Sabres fire Ted Nolan

[Doohickie]

I like this thread.  It makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.

[JJFIVEOH]

Not trying to pile on and this is for everyone, many posters and people in general say things like this.  My issue with it, shouldn't your opinion change over time? I mean, I was optimistic when Nolan first came aboard because last time he left I was 9 or something. So my opinion was trying to be positive. As the season went along I saw things that made me dislike how he coached.  How he handled Grigorenko was disappointing for instance. Over the course of the year my opinion did change because I received more information.  At the end of the year my opinion changed again because I think he helped hold the team together instead of it being a Toronto situation.  If your opinion isn't changing you have closed your eyes to new information and that seems silly.  Again this is directed more at everyone than JJ

 

 

I think opinions should change over time, if that is in fact how somebody feels. To keep the same opinion just for the sake of never changing is just being closed-minded. I know you weren't directing this at me specifically, but I'll explain my side. Call me old school, but I am a fan of head coaches whose sole purpose is to organize a team, address snap decisions, motivation, etc....... To me this applies to all sports. I think head coaches have gradually taken on more of a role than they should be handling from the X's and O's to game time strategy, to basically controlling every aspect of the game. This is what assistant coaches are for. A head coach can bring his style to the ice but get on the same page as the assistants and let them handle the rest while the head coach attends to the responsibilities I mentioned above. I'm not supporting Nolan to go against the grain, I support Nolan because he's one of the few left in the league that does this and I believe that kind of coach has a place in professional sports ESPECIALLY in today's day and age where youth tends to need more motivation and 'pats on the back' to make themselves feel good. 

 

The issue I had earlier wasn't the fact that posters changed their opinion on Nolan and Stewart, it was the fact that it just seemed to happen the same day they were no longer a Sabre. It was the tone I perceived, some may think otherwise. 

[JJFIVEOH]

I'm not sure you've heard of it either. I'm not trying to antogonize you, but civilized dialogue generally doesn't allow calling people that don't agree with you children or sheep.

 

As for the point, my eye-opening moment on Nolan was indeed the trade deadline; maybe that's why the "tide turned". After it, I figured we'd see players (I'm thinking of Hodgson specifically) given another shot on the upper lines where they "should" be playing now that a few of the vets had been shipped out. Instead, Nolan just found new AHL vets to put on those lines. I'm not trying to defend Le Coney Hotdog, but every once in awhile it seems like you need to put him in a position to succeed to see if he's gotten it yet. The fear is Nolan would nail McEichel to the 4th line if he has a few bad shifts. Maybe you do that a few times to send a message, but at some point you have to put the player in the right place and let them either work through it or sink.

 

EDIT: Oh, and the Hackett eligibility situation: maybe Murray had said don't worry about it or maybe he wanted to see more of Lindback, but it seems foolish to keep playing Lindback and lose out on Hackett's rights for no particular reason. If nothing else, maybe you get a (very) late pick for Hackett or add him to a trade that's bringing a goaltender back.

 

You are 100% correct, it's an important aspect to civilized dialogue. But you're going to be hard-pressed to find me attacking anybody without provocation on this board. I can honestly say I crossed the line once in recent memory on this board and it wasn't even directed at anybody in particular. I don't attack people that I disagree with and have never used the word 'sheep'. The child comment came in response to Numark's attack on me, it had nothing to do with disagreeing with his point of view. I won't attack anybody based on their opinion, but if you want to attack me then you're fair game.......... and even then I'll just ignore you or call you out on your comment. 

 

I'm not going to hold Hodgson against Nolan because he had almost the entire first half of the season to prove himself. Most players wouldn't have been given that long before being demoted. After the trade deadline there really wasn't much for Hodgson to play with that could put him in the position to succeed because there wasn't anybody left. Earlier, Nolan called out Larsson for not bringing enough, he took it to heart and started putting in an effort so Larsson was the one given the opportunity to succeed. Hodgson is a one-dimensional player and he didn't have the tools around him to succeed this past year. His time to prove himself would be next year, Nolan recognized that and gave others an opportunity. 

 

It wasn't Nolan's job to ensure a player keeps a free agent status. Lindback was playing the best so he got the bulk of the playing time. Hackett is never going to cut it in this league, losing him is inconsequential. It seems foolish for a head coach to play the role of a GM. 

 

 

 

I think you are you wrong. I think Nolan's system lends itself to being outshot.

X had a good post on this yesterday. 

You may be right, but any other head coach wouldn't have been any more successful this year. 

