cup contender. Times have changed, let's stick to more recent years. Is Detroit this good because of drafting high in consecutive years? No. Kessel didn't get them to the playoffs last year and the Cup. Neither did consecutive years of building through the draft with high picks. Philly didn't build their team through consecutive years of high draft picks either. Let's stick to the topic at hand, this discussion is about building a dominant team through consecutive years of high (1-3) draft picks. Focusing on one first round draft pick proves nothing because everybody has them. Tyler Myers is much more desirable the JVR, and where did we get him in the first round? But then again, I never said their approach was ludicrous, did I? But the answer to whether or not it's easy for the Sabres to finish last to draft high is in the eye of the beholder, since it depends on whether you believe they're a terrible team or not. Point is, losing out to draft high has been done succesfully in recent years - Keeping the same management team around for 15 years? Well, no so much in recent years. No you didn't and neither did I. I said hoping to lose to move up in the draft was ludicrous because it does not guaranty a better player. And in the case of this discussion, we've been talking about teams who have built through the draft becuase of many years of SUCK. The couple of teams that have done it had top 3 picks in 3-4 consecutive years. Unless you dump the entire Sabres team, they will never suck to the point of drafting in the top 3 for four consecutive years. The vast majority of Cup winners have not done this. Nugent-Hopkins....Hall......the coming pick......yes. Yes they will. You're probably right. But as been pointed out, teams that do that were at the point of suck and that was their best option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 No you didn't and neither did I. I said hoping to lose to move up in the draft was ludicrous because it does not guaranty a better player. But you can't actually "guarantee" anything in pro sports. If you want to be good, you have to find quality players throughout the draft, not just in the first round. But in the first round, the higher you pick, the better your chances. Here are all the Sabres' draft picks who were in the Top 5 overall: Gilbert Perrault (1970), Rick Martin (1971), Jim Shoenfeld (1972), Tom Barrasso (1983), Shawn Anderson (1986), Pierre Turgeon (1987), and Thomas Vanek (2003). Phil Housley was also drafted 6th overall. With the exception of Shawn Anderson (who?), those are all outstanding players. It makes sense: the higher you draft, the better your chances. The guys I just listed are WAY better as a group than everyone else we've ever drafted in the first round as a group (both in terms of success rate and level of success). So while it doesn't guarantee anything, the occasional horrible, bottoming-out season can really help kickstart your rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 But you can't actually "guarantee" anything in pro sports. If you want to be good, you have to find quality players throughout the draft, not just in the first round. But in the first round, the higher you pick, the better your chances. Here are all the Sabres' draft picks who were in the Top 5 overall: Gilbert Perrault (1970), Rick Martin (1971), Jim Shoenfeld (1972), Tom Barrasso (1983), Shawn Anderson (1986), Pierre Turgeon (1987), and Thomas Vanek (2003). Phil Housley was also drafted 6th overall. With the exception of Shawn Anderson (who?), those are all outstanding players. It makes sense: the higher you draft, the better your chances. The guys I just listed are WAY better as a group than everyone else we've ever drafted in the first round as a group (both in terms of success rate and level of success). So while it doesn't guarantee anything, the occasional horrible, bottoming-out season can really help kickstart your rebuild. And this team isn't anywhere near bottoming out, so it's kind of a moot point don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 And this team isn't anywhere near bottoming out, so it's kind of a moot point don't you think? We had the third worst record in the NHL just last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Let's face it, this team isn't bad enough to ensure a top 3 pick much less do it in consecutive years. Hoping to lose to draft 6th instead of 15th will not guaranty anything. Short of unloading the entire team there is no way we draft in the top 3 in the near future. So get over it. Many more teams have become successful through free agency, trades and development than they have drafting in the top 3 in 3-4 consecutive years. If you want to root for a loser, go cheer for Columbus. The only thing that can be done at this point is trades and free agency. To sit here and say you want the team to lose so you can get one slightly higher pick in a very weak draft is pathetic. I would bet the same people would be here bitching if they were on a 10 game losing streak by running for the bus and not trying to win games. You people are really grasping at straws. :wallbash: :P We had the third worst record in the NHL just last week. And do you honestly think that this team would finish out that way after becoming healthy? No, the only way to do that is by purposely losing. You know it and I know it. Thank you!!! People say this team is weak, people say this team doesn't have heart, people say this team can't overcome adversity. But last year they came from last in the conference at one point, had the best record in the East the 2nd half of the season and got into the playoffs. This year they had a small excuse for playing poorly for a couple of months. Now IF by some small chance they happen to pull of the same feat as last year doesn't that in and of itself contradict the bold print? Funny that nobody addressed this. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 We had the third worst record in the NHL just last week. And the Sabres are still only 3 points above from having the 3rd worst record in the NHL right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm not trying to convince anybody to believe anything. I'm just trying to understand the logic (or lack thereof). Everybody is pretty set in their opinions as am I. With that said, I'm going to eat dinner and watch the game. I hope they lose, there's still a chance at that #2 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 And do you honestly think that this team would finish out that way after becoming healthy? No, the only way to do that is by purposely losing. You know it and I know it. Health had nothing to do with this team rolling over and dying after Lucic cartwheeled Miller. They've lacked focus and intensity for most of this season. There have been games where they seriously look like they're trying to get Ruff fired. I don't share your assessment that injuries