Jump to content

GDT: Vancouver at Buffalo 10-17-13 at 7:00 PM

26CornerBlitz

By 26CornerBlitz
in The Aud Club

Recommended Posts

nfreeman Hall of Famer

nfreeman

Posted
Posted

Ummm.......Bill Polian??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Identify Athletes

 

Identify Men

 

Identify Leaders

 

Have the nads to take chances

 

Tell the owner to F-off when he hamstrings his ability to do the job.

 

Success in multiple places.

 

 

Darcy...............................

 

Indeed.

 

I honestly didn't intend for this to become a team building discussion, I was simply trying to convey why I personally find mediocrity to be so horrible. Another, more simple way of phrasing my feelings is that mediocrity is basically all I've known as a sports fan and I've seen it fail exponentially more often than succeed, so I'm sick of it--the ratio of failure to success I've seen in my teams is enough to cause me to be especially pessimistic about it being different in the future if they continue the middling path. I'm ready for a different approach. That's the pure emotional part of this. That said, I feel compelled to respond to a few points.

 

Regarding the assumptions, whereas you believe that losing begets losing and mediocrity is qualitatively easier to pull yourself from, I disagree. I shouldn't even say I disagree in full, because I think you're half right--with the nature of parity in the NFL and NHL, it's easy to climb out of the middle of the pack here or there. But that's where my agreement ends, because I don't see the climb from mediocrity to be sustainable, barring some extraordinary luck in the draft. It's easy (relatively, anyway) to bounce from 9th in the conference to 4th to 6th and back to 10th and so on. This happens every year because teams get players who have a breakout season, get some fortunate puck luck (*cough* Toronto *cough*) and so on. What's hard is sustaining that top-4 place in the standings year to year.

 

Secondly, I've never asserted that tanking and getting high picks is the *only* way to build a sustainable contender, only that it is the most probable way to do so. Yes the Bills succeeded with Bruce being the only elite-level draft pick..but how long ago was that? Why hasn't that model worked for them since? Because building that way isn't reliable IMO. I'll go back to the draft analogy: the probability that some pick between #10-25 becomes great on a yearly basis is probably pretty good...but the probability that YOUR draft pick becomes great in that range is not good. Same thing with hoping to build with lucky pickups: it has happened before and it will happen again, but how likely is it your team is the one that strikes lightning? The chances of drafting a dynasty early might not be high, maybe 25% (hence a lot of the time you become Edmonton, or Columbus, etc.)...but in my estimation, the chances of going the other route and being consistently good is more like 10% or less. So I still find drafting high preferable--and yes, those numbers are purely for illustrative purposes.

 

I honestly consider bringing up the Red Wings to be a rather patronizing point--what are the chances that your team drafts a HoFer in the 3rd, 5th, and 6th rounds close enough together so they all share the same prime years? The probability of that is so low I don't even consider it (it's like saying "well people win the lottery, so I'll just work my minimum wage job until I win too"), and if you're relying on something like that to springboard the team into consistent contention, there's really not much more to discuss.

 

Another good post. I hate to say it, because we're very early in what promises to be a long season, but at this point we may have said all there is to say on this.

 

Here's one more thing: I certainly did not intend for the Red Wings reference to be patronizing -- just that I want the Sabres to be in the hunt every year. And the Sabres had their diamonds in the rough (who admittedly weren't as good as Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but they were still damn good) and let them walk on Black Sunday.

 

What was Black saying the other day - 15 picks in the first two rounds over a four- year period?

And that's without the Miller/Vanek return.

Couple that with the fact our first-rounders this year and next will almost certainly be top-three.

They've certainly increased their odds of creating a good, sustainable core that can keep this team on top for an extended period.

I liked the comparison to the 1970s Canadiens. That would be worth some the suffering, if only they can get their Lafleur.

 

And Robinson, and Savard, and LaPointe, and Dryden, and Courneyer, and Lambert, and Shutt, and Lemaire, and Gainey...

 

And those guys come in to a situation where they learn how to play the game the right way and expect to win...

 

Let's hope so, because that appears to be the chosen path.

 

(But in the long run -- there's still time to change the road you're on.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bunomatic All Star

bunomatic

Posted
Posted

We're being told by Rolston that his way is the right way. He says if they play the right way they will find success. How do we know that RRs way will bring wins? We really haven't seen those type of results if at all going back to last season. Has anything he's done as coach in the way he's coaching led anyone to believe its the right way ? I'm not sure I've seen anything cohesive or tangible system wise that he's got them doing where I sit back and say wow, that really seems to be working. Just not sure where he's taking us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kristian First Liner

Kristian

Posted
Posted

Rob Ray takes umbrage to Hasek getting all the credit for those years. First three rounds in 99, the Sabres averaged three goals a game. There was more to that team than meets the eye, as Ghost has ably pointed out.

 

They also had a lethal PP that post-season which obviously helped getting them that far, so yes that was much more than just Hasek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dudacek Hall of Famer

dudacek

Posted
Posted

Just for fun, what Montreal did with their 21 first and second rounders over four years:

 

 

Draft:

1971: 1) Lafleur 7) Chuck Arnason, 11) Murray Wilson 20) Robinson 24) Michel DeGuise, 25) Terry French

1972: 4) Shutt 6) Laroque 8) Dave Gardner, 14) John Van Boxmeer

1973: 8) Gainey, 17) Glenn Goldup 22) Peter Marrin, 32) Ron Andruff

1974: 5) Cam Connor, 7) Risebrough 10) Rick Chartraw 12) Mario Tremblay, 15) Gord McTavish, 30 Gary MacGregor, 33) Gilles Lupien

 

 

Two franchise players (Lafleur and Robinson)

One first-liner (Shutt)

A shutdown forward (Gainey)

Two hard-to-play-against top nine forwards (Risebrough, Tremblay)

Four NHL regulars: Arnason, Gardner, Van Boxmeer and Wilson

A back-up goalie (Laroque)

Five fringe NHLers: Connor, Chartraw, Lupien, Andruff and Goldup

Five busts: Deguise, French, Marrin, McTavish and McGregor

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrueBlueGED Hall of Famer

TrueBlueGED

Posted
Posted

Another good post. I hate to say it, because we're very early in what promises to be a long season, but at this point we may have said all there is to say on this.

 

Here's one more thing: I certainly did not intend for the Red Wings reference to be patronizing -- just that I want the Sabres to be in the hunt every year. And the Sabres had their diamonds in the rough (who admittedly weren't as good as Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but they were still damn good) and let them walk on Black Sunday.

 

Good deal. Patronizing was probably the wrong word on my part anyway, I just saw "Red Wings" and "draft" and went all "I don't care if the Patriots did it, you're not getting Tom Brady in the 6th!!!" I think we can all get on board with the Sabres being in the hunt every year like Detroit is, regardless of how they get there :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...