[MattPie]

You are 100% correct, it's an important aspect to civilized dialogue. But you're going to be hard-pressed to find me attacking anybody without provocation on this board. I can honestly say I crossed the line once in recent memory on this board and it wasn't even directed at anybody in particular. I don't attack people that I disagree with and have never used the word 'sheep'. The child comment came in response to Numark's attack on me, it had nothing to do with disagreeing with his point of view. I won't attack anybody based on their opinion, but if you want to attack me then you're fair game.......... and even then I'll just ignore you or call you out on your comment. 

 

I'm not going to hold Hodgson against Nolan because he had almost the entire first half of the season to prove himself. Most players wouldn't have been given that long before being demoted. After the trade deadline there really wasn't much for Hodgson to play with that could put him in the position to succeed because there wasn't anybody left. Earlier, Nolan called out Larsson for not bringing enough, he took it to heart and started putting in an effort so Larsson was the one given the opportunity to succeed. Hodgson is a one-dimensional player and he didn't have the tools around him to succeed this past year. His time to prove himself would be next year, Nolan recognized that and gave others an opportunity. 

 

It wasn't Nolan's job to ensure a player keeps a free agent status. Lindback was playing the best so he got the bulk of the playing time. Hackett is never going to cut it in this league, losing him is inconsequential. It seems foolish for a head coach to play the role of a GM. 

 

You may be right, but any other head coach wouldn't have been any more successful this year.

Para 1: To me the civilized thing to do is reply to the attack with facts, and not attack back. It's the choice between bystanders thinking the "other" poster is a jerk and thinking you're both jerks.

 

Para 2: That's fair. I wonder how much of Nolan's issue with CH is the quality of his play vs. the style of his play. Let's take this to an extreme: without comparing him to CH, what would Nolan do with Ovechkin? Bench him for floating or look the other way?

 

Para 3: The coach's job in that situation is to do what's best for the team in the short (er, middle maybe) and long term. It's not like we're talking about Lundquist vs. Hackett here, we're talking career backup vs. career backup. In the grand scheme of things I don't think Hackett will be a big loss, but in a season winding down with nothing to play for, I don't see the issue with putting the guy in to preserve his contract.

[Doohickie]

I support Nolan because he's one of the few left in the league that does this and I believe that kind of coach has a place in professional sports

 

A counter-argument is that there's a reason their are few coaches like that in the league; the game has evolved and the old coaching style is no longer effective.  (I'm not personally offering this up as my own opinion; this is just an observation of what other posters have said.)

 

The issue I had earlier wasn't the fact that posters changed their opinion on Nolan and Stewart, it was the fact that it just seemed to happen the same day they were no longer a Sabre. It was the tone I perceived, some may think otherwise.

This is only natural.  When someone is inside the organization he will be viewed in the context of the organization.  For instance with GMTM I may wonder if his communication style drove PLF away or it was a simple dispute or whether it was PLF's issue.  Since PLF is no longer part of the organization and I'm still a Sabres fan, I will tend to be for GMTM and against PLF in that case.  This isn't universal; others on the forum use that as an example of why GMTM should be fired, but in general if the person is still with the team you're going to pull for that person to succeed; if they leave the team you don't have to rationalize their behaviors you disagreed with.

[JJFIVEOH]

Para 1: To me the civilized thing to do is reply to the attack with facts, and not attack back. It's the choice between bystanders thinking the "other" poster is a jerk and thinking you're both jerks.

 

Para 2: That's fair. I wonder how much of Nolan's issue with CH is the quality of his play vs. the style of his play. Let's take this to an extreme: without comparing him to CH, what would Nolan do with Ovechkin? Bench him for floating or look the other way?

 

Para 3: The coach's job in that situation is to do what's best for the team in the short (er, middle maybe) and long term. It's not like we're talking about Lundquist vs. Hackett here, we're talking career backup vs. career backup. In the grand scheme of things I don't think Hackett will be a big loss, but in a season winding down with nothing to play for, I don't see the issue with putting the guy in to preserve his contract.

Last year Ovechkin was highly criticized for his laziness and giving up on plays; more criticism than usual. He still managed 51 goals. If Hodgson had managed to maintain some offensive production through the first half, I think Nolan would have given him more opportunity to succeed. But that's just me.

 

I don't think we'll ever know the circumstances behind Hackett. He had been hurt, he even missed a game. Maybe Murray said that he didn't want Hackett starting and risk further injury thinking he might be able to sign him even though he'll be a UFA. Who knows........ 