account for this team's situation. There were too many games with completely atrocious efforts to pretend that the Sabres were a great team all along waiting for a couple stars to get healthy. And the Sabres are still only 3 points above from having the 3rd worst record in the NHL right now. Right. And if the season ended right now, they'd be picking 7th overall. This is "nowhere near" bottoming out? Are we closer to being the worst team in the league or the best team in the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Quick question, if y'all hope for failure, why do you even watch the games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 something else to consider. Losing out with the young players after doing a fire sale of veterans, could harm their development and instill a culture of losing. I mean so many here tear the current players apart for being soft and not winning, seems kinda odd to want to take all of the new/young players in development and put them in positions to lose lots of games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 It doesn't matter anymore. The only reason I would want them to collapse is to get Regier, Ruff, and the core out of here. Pegula is obviously dug in with all his merry men, judging by the smugness coming from Darcy and Ted Black. Let them sneak in by a point, let them lose 20 in a row.....whatever. I look at this team sort of like I would an obnoxious, worthless sister-in-law. I want to slap her in the face, but it's my brother's wife and mother of his kids, so I have to shrug and give whatever support I can muster up. But I will dance in the streets the day he divorces that b!tch. (I do not have a brother before the lolipop gang on here gets their panties in a bunch). Once again another great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Quick question, if y'all hope for failure, why do you even watch the games? As penance so we may, one day, be deemed worthy of better days by the Hockey Gods. :angel: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 something else to consider. Losing out with the young players after doing a fire sale of veterans, could harm their development and instill a culture of losing. I mean so many here tear the current players apart for being soft and not winning, seems kinda odd to want to take all of the new/young players in development and put them in positions to lose lots of games On the other hand, our current core was brought up during the glory years of 2006 and 2007 and I'm not sure all that winning actually helped them all that much. Maybe it just doesn't matter all that much. I think it has more to do with team chemistry and each player's internal drive to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 On the other hand, our current core was brought up during the glory years of 2006 and 2007 and I'm not sure all that winning actually helped them all that much. Maybe it just doesn't matter all that much. I think it has more to do with team chemistry and each player's internal drive to win. The glory days of them not winning a cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Make this a public poll to out the unsportsmanlike cowards that think intentionally losing is any way to improve a team. I appreciate the emotion behind this post, but just be honest, does getting a higher pick give a team a statistically better chance of improving than if they were lower on the draft board? Yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 something else to consider. Losing out with the young players after doing a fire sale of veterans, could harm their development and instill a culture of losing. I mean so many here tear the current players apart for being soft and not winning, seems kinda odd to want to take all of the new/young players in development and put them in positions to lose lots of games Yeah, you're right. All we have to do is look at Steve Yzerman, Sidey Crosby, Mike Modano, Vinny Lacavier, Mario Lemieux, and Denis Potvin to see that getting drafted into a losing situation breeds a culture of losing. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 The glory days of them not winning a cup? You just described a 41 year time span. The first two years after the lockout really were glory years. I remember thinking we were going to win the Cup. Not that we COULD win the Cup, I literally (for the first and only time as a Sabres fan) believed it was going to happen. More than that, I remember liking every single player on that team. I was excited to see almost every line when they were on the ice. It was that exciting. And now? Yikes. We're supposed to be excited that the team might MAYBE make a miracle run for that last playoff spot? AGAIN? And we only have about a handful of players that are actually fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Yeah, you're right. All we have to do is look at Steve Yzerman, Sidey Crosby, Mike Modano, Vinny Lacavier, Mario Lemieux, and Denis Potvin to see that getting drafted into a losing situation breeds a culture of losing. :cry: Your gonna include Crosby on that list? he was part of one losing season with the Pens. Also LeCavalier? really? thats one of the names you want to hang your hat on for this arguement? When I think of winners I hardly think of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR HOLLIDAY Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 If the Sabres are as bad as all the haters say they are then you guys should have nothing to worry about.......But if they keep playing well because they have pride and are a better team that finishes strong then I guess that would prove the haters wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Your gonna include Crosby on that list? he was part of one losing season with the Pens. Also LeCavalier? really? thats one of the names you want to hang your hat on for this arguement? When I think of winners I hardly think of him. Well, the goal with those that want Buffalo to lose out is to quickly recover. And Vinny's got a Stanley Cup under his belt and he was a key part of it, so I'm calling him someone that wasn't badly effected by his teams' prior poor performance. If those names bother you I am sure I could extend the list to include #2's and #3's and get quite a few more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Quick question, if y'all hope for failure, why do you even watch the games? Duh....to see if they lose. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 If the Sabres are as bad as all the haters say they are then you guys should have nothing to worry about.......But if they keep playing well because they have pride and are a better team that finishes strong then I guess that would prove the haters wrong. \ I'm sorry. Did you have something productive to lend to the conversation or are you just going to rail about the posters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.