nfreeman Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 From my armchair, there's "no way" GMTM fires HCHDDB after just one season coming off last year. Next year if the team doesn't progress, perhaps. If nothing else, firing a guy after one year is burning bridges with other coaches. Correct. Agreed. I wish he would though. Getting the right coach should be all that matters. Not a single Golden State fan remembers that Mark Jackson was "unfairly" fired when the team was "making progress" because Steve Kerr came in and proved to simply be a lot better. Sorry for the bouncey ball reference, it was the first parallel that came to mind. Well, Jackson was the coach of GS for 3 seasons, not 1, and some fairly whacked-out behavior contributed substantially to his getting canned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 I want to believe he would do it. This team has under performed, and not just because Matt Moulson fell off a cliff. It's also obvious that the man GMTM thought he hired, a wiser and better Dan Bylsma, isn't what he actually received. Instead we've got same old Dan. Not to jump on PA's bandwagon, but I wonder if Tpegs had more of a say than we think. He likes the big names even if they are all hat no cattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) Not to jump on PA's bandwagon, but I wonder if Tpegs had more of a say than we think. He likes the big names even if they are all hat no cattle. The Pittsburgh connection could not have likely did not hurt. Edited March 2, 2016 by That Aud Smell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Correct. Well, Jackson was the coach of GS for 3 seasons, not 1, and some fairly whacked-out behavior contributed substantially to his getting canned. What, firing his entire assistant staff midseason is abnormal? :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thwomp! Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Hmmm, so the flagship station and Sabres' employees are teeing up Bylsma. Very interesting. This is the cycle of Buffalo sports (and Russ Brandon's signature :ph34r: ). I've hated Bylsma longer than most, but firing or putting Bylsma on the hot seat creates a narrative, a marketing campaign, and puts gullible fannies in the seats. The Bills have been doing this for years and the Sabres are trending that way. Lots of promises of improvement and that things are different/better now, few or no positive results, scapegoats, new narrative complete with perceived "big splashes", lots of new promises of improvement and that things are different/better now. Rinse, repeat, recycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Smith Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Bylsma's lines are terrible and he is too loyal to the vet players. When the Sabres gave him a job Pens fans said his biggest flaws as a coach were that his lines sucked and he was too loyal to vets. So, he's consistent. On the flip side the Sabres usually give good effort and have been pretty good about going the full 60 mins most nights. They are also very disciplined far as taking bad penalties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Rob also doesn't think there's anyone on the roster right now who can play with Jack. Stamkos and Laine should take care of that :beer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Stamkos and Laine should take care of that :beer: I'm starting to warm to that idea. But Stamkos won't play wing, will he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 I'm starting to warm to that idea. But Stamkos won't play wing, will he? Bylsma will make him play wing and he'll like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 I'm starting to warm to that idea. But Stamkos won't play wing, will he? Yeah and I'm not sure he would mesh well with Jack. I honestly think Reinhart and Bailey would be great compliments. Then throw Stamkos on a line with O'Reilly and Girgensons. Ennis, Kane and Larrson as your third. Idk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 The Pittsburgh connection could not have likely did not hurt. I'm 42 minutes late on that one. I keep asking how we lost Babcock, and to hear most people say it, it keeps coming back this idea that he was playing the Sabres. But I recall the story that Babcock wanted real power, a say in personnel decisions. Then I remember Terry saying at LaFontaine's intro presser that there's no room for "emperors" in his front office. Did it all fall apart at the end because Babcock was not assured he would have the input commensurate with his stature? If so, yeah I would blame Terry for Bylsma being here, but not necessarily because Dan coached the Pens and Terry knew that good man's name, but because the team's organizational structure turned off Babcock and left the Sabres with no real alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Stamkos and Laine should take care of that :beer: Not if they're relying on Bogosian and Gorges to pass them the puck in the neutral zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) Yeah and I'm not sure he would mesh well with Jack. I honestly think Reinhart and Bailey would be great compliments. Then throw Stamkos on a line with O'Reilly and Girgensons. Ennis, Kane and Larrson as your third. Idk... Would be fun to see Stamkos here though, just to see the toronto media blow up. Been reading sportsnet lately, everything Toronto does is shrewd, smart, but its not "tanking". Don't think I can handle reading about stamkos signing in Toronto by them. Edited March 2, 2016 by Huckleberry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Paul Hamilton @pham1717 1m1 minute ago Lines. 