Housley Should Have Until End of December

[ubkev]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

There have been warning signs of this for 3 years. 

I think there is reason for concern here.

Instead of being up there with Gil, he may be somewhere between Gil and Pierre.  Hopefully, much closer to Gil, but the jury is still out.

He's currently tracking well below Thomas Vanek.

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, ubkev said:

He's currently tracking well below Thomas Vanek.

Not really a slam.

It would be fun to go back and read some of the GDTs from Eichel's first season. I remember Smell and I being awestruck at some of the things Jack was doing. Remember the faceoff win at center when he went forward with the puck, went around the opposing center and broke in on goal? That Jack isn't there anymore, and it's not because we're so used to it we don't notice. I honestly think this franchise and this league beat that kind of stuff out of talented players. Small-market, win 2-1 garbage.

What phase has Eichel entered? It looks very much like, "Hey, put up some points, cash my checks, break some sticks in frustration and say the right things in postgame interviews." The idea that better players need to come along and lift him is ridiculous. It always had to be the other way around.

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Not really a slam.

It would be fun to go back and read some of the GDTs from Eichel's first season. I remember Smell and I being awestruck at some of the things Jack was doing. Remember the faceoff win at center when he went forward with the puck, went around the opposing center and broke in on goal? That Jack isn't there anymore, and it's not because we're so used to it we don't notice. I honestly think this franchise and this league beat that kind of stuff out of talented players. Small-market, win 2-1 garbage.

What phase has Eichel entered? It looks very much like, "Hey, put up some points, cash my checks, break some sticks in frustration and say the right things in postgame interviews." The idea that better players need to come along and lift him is ridiculous. It always had to be the other way around.

 

This clip doesn't finish it, but it's the one you're thinking about.

[SDS]

2 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

 

This clip doesn't finish it, but it's the one you're thinking about.

That's a beer hockey special. All the guys playing down try to pull that on the weaker centers.

[That Aud Smell]

12 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Anyway, to paraphrase Bill James, the one thing that all bad teams do is blame their best players for their problems. 

 

11 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

I recall reading more than one poster, before Eich ever played a second for the Sabres, pointing out that Jack's effort will forever be a topic of discussion simply because of his "slow the play down" nature as a player combined with his upright posture. Whoever those posters were, I think, nailed it. 

Interesting takes.

I want to believe these things. But my eyes are telling me something else.

OTOH, this may largely be a product of what you’re suggesting: There are not yet enough talented, mature (Mittlestadt) players on the roster. This is a one-team line — opposing teams know that.

Slow down the game, upright posture, unorthodox often rocking on his heels skating style. Maybe. But maybe not, entirely?

[TrueBlueGED]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

 

Interesting takes.

I want to believe these things. But my eyes are telling me something else.

OTOH, this may largely be a product of what you’re suggesting: There are not yet enough talented, mature (Mittlestadt) players on the roster. This is a one-team line — opposing teams know that.

Slow down the game, upright posture, unorthodox often rocking on his heels skating style. Maybe. But maybe not, entirely?

It was what, just a few months ago that the team started slowly every game because O'Reilly was sad? Well he's gone, the problem is still there, so time to blame someone else's attitude. Instead of just saying maybe the team starts games slow because they're not as good as most other teams. 

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

It was what, just a few months ago that the team started slowly every game because O'Reilly was sad? Well he's gone, the problem is still there, so time to blame someone else's attitude. Instead of just saying maybe the team starts games slow because they're not as good as most other teams. 

Fair take.

[PASabreFan]

2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

It was what, just a few months ago that the team started slowly every game because O'Reilly was sad? Well he's gone, the problem is still there, so time to blame someone else's attitude. Instead of just saying maybe the team starts games slow because they're not as good as most other teams. 

They play like their hair is on fire when they're down by 2 with eight minutes to go. It's not really the lack of results that people are seeing but a certain attitude. That's coaching.

[That Aud Smell]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

They play like their hair is on fire when they're down by 2 with eight minutes to go. It's not really the lack of results that people are seeing but a certain attitude. That's coaching.

If what you're saying, implying is true - I'm not so sure about this.

[PASabreFan]

1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said:

If what you're saying, implying is true - I'm not so sure about this.

dark liked it, that's all I care about.

Now I'm thinking about how NFL coaches script the first certain number of plays. Does Housley have a certain start in mind? What if they cleanly win the opening faceoff, what's the first play? What if they maintain possession in the first minute? I don't think it's right to think that the coach tries to fire them up in the lockerroom and then it's out of his hands.

This team is often the definition of "feeling things out" and "weathering the storm" early on. Is that the plan?

[That Aud Smell]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

dark liked it, that's all I care about.

lol

[TrueBlueGED]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

They play like their hair is on fire when they're down by 2 with eight minutes to go. It's not really the lack of results that people are seeing but a certain attitude. That's coaching.

