Bylsma's offside challenge vs. Blues

[PASabreFan]

Reading between the lines, I take it the Bills' clock management will again put their coaching staff in the crosshairs. Dan Bylsma deserves some scrutiny this morning as well.

 

St. Louis' second goal came after a close play at the blue line that was clearly onside. Enough time passed to ensure that whoever watches these things upstairs should have had several good looks at it and should have advised the bench not to challenge (and there's also enough time after the goal to take a couple of more looks at it). I don't know what info. was given to Bylsma, but he challenged.

 

Here's the troubling thing: Bylsma apparently didn't think it was offside.

 

“I was pretty confident it wasn’t offside, just six and a half minutes left, the next goal was worth challenging,” he said.

 

This makes me question his judgment. He threw away his timeout on a wing and a prayer. That timeout could have come in handy when the Sabres had a two-man advantage later on. What's worse is that he no longer had the ability to challenge a call. Sometimes, hockey is a game with rapid-fire goals, or so I've heard. The Sabres could have tied the game on the next shift and St. Louis could have re-taken the lead shortly after that on a play that was an acre offside, or involved obvious interference with the goalie, and Bylsma would have had no recourse.

 

If Nolan had done this, the dumb-dumb comments would be flying around for sure.

Edited November 24, 2015 by pASabreFan

[pastajoe]

He probably figured an extended timeout was needed at the time. And it didn't affect the last minute, they had a 6 on 4 and puck control in the Blues zone with chances to score but couldn't finish. A shot by Risto just barely missed the open short side.

[wjag]

He probably figured an extended timeout was needed at the time. And it didn't affect the last minute, they had a 6 on 4 and puck control in the Blues zone with chances to score but couldn't finish. A shot by Risto just barely missed the open short side.

 

That's my thinking too..

[darksabre]

I thought it was the right move. 

I also think you're going to see more coaches do this. Challenge something if they have the opportunity because a challenge TO is better than a regular TO. 

[PASabreFan]

I thought it was the right move. 

I also think you're going to see more coaches do this. Challenge something if they have the opportunity because a challenge TO is better than a regular TO. 

To my thinking, the reward of x more seconds of a timeout doesn't outweigh the risk of being without that timeout the rest of the way. I also don't like the idea of visiting another psychological blow on the team when they hear they lost the challenge on top of everything else.

 

Edit: Not sure that first sentence makes any sense, but I'll leave it. Have at it.

Edited November 24, 2015 by pASabreFan

[LastPommerFan]

To my thinking, the reward of x more seconds of a timeout doesn't outweigh the risk of being without that timeout the rest of the way. I also don't like the idea of visiting another psychological blow on the team when they hear they lost the challenge on top of everything else.

 

I think Bylsma would have taken the time out at that exact moment anyway, to break up the flow, like a basketball coach might. He easily could have told the team, "it's a good goal, I just wanted an extra minute for you guys to get it back together, we're not out of this."

[dudacek]

The team did not need a timeout there.

Didn't need it later either, but he had no way of knowing that.

0-5 on challenges? That can't be good for team psychology.

Dumb move.

 

Not nearly as dumb though as sticking with line combinations that aren't working.

Still very high on how this team is coached to play.

[qwksndmonster]

Not nearly as dumb though as sticking with line combinations that aren't working.

Still very high on how this team is coached to play.

This is my love and hatred of Dan Bylsma summed up so far.

 

My heart is still full of doubts that he'll be the guy to bring us to the cup.  I don't think he adjusts quickly enough to win several playoff series.

[TrueBlueGED]

This is my love and hatred of Dan Bylsma summed up so far.

 

My heart is still full of doubts that he'll be the guy to bring us to the cup. I don't think he adjusts quickly enough to win several playoff series.

We were warned.

[Eleven]

We were warned.

 

Years ago.

 

But even I'm not giving up on him yet.

 

I think the challenge could have been a good tactic at that point in the game.

 

I cannot stand some of his line combinations.

 

I will say this, though:  He's been a dump-and-chase guy but realizes that isn't the best system for his personnel.  That's a good thing.

[LTS]

To my thinking, the reward of x more seconds of a timeout doesn't outweigh the risk of being without that timeout the rest of the way. I also don't like the idea of visiting another psychological blow on the team when they hear they lost the challenge on top of everything else.

 

Edit: Not sure that first sentence makes any sense, but I'll leave it. Have at it.

 

 

The team did not need a timeout there.

Didn't need it later either, but he had no way of knowing that.

0-5 on challenges? That can't be good for team psychology.

Dumb move.

 

Not nearly as dumb though as sticking with line combinations that aren't working.

Still very high on how this team is coached to play.

 

Team psychology?  They're fine.  They have played hockey for their entire lives.  They aren't freaking out.  Hell the goal was a damn fluke to begin with. 

 

I think all the naysayers are missing one thing.  More than anything it might actually get the CROWD fired up when it's not overturned and that might generate some energy for his team at a point when they need it.

 

The timeout could have been important, but it wasn't.  It's a risk.  He had an opportunity and he took it.  

 

I would have challenged it.

[X. Benedict]

Reading between the lines, I take it the Bills' clock management will again put their coaching staff in the crosshairs. Dan Bylsma deserves some scrutiny this morning as well.

 

St. Louis' second goal came after a close play at the blue line that was clearly onside. Enough time passed to ensure that whoever watches these things upstairs should have had several good looks at it and should have advised the bench not to challenge (and there's also enough time after the goal to take a couple of more looks at it). I don't know what info. was given to Bylsma, but he challenged.

 

Here's the troubling thing: Bylsma apparently didn't think it was offside.

 

“I was pretty confident it wasn’t offside, just six and a half minutes left, the next goal was worth challenging,” he said.

 

This makes me question his judgment. He threw away his timeout on a wing and a prayer. That timeout could have come in handy when the Sabres had a two-man advantage later on. What's worse is that he no longer had the ability to challenge a call. Sometimes, hockey is a game with rapid-fire goals, or so I've heard. The Sabres could have tied the game on the next shift and St. Louis could have re-taken the lead shortly after that on a play that was an acre offside, or involved obvious interference with the goalie, and Bylsma would have had no recourse.

 

If Nolan had done this, the dumb-dumb comments would be flying around for sure.

 

It's a good time for a time-out anyway. So I'll say it isn't dumb. I would have done the same thing. 

[Thorny]

This is my love and hatred of Dan Bylsma summed up so far.

 

My heart is still full of doubts that he'll be the guy to bring us to the cup.  I don't think he adjusts quickly enough to win several playoff series.

 

Yup, he's not good enough to win several.

 

Not even 4,

 

Not even in the same year,

 

Can't even win a cup, that guy.