[Doohickie]

Para 2: That's fair. I wonder how much of Nolan's issue with CH is the quality of his play vs. the style of his play. Let's take this to an extreme: without comparing him to CH, what would Nolan do with Ovechkin? Bench him for floating or look the other way?

 

Not that it's relevant to the current discussion, but Ovechkin has been playing a much better two-way game this year, I think because of the coaching change in Washington.  Trotz broke some of his bad habits I think.

[K-9]

I think opinions should change over time, if that is in fact how somebody feels. To keep the same opinion just for the sake of never changing is just being closed-minded. I know you weren't directing this at me specifically, but I'll explain my side. Call me old school, but I am a fan of head coaches whose sole purpose is to organize a team, address snap decisions, motivation, etc....... To me this applies to all sports. I think head coaches have gradually taken on more of a role than they should be handling from the X's and O's to game time strategy, to basically controlling every aspect of the game. This is what assistant coaches are for. A head coach can bring his style to the ice but get on the same page as the assistants and let them handle the rest while the head coach attends to the responsibilities I mentioned above. I'm not supporting Nolan to go against the grain, I support Nolan because he's one of the few left in the league that does this and I believe that kind of coach has a place in professional sports ESPECIALLY in today's day and age where youth tends to need more motivation and 'pats on the back' to make themselves feel good. 

 

The issue I had earlier wasn't the fact that posters changed their opinion on Nolan and Stewart, it was the fact that it just seemed to happen the same day they were no longer a Sabre. It was the tone I perceived, some may think otherwise. 

With all due respect, this is a pollyanna concept of coaching. Youth tends to need more motivation? That kind of generalization is a copout and an insult to young people. Here's a shocker: NOBODY, not a coach, teammate, mentor, or even a parent, can INSTILL attitude and motivation. All we can do is set an example and offer our best advice; you can't MAKE somebody care enough about anything. Those character traits are a personal responsibility that some acquire earlier than others while others just never do. Conversely, this positive character trait CAN be drummed out of people if not nurtured and allowed to come to the forefront. I think Nolan unwittingly does this to younger players. 

 

Nolan's coaching psychology, much like his hockey strategy itself, tends to be one of circling the wagons and adopting an "us against the world" approach. That's all well and good in the short term, but sooner or later, you have to adopt new tactics. I honestly don't think Nolan possesses the necessary flexibility to allow this. And I think that would be detrimental to the development of players, especially superstar prospects. 

 

GO SABRES!!!

[JJFIVEOH]

 

A counter-argument is that there's a reason their are few coaches like that in the league; the game has evolved and the old coaching style is no longer effective.  (I'm not personally offering this up as my own opinion; this is just an observation of what other posters have said.)

 

This is only natural.  When someone is inside the organization he will be viewed in the context of the organization.  For instance with GMTM I may wonder if his communication style drove PLF away or it was a simple dispute or whether it was PLF's issue.  Since PLF is no longer part of the organization and I'm still a Sabres fan, I will tend to be for GMTM and against PLF in that case.  This isn't universal; others on the forum use that as an example of why GMTM should be fired, but in general if the person is still with the team you're going to pull for that person to succeed; if they leave the team you don't have to rationalize their behaviors you disagreed with.

 

I think they're more common than we think. At least they exist on different scales. I don't know every single head coach's coaching style well enough to compare them all. I just think that Nolan receives undeserved criticism because he's not more of an X's and O's type coach. You may be right, but I know not all coaches are buying into this new-style of coaching. It's trending, that doesn't necessarily mean it works. 

 

Fair enough on your second paragraph, it would explain why views changed on Nolan and Stewart. I'd like to point out that using that logic leads to biased opinions since the support gets thrown in the direction of the currently employed Sabres. Not picking sides between informed Sabres fans vs. national media, but outside of this forum and BFLO in general there has been much more support for Nolan than not. That's my general observation listening to talk shows, reading articles and speaking with hockey friends I have in other cities. Some on here might call my observation biased because I'm a Nolan fan, so be it.  ;)

[qwksndmonster]

JJ, you're just part of the groupthink of all those talk shows, articles, and hockey friends.

[JJFIVEOH]

With all due respect, this is a pollyanna concept of coaching. Youth tends to need more motivation? That kind of generalization is a copout and an insult to young people. Here's a shocker: NOBODY, not a coach, teammate, mentor, or even a parent, can INSTILL attitude and motivation. All we can do is set an example and offer our best advice; you can't MAKE somebody care enough about anything. Those character traits are a personal responsibility that some acquire earlier than others while others just never do. Conversely, this positive character trait CAN be drummed out of people if not nurtured and allowed to come to the forefront. I think Nolan unwittingly does this to younger players. 