9 15 23. 82 22 12. 44 19 28. 43 17 26 *head exploding .gif* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Paul Hamilton @pham1717 1m1 minute ago Lines. 9 15 23. 82 22 12. 44 19 28. 43 17 26 *head exploding .gif* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 It is a complete and utter mystery why Hot Daniel would insist on playing Kane with Eichel. I mean it. Truly. Genuinely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 It is a complete and utter mystery why Hot Daniel would insist on playing Kane with Eichel. I mean it. Truly. Genuinely. That was a pair very early on, innit? We all return to our dark masters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Roby absolutely trashing Bylsma on WGR this morning. Can't believe he wouldn't put Eichel out for the opening faceoff. Thinks he's sheltering him way too much. Wants Dan to turn things over to the kids. I can't say I disagree. But it's nice to hear someone else say it. I want a defensive forward on McDavid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 I want a defensive forward on McDavid. He should have put zemgus and larsson on that task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 That was a pair very early on, innit? We all return to our dark masters. It was. It was almost amusingly ineffective, and it has not improved much with time. Remember the times when the two of them were essentially battling each other for the puck along the left wing? Oy. I want a defensive forward on McDavid. That was evidently Hot Daniel's rationale. Logical. Defensible. And not a lick of fun or imagination to it. He should have put zemgus and larsson on that task. He did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 I'm 42 minutes late on that one. I keep asking how we lost Babcock, and to hear most people say it, it keeps coming back this idea that he was playing the Sabres. But I recall the story that Babcock wanted real power, a say in personnel decisions. Then I remember Terry saying at LaFontaine's intro presser that there's no room for "emperors" in his front office. Did it all fall apart at the end because Babcock was not assured he would have the input commensurate with his stature? If so, yeah I would blame Terry for Bylsma being here, but not necessarily because Dan coached the Pens and Terry knew that good man's name, but because the team's organizational structure turned off Babcock and left the Sabres with no real alternative. If Babcock turned down Buffalo because he wanted more power, or real power, then Toronto is a weird place for him to land. Shanahan definitely has a strong voice in making personnel decisions. And Lamoriello is one of the most hands-on GMs in the league (sure Lou was hired after Babcock, but Shanahan had made it clear that he was bringing in a GM when Mike signed on). So instead of being part of a duo with Murray in Buffalo, he chose to be a part of a triad in Toronto? Toronto's organizational structure doesn't really offer a great opportunity for Babcock to drive personnel decisions. I think Babcock's desire to be more involved with personnel decisions is overblown. He wanted to coach the Maple Leafs and he wanted a big contract, and that's what he got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonHextallsShoulderPads Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Is this official yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 It was. It was almost amusingly ineffective, and it has not improved much with time. Remember the times when the two of them were essentially battling each other for the puck along the left wing? Oy. That was evidently Hot Daniel's rationale. Logical. Defensible. And not a lick of fun or imagination to it. He did. then atleast he did something right, and define the future role of those two players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 I want a defensive forward on McDavid. Sure. But what about defenders who can actually skate? You know, for when Larsson inevitably gets worked over by McDavid on the very first shift? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Sure. But what about defenders who can actually skate? You know, for when Larsson inevitably gets worked over by McDavid on the very first shift? Larsson's line has been shutting down some of the top lines in the league. Kopitar, Crosby, Thornton, Getzlaf....IRRC none of those lines had too much success vs Larsson's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.