WildCard Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Does anyone want them to be a team of grinders? Our two biggest pieces, Jack and Samson, are not players made for that. So why is the focus of our team to win a war of attrition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) So, those of you wanting Julien, wasn't he the coach when they traded Tyler Seguin for Loui Eriksson and some magic beans because they couldn't get Seguin to straighten up and fly right? Where do I sign up for some of THAT!?! Well I blame the same moron who traded Hall for Larsson and signed Lucic to a 6 year deal on that one. Chiareli gave up on Seguin in his first year. I have a hard time believing Julien wouldn't be able to control Jack Edited February 14, 2017 by WildCard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Does anyone want them to be a team of grinders? Our two biggest pieces, Jack and Samson, are not players made for that. So why is the focus of our team to win a war of attrition? I think you are way exaggerating the grinder thing. Kane is a grinder. Gionta has been grinding since NJD. ROR is grinder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 I think you are way exaggerating the grinder thing. Kane is a grinder. Gionta has been grinding since NJD. ROR is grinder. His quote says they wan to grind out teams in the offensive zone, so that later in the game they're tired and we're not. Sure, those 3 players are good at that. But that's not who we're building our team around. Kane could easily be gone within a year and Gionta is a nearly 40 year old UFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 His quote says they wan to grind out teams in the offensive zone, so that later in the game they're tired and we're not. Sure, those 3 players are good at that. But that's not who we're building our team around. Kane could easily be gone within a year and Gionta is a nearly 40 year old UFA. “Systems don’t matter one bit,” Gionta said Monday. “Teams that make the playoffs year in and year out, it’s not because of their system. It’s because of how they’re playing in that system.” You would be real shocked at how similar the systems are from team to team,” Bylsma said in KeyBank Center. “There are some variances and there are different ways to play D-zone coverage, but they’re strikingly similar from team to team. The difference is in the mentality of how you bring it and how you execute within that system I disagree, Kane is a skilled player who grinds, Marcus Foligno is a grinder. You're reading too much into it. It's about position and role and pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 "You would be real shocked at how similar the systems are from team to team,” Bylsma said in KeyBank Center. “There are some variances and there are different ways to play D-zone coverage, but they’re strikingly similar from team to team. The difference is in the mentality of how you bring it and how you execute within that system" For me that quote is incredibly damning. He's basically telling you that there isn't anything special in the X's and O's (a debatable point, the devil is in the nuances) and that it's all about how the players play in it. OK well if you remove the X's and O's as something critical that the coach does his ONLY critical function becomes getting the players to play (man management) and if you can't do that you by necessity need to be fired because apparently any other coach will bring in essentially the same X's and O's. Which is basically what I said in post #225. I'm starting to suspect Bylma's real fault has more to do with an inability to convey and inspire, not his chosen X's and O's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 YAY! I get to agree with someone today!!! *Disclaimer: I suspect I agree with many of you, I just wanted to say it. It won't last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 I work with middle school children. I assure you, I realize that my period of blissful agreement will be fleeting. Better equipped than most for life on an internet forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 "You would be real shocked at how similar the systems are from team to team,” Bylsma said in KeyBank Center. “There are some variances and there are different ways to play D-zone coverage, but they’re strikingly similar from team to team. The difference is in the mentality of how you bring it and how you execute within that system" For me that quote is incredibly damning. He's basically telling you that there isn't anything special in the X's and O's (a debatable point, the devil is in the nuances) and that it's all about how the players play in it. OK well if you remove the X's and O's as something critical that the coach does his ONLY critical function becomes getting the players to play (man management) and if you can't do that you by necessity need to be fired because apparently any other coach will bring in essentially the same X's and O's. Which is basically what I said in post #225. Agreed, that it is damning of Byslma's lack of control, but I still believe a system matters. If every system was that similar, then why is there a large disparity between teams with similar rosters? Why are the players refusing to follow it? Why do some coaches continue to win and win with different rosters? Why do some teams match up better against others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Agreed, that it is damning of Byslma's lack of control, but I still believe a system matters. If every system was that similar, then why is there a large disparity between teams with similar rosters? Why are the players refusing to follow it? Why do some coaches continue to win and win with different rosters? Why do some teams match up better against others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Alright, I needed that We've, well played :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) I'm starting to suspect Bylma's