Or, teams play differently once there's a 2 goal lead/deficit. Leading teams sit back more to lock it down, trailing teams start taking more risks. Score effects are real and exist across coaches.

Edited October 18, 2018 by TrueBlueGED

[North Buffalo]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

dark liked it, that's all I care about.

Now I'm thinking about how NFL coaches script the first certain number of plays. Does Housley have a certain start in mind? What if they cleanly win the opening faceoff, what's the first play? What if they maintain possession in the first minute? I don't think it's right to think that the coach tries to fire them up in the lockerroom and then it's out of his hands.

This team is often the definition of "feeling things out" and "weathering the storm" early on. Is that the plan?

That analysis shows me that the team is still trying to figure things/systems out both there own and who they are playing against.  Noticed guys talking a lot more out there as they do so I expect starts to improve as they gain more confidence playing as a group. Still would love to see them just go for it at the beginning of the game regardless.

[Randall Flagg]

3 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

It was what, just a few months ago that the team started slowly every game because O'Reilly was sad? Well he's gone, the problem is still there, so time to blame someone else's attitude. Instead of just saying maybe the team starts games slow because they're not as good as most other teams. 

 

45 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

They play like their hair is on fire when they're down by 2 with eight minutes to go. It's not really the lack of results that people are seeing but a certain attitude. That's coaching.

This should probs go in the first period thread, but this is where the conversation happened most recently so I''ll put it here. I'm watching the first ten minutes of each game. The awful terrible Bruins game where we "weren't ready to play" had the Sabres with 3:33 of neutral and offensive zone possession to some extent, including board battles (I stopped counting the minute the defending team regained possession of the puck and made a transition move with it). The Bruins had 1:48 of the same puck possession. The Bruins iced the puck five times, the Sabres iced the puck zero. But about 6 minutes in, Boston scored on one quick breakdown, and we "weren't ready to play the game." Now, the Sabres only generated one real chance that wasn't a crappy point shot in that possession time because they aren't talented. The way to high scoring areas and to opening up space there is not some magical coaching dust. You need guys who can thread passes, stickhandle in tight to draw defenders in and then get the pucks into the space that gets opened up. Our guys regularly "survive" board battles and play the puck to the point, and that's the only offense they're capable of creating. It's not laziest - this is the most physically demanding way to play. It's also the way you have to play if you can't do the good stuff. Berglund was the perfect addition in that regard: that was the offensive play he made like every single shift I saw him in St. Louis. Whenever these guys try anything else they lose the puck or get rubbed out on the wall with a whimper, or they just skate to the slot and sit still covered, except for Rodrigues, who got the only slot shot off in that time. This problem follows them all game, it isn't a relic of their mythical slow starts, and stems from an ability to both think AND stickhandle/pass in less-than-wide-open situations like good players on good teams can. I said it all summer and I'm gonna keep saying it until our players can do that. 

Game 2: Buffalo: 1:58 of possession in these areas, no icings, Rangers had 1:14 and an icing (and a power play they didn't do anything on, I'm counting ES here)

Game 3: Buffalo 1:50, LV 1:32. Buffalo had a power play in there. They'd score later in the period and go up 4-1 before coasting to the finish, another game where we were notably better until we had a big lead and yet our corsi wasn't good at the end so it was a "bad" game that we barely hung on in (yah right Vegas had like 2 scoring chances combined in the first 2 periods)

Game 4: Now, this one was an anomaly - Buffalo still outpossessed Colorado 1:47 to 1:18 in the first ten minutes. They iced the puck twice, Colorado didn't at all. But Buffalo had 3 main possession stints that contributed to that time, all the Eichel line, but none of them were remotely dangerous, whereas Colorado kept coming in 6 second spurts that  were all incredibly dangerous, but Hutton survived the first ten minutes, freezing pucks and deflecting them out of play. Colorado is mainly a transition team which is why this was skewed - we were overwhelmed by their speed early on. But weren't playing any worse than we did the rest of the game. They got 2 power play goals in the next few minutes and put the game out of reach right away before we dutifully made the corsi look good playing from behind. Again, why single-game-stats don't tell you much (I think this was our best advanced stat game of the year and it was clear we didn't belong in the same building with these guys). But not anything I would call a slow start or problematic first period w.r.t. how the rest of the game went as measured by the talent on each team both showing up and coming to play.

Game 5: Sabres had 1:59 of this possession in the first 10 minutes, Zona had 1:23. It was easily our best stretch of the game, as the tide started turning towards the end of the first and they comfortably out-controlled us. Ie, our start/first period was the best part of the game for us, and the meme continues to die. 

Game 6: I am out of time, but safe to say that we would be thoroughly dominated both effort-wise and time-of-possession wise in the first 10 minutes for the first time this season. 