 

Nolan's coaching psychology, much like his hockey strategy itself, tends to be one of circling the wagons and adopting an "us against the world" approach. That's all well and good in the short term, but sooner or later, you have to adopt new tactics. I honestly don't think Nolan possesses the necessary flexibility to allow this. And I think that would be detrimental to the development of players, especially superstar prospects. 

 

GO SABRES!!!

 

No, I don't think it's a cop-out. It's an observation, I wouldn't post that if I didn't mean it.......... and I wouldn't post it as a means to avoid the discussion. Why would I spend all this time on these posts only to make stuff up? Nobody can force somebody else to care about something, but coaches, parents, mentors, counselors........... they all play a part in pushing them towards doing better. Some are better at it than others. If helping to motivate wasn't a factor in a head coach's responsibilities, nobody would ever talk about it. Attempting to motivate a player is a key factor in the success of a head coach. How is that an insult to younger people? Our youth, more than ever, has gotten to the point of needing positive reinforcement at all times in order to make themselves feel good. I'm not making this up, this is how society is today. "Good job Johnny, here's a trophy for tying your shoes. Good job, you're a superstar". I think now more than ever coaches need to be more motivational than situational. 

 

Nolan has been involved in youth hockey for many years. This wasn't by accident or coincidence. There are many young players on the Sabres, just because he didn't reach every single one of them doesn't mean he didn't have an impact on any of those guys. Girgensons, Ennis, Foligno, Ristolainen, Larsson and even Stewart to an extent all benefited this year. Just because Hodgson didn't pan out and Zadorov struggled late doesn't mean Nolan is to blame. Like you yourself said, these traits sometimes come out later than others. I have a hard time figuring out how people think Nolan wasn't beneficial to the young Sabres. 

[dudacek]

Not picking sides between informed Sabres fans vs. national media, but outside of this forum and BFLO in general there has been much more support for Nolan than not. That's my general observation listening to talk shows, reading articles and speaking with hockey friends I have in other cities. Some on here might call my observation biased because I'm a Nolan fan, so be it.  ;)

 

I'd say this observation is correct. But I would also say those people haven't watched the Sabres nearly as closely as we have.

Their opinions are generally based on "Teddy is a good man," "the Sabres suck," and everybody's love for an underdog.

 

They aren't based on watching how the Sabres were coached.

Edited April 16, 2015 by dudacek

[K-9]

No, I don't think it's a cop-out. It's an observation, I wouldn't post that if I didn't mean it.......... and I wouldn't post it as a means to avoid the discussion. Why would I spend all this time on these posts only to make stuff up? Nobody can force somebody else to care about something, but coaches, parents, mentors, counselors........... they all play a part in pushing them towards doing better. Some are better at it than others. If helping to motivate wasn't a factor in a head coach's responsibilities, nobody would ever talk about it. Attempting to motivate a player is a key factor in the success of a head coach. How is that an insult to younger people? Our youth, more than ever, has gotten to the point of needing positive reinforcement at all times in order to make themselves feel good. I'm not making this up, this is how society is today. "Good job Johnny, here's a trophy for tying your shoes. Good job, you're a superstar". I think now more than ever coaches need to be more motivational than situational. 

 

Nolan has been involved in youth hockey for many years. This wasn't by accident or coincidence. There are many young players on the Sabres, just because he didn't reach every single one of them doesn't mean he didn't have an impact on any of those guys. Girgensons, Ennis, Foligno, Ristolainen, Larsson and even Stewart to an extent all benefited this year. Just because Hodgson didn't pan out and Zadorov struggled late doesn't mean Nolan is to blame. Like you yourself said, these traits sometimes come out later than others. I have a hard time figuring out how people think Nolan wasn't beneficial to the young Sabres. 

His tactics were stifling to say the least and his mode of motivating players by relegating them to 4th line status and reduced minutes is questionable at best. Indeed, it can serve to tamper enthusiasm. You can't reach everybody with the same "message." Again, his lack of flexibility in this regard is obvious. 

 

You are missing my point about motivation. It is out of the hands of the motivator if the one he seeks to motivate is incapable of it. All the Lombardi speeches in the world don't mean a damned thing if they fall on deaf ears. Being motivated is a personal responsibility. It's nice that Nolan can try to teach it, but it's beyond him or anyone else to INSTILL it. That can only come from within. 

 

I'm just not as down on today's young people as you are. But let's not mistake young professional athletes, all of whom are elite by comparison, with normal trends in young society, either. 