real fault has more to do with an inability to convey and inspire, not his chosen X's and O's. Me too, at least I suspect it is the bigger problem. Does anyone want them to be a team of grinders? Our two biggest pieces, Jack and Samson, are not players made for that. So why is the focus of our team to win a war of attrition? I don't think this means we want Jack and Sam to win the war of attrition, it's more like you send in the artillery barrage of Kane and Foligno and Okposo and Larsson and Girgensons (and Carrier and Fasching and Bailey and Baptiste) to wear down the defenders bodies and their resolve allowing Sam and Jack and ROR and Ennis (and Nylander) the time and space to swoop in and destroy the intended target. Each one has to work with the other. Even the most Neanderthal of contenders always had their skill guys. When you think about it in those terms and add it to the Murray's statements about learning to win, I think it is evidence supporting Blue's worst fears that Murray is on board with at least Bylsma's philosophy, if not the way it is being implemented. Edited February 14, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 This is going to come off more dickish than I intend, but I'm saying it anyway.... BREAKING NEWS: Embattled coach believes system is fine, players are the problem. More seriously, I have a theory that relatively small systematic differences actually produce large differences on the ice. I understand that hockey isn't football, so the degree of schematic differentiation can only be so high...but I also have a hard time believing Darryl Sutter is particularly emotionally inspiring, and that's why he has had such better results than his predecessor. There's a lot of evidence for team-level and individual-level differences in performance after coaching changes, and I am not even a little convinced that it's mostly because of getting player buy-in (though buy-in of course matters). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Me too, at least I suspect it is the bigger problem. I don't think this means we want Jack and Sam to win the war of attrition, it's more like you send in the artillery barrage of Kane and Foligno and Okposo and Larsson and Girgensons (and Carrier and Fasching and Bailey and Baptiste) to wear down the defenders bodies and their resolve allowing Sam and Jack and ROR and Ennis (and Nylander) the time and space to swoop in and destroy the intended target. Each one has to work with the other. That sounds like a strong forecheck. Which I'm okay with. But my main problem with him the dump and chase, and the incessant need for every defender to remain flat footed in our zone looking for a stretch pass that ultimately either fails or is deflected in for a waste of possession. Even if we do manage to get zone possession, can anyone really say with any level of comfort that they like our cycling? That our in zone passing and looks are good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 It also could be true that he's a prima donna butt wipe who the veterans on the team are tired of his antics. Maybe Hamilton is right about him. If this is true about him do you really think he has any chance of getting the A must less the C with this team. Maybe he needs to grow up. Talent alone doesn't necessarily win, this isn't EA Sports where you can just throw everything in a bottle and shake it up and throw it out there. The guys have to mesh and feel like they're all in it together. That's why some teams overachieve and others stagnate. Another thing, would you and others feel the same if who he was referring to wasn't Jack but was Kane or Gorges or Foligno or Ennis. I highly doubt it. Sometimes you have to get off his oscar mayer and actually think. If you're on a job and the Manager tells you to do something and a 19-20 year old tells you to stick it, he's not doing that he's going to do what he wants to do. Do you really think he's still working there tomorrow??? I have no idea how this was the reply you came up with to my post. I didn't even mention Eichel. Oh, and comparing pro sports to regular jobs is always the wrong decision. It's just different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) When you think about it in those terms and add it to the Murray's statements about learning to win, I think it is evidence supporting Blue's worst fears that Murray is on board with at least Bylsma's philosophy, if not the way it is being implemented. This haunts me at night. My only solace is that Babcock was clearly his first choice. I wonder, were there any other coaching candidates available at the time? There is Cooper, Laviloette, Julien, and Trotz. Granted most will likely return, but as far as UFA's go this year, the talent is clearly there for coaches Articles on why Bylsma sucks I reached out to Mike Necciai who covers the Penguins for The Hockey Writers. When I asked him what caused Bylsma to pushed out the door in Pittsburgh, his answers were troubling. Necciai also went on to discuss how forward Jarome Iginla indicated that Bylsma’s system was one of the most complicated he’s seen in his NHL career while with the Penguins. Bylsma also took a lot of heat in Pittsburgh for his misuse of Iginla in his brief Penguin career by playing him on the third line and on his off wing.The first thing that jumped off the page was that Mike said that Bylsma’s system “left very little room for creativity.” That’s a very concerning bit of information for a team that has creative players like Eichel and Sam Reinhart on their roster. It also takes me back to aforementioned decision to send a message to Eichel by taking him off the power play. It hasn’t come out why a message needed to be sent, but this makes you wonder. He said, "They became a that was easily rattled and very easy to frustrate and get off their game.” http://thehockeywriters.com/heat-being-turned-up-on-sabres-dan-bylsma/ Many times, Bylsma is too stubborn to change his team’s system