 

GO SABRES!!!

[JJFIVEOH]

His tactics were stifling to say the least and his mode of motivating players by relegating them to 4th line status and reduced minutes is questionable at best. Indeed, it can serve to tamper enthusiasm. You can't reach everybody with the same "message." Again, his lack of flexibility in this regard is obvious. 

 

You are missing my point about motivation. It is out of the hands of the motivator if the one he seeks to motivate is incapable of it. All the Lombardi speeches in the world don't mean a damned thing if they fall on deaf ears. Being motivated is a personal responsibility. It's nice that Nolan can try to teach it, but it's beyond him or anyone else to INSTILL it. That can only come from within. 

 

I'm just not as down on today's young people as you are. But let's not mistake young professional athletes, all of whom are elite by comparison, with normal trends in young society, either. 

 

GO SABRES!!!

I told you I agree that those who do not wish to be motivated, can't. This is professional hockey, if these guys can't be motivated, they wouldn't be in the locker room of a professional sports team. They would have failed years earlier. But your post contradicts itself, a coach can't be a motivator but he can be blamed for taking the motivation away by stifling them? I've got news for you, every single team in professional sports puts rookies and underperforming players in non-critical situations in games unless they deserve to be put in a more important role. This isn't just Nolan. Every single player on that team had an opportunity to be successful at one point or another this year. 

 

I'm not down on young people, please don't twist my words. But it's no big secret that they are treated differently than past generations as has been the case with almost every new generation. 

I'd say this observation is correct. But I would also say those people haven't watched the Sabres nearly as closely as we have.

Their opinions are generally based on "Teddy is a good man," "the Sabres suck," and everybody's love for an underdog.

 

They aren't based on watching how the Sabres were coached.

 

On the other hand, some people in the media have behind-the-scenes access that we don't. Many know players and coaches personally and have a better understanding of situations while we as Sabres fans only know what we watch on TV and have to take the word of biased BFLO media. 

 

I agree that there are also many in the national media whose idea of research is reading the roster the afternoon before a game and browsing the internet searching for buzz words and forum fodder. 

[K-9]

I told you I agree that those who do not wish to be motivated, can't. This is professional hockey, if these guys can't be motivated, they wouldn't be in the locker room of a professional sports team. They would have failed years earlier. But your post contradicts itself, a coach can't be a motivator but he can be blamed for taking the motivation away by stifling them? I've got news for you, every single team in professional sports puts rookies and underperforming players in non-critical situations in games unless they deserve to be put in a more important role. This isn't just Nolan. Every single player on that team had an opportunity to be successful at one point or another this year. 

 

I'm not down on young people, please don't twist my words. But it's no big secret that they are treated differently than past generations as has been the case with almost every new generation. 

 

On the other hand, some people in the media have behind-the-scenes access that we don't. Many know players and coaches personally and have a better understanding of situations while we as Sabres fans only know what we watch on TV and have to take the word of biased BFLO media. 

 

I agree that there are also many in the national media whose idea of research is reading the roster the afternoon before a game and browsing the internet searching for buzz words and forum fodder. 

Not a contradiction at all. Just the way the human psyche works. 

 

Little of what I've observed of Nolan's methodology served to encourage growth on the ice as it stifled any flow offensively. I see little reason to think he's any different off the ice. 

 

GO SABRES!!!

[Hoss]

Took BREAKING out of the title. Maybe that'll calm down the thread.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Took BREAKING out of the title. Maybe that'll calm down the thread.

 

I don't think that is going to do it.

 

I think you'd have to lock it in order to calm it down.

[Doohickie]

Took BREAKING out of the title. Maybe that'll calm down the thread.

 

Doesn't matter, we know it's broken.

[JJFIVEOH]

Is this thread not 'calm' and I missed it? 

[JJFIVEOH]

Let's change the title to 'Unicorns and rainbows' and we can all sing 'Kumbaya'.  :angel:

[Doohickie]

Don't worry, JJ. I love you.

[JJFIVEOH]

[JJFIVEOH]

Could this have anything to do with Murray giving Nolan a 3 year extension if he really had no intentions of keeping him around?

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/35839/teams-can-seek-draft-pick-compensation-for-fired-coaches-gms-executives

 

 

[Doohickie]

Interesting little nugget, that.

 

So do we get a pick from the Latvian National Team?

[tom webster]

Could this have anything to do with Murray giving Nolan a 3 year extension if he really had no intentions of keeping him around?

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/35839/teams-can-seek-draft-pick-compensation-for-fired-coaches-gms-executives

No