to counter what weaknesses opponents like the Islanders exposed in the last series. He felt that the Pens were not playing “their game” well enough or they did not have good puck management. When they surrendered a short-handed goal with under a minute to go in the contest this fault lies on Bylsma. If Bylsma wanted defensive forwards to sit back and defend the Sens’ final attempt to get the equalizer, he had the face-off opportunity to do that after the Erik Karlsson penalty. Instead he threw on his first power play unit and told them to sit back and play defense. “We had a brief plan at the bench before going out to possess the puck and hold onto the puck with the guys we put on the ice. Unfortunately we had two situations where we dumped the puck in and weren’t able to put much pressure on the dump-in and allowed them to have a rush up the ice. We didn’t accomplish our goal.” -Head Coach Dan Bylsma http://thehockeywriters.com/dan-bylsma-great-coach-or-product-of-talented-team/ Edited February 14, 2017 by WildCard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) I have an even deeper concern about this organization as a whole after reading so much material on Bylsma. First, let me start he saying I'm usually not in to the inner workings of the management system of the team, but I have been, currently am and will remain to be a rabid fan of our beloved Sabres until the last breathe leaves my body. With that in mind, what in the hell is going on from the GM's office? How could General Manager Tim Murray hire this guy given the critical importance of putting our franchise and young elite players in the hands of Bylsma? And furthermore, General Manager Tim Murray convinced owner Terry Pegula this was the right decision after Babcock fell through? Or at the very least was supposed to be an advisor of Terry Pegula on such important decisions as putting the clubs future in to the hands of a coach that had these known reports on him? I am now squarely concerned that Tim Murray may not just be inexperienced, but may actually be somewhat incompetent. And I don't say that lightly. Due diligence, proper due diligence would have a file 6 inches thick with all of the quantifying information on a potential coach selection, especially when your handing him the keys to the newest Mercedes prototype. My humor has quickly melted away, replaced by a queezy uneasiness about the navigation of this hockey team. Am I alone in questioning what i do or in deducing what I have? Edited February 14, 2017 by Lucky E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Interview from a reporter in Pittsburgh on Bylsma's time there: http://media.wgr550.com/a/118409667/02-13-andrew-fillipponi-with-howard-and-jeremy.htm? History. It's repeating itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Interview from a reporter in Pittsburgh on Bylsma's time there: http://media.wgr550.com/a/118409667/02-13-andrew-fillipponi-with-howard-and-jeremy.htm? History. It's repeating itself. I've read and heard enough. I am now firmly in the fire Bylsma corner. And not only that, but I am seriously questioning if Tim Murray is the right individual to GM this organization. Edit: and that was just painful to listen to. About 2/3 the way through, everyone was stretching to find reasons to like Bylsma as a coach. Then at the end of the conversation, all 3 admit he's not remotely close to one of the better coaches in the league............UGH Edited February 14, 2017 by Lucky E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Despite the fact I want him gone, I think Dan has a great work ethic and a lot of (misdirected) knowledge. We know he wanted the Buffalo job big time and I'm sure he came to the interview highly prepared. He talked a good game, a type of game that appealed to Murray. I think he is a good human being and probably came off as relatable. His resume - Stanley Cup winner, USA Olympic silver medallist, one of the highest winning percentages in NHL history - was unmatched by any other candidate. And the Penguins regressed after he was fired. They didn't have to give him a five-year deal - where else was he going to sign? - but the fact they hired him is pretty easily defensible. Edited February 14, 2017 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Despite the fact I want him gone, I think Dan has a great work ethic and a lot of (misdirected) knowledge. We know he wanted the Buffalo job big time and I'm sure he came to the interview highly prepared. He talked a good game, a type of game that appealed to Murray. I think he is a good human being and probably came off as relatable. ApHis resume - Stanley Cup winner, USA Olympic silver medallist, one of the highest winning percentages in NHL history - was unmatched by any other candidate. And the Penguins regressed after he was fired. They didn't have to give him a five-year deal - where else was he going to sign? - but the fact they hired him is pretty easily defensible. The only coaches that you can rate hire than bylsma are the likes of Quenneville/Babcock/Julien. And they weren't out there for us, well Babcock flipped us off for Toronto. :P At the time I was happy we got a coach of his calibre to rival Toronto. Edited February 14, 2017 by Huckleberry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 "this is beginning to get disrespectful, coach has a plan and players ignore it" F5 F5 F5 Are Bylsma's methods 'unsound'? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdNsltQXTVU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 The Horror... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Pretty good discussion of systems, etc. on WGR this morning - as part of the weekly interview with Bylsma. I will post a link later if I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted February 14, 2017 Report Share Posted February 14, 2017 Which Linklater are you gonna post? Dazed and Confused? Slacker? 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.