Taking all of this into account, like I've said, in plenty of these games they weren't getting the more dangerous chances, but it's not as if the effort wasn't there. They were skating and working. I'd argue they even were in Vegas, they were just so hungover that it was pathetic and sluggish, which is of course unacceptable. But the narratives that involve Phil and leadership not getting them up for games, well I didn't buy them before on the first watchings, and the rewatchings showed that this wasn't our problem at all. They show up, they play as hard as usual, there's nothing particularly bad about the first relative to any other period they play, and quite frankly, this time of possession thing makes them look more dangerous than they are, because they struggle with opening space and making plays in the zone that matters. 

Because they're fairly bad. Not because they're mad. Not because they're sad. Not because Jack coasts to cash his paycheck, because Phil is too soft. Because in offensive zone time they can't consistently, meaningfully generate real chances, because of their combined skill sets and processing speed. I'll shift away from naming players because it's the same ones I've talked about always, and I don't want this to be construed as me being a mean nasty h8er. Just pointing out what our guys can't do and why it leads to problems, and that if we want a good team, before addressing perceived intangibles, how about we start adding the things that actually do work on the ice for a change

And that this is what our real problem is, is a good thing. Just make some decent roster moves, and you'll help fix the hockey. You don't need to worry about trading the rest of your players and tanking again, or being completely doomed for the next decade no matter what because of our sluggish captain (who is, I am hearing, dealing with some knee issues - recall him being injured in the preseason and nobody talking about it).

Just stop assuming corsi equals quick-twitch decision-making, and that the mood that comes with a locker room of players that aren't good enough for this level helping the team to last place isn't the driving factor of bad play, but rather the consequence of it. 

[LGR4GM]

So the team sucks still is what you are saying? Jack Hughes looks good. 

[Randall Flagg]

29 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So the team sucks still is what you are saying? Jack Hughes looks good. 

This team was always going to continue to struggle at ES IMO. They had a steep mountain to climb after a last place finish. Depth additions helped in that there should be no line getting obliterated like our 4th lines usually do, but that was my sentiment before seeing just how raw Casey and Tage still are. There were no meaningful D additions outside of the rook no matter how much it was put forth that a healthy Bogosian and McCabe would change things. However, the team should develop naturally in their abilities at ES a little faster than the average team just because of the growth potential on the roster. 

Early on lots of teams with an established base of offensive hockey go nuts before teams settle down and figure their defenses out, and then we play that stretch of late November-March hockey that lots of people find boring. The Sabres weren't ready for the hot start but could very well benefit from and use to their advantage this play. 

Especially Jack - October, off the top of my head, is not his best month. Everyone is at their strongest and fastest, so his main edge isn't as much of an edge as it is in January, when you see a significant increase in his ability to shed off defensive pressure late in their shifts. I just hope we can continue to tread water until things start slowly clicking, because I do think there's a chance this team keeps things interesting if they can. 

[Taro T]

Truthfully, the team is likely slightly ahead of where I'd expected they'd be at this point.  My expectation was 9 points in the 1st 10 games & if they beat SJ (which they nearly always do regardless of who has the better team, kind of like Moe-ray-all owning Baahstan in the playoffs or the Redskins owning the Lions - none of which are sure things but money on those squads would have you well in the black through the years) & win in LA like I believe they should; they'll have 10 points through 9 games when the road trip is done.

They did not play well in Vegas, but they were dealing w/ Eichel looking very ordinary & Dahlin looking like a rookie both for the 1st times since the opener.  This team isn't good enough at this point to overcome that.  And though Okposo tried to will them to a W, it wasn't there.  If Mittelstadt had 1 more off season of weight training, he has a goalin the 2nd as the Knight wouldn't have outmuscled him.

It's going to take some time for the lines to gel, though all but the Berglund line have shown signs of life, even though only 4 guys up front have actually found the twine.  I also expect that when some injuries hit & the kids are brought back from Ra-cha-cha that they'll get a bit of a bump as well.

Unless the team has a couple of stretches like the Desert Dogs & the Swamp Cats have had to start the season, am expecting that Housley is the head coach again next year.  Not sure if that's good or bad, it just is.

This team has NHL level talent, just probably not enough to make the playoffs.  But, the Eichel lineis better than last year's Eichel line; Skinner is more entertaining to watch IMHO than Kane was when separated from Eichel, & the 4th line can generate chances.  The goaltending is a full level higher than last season's tandem & the D pairings haven't been full on disasters unlike some of what showed up last year.

I'm just looking for entertainment & improvement this season.  So far, again IMHO, we're getting that relative to last season.

[PASabreFan]

Well, Phil has had a come to Jesus moment re: the oh-fence. It's important to outscore the other team at even-strength, and to do that you need to go to the net, get your nose dirty, hope for some puck luck, put your nose to the grindstone and get rewarded for your effort!

"Especially entering the offensive zone, getting more pucks to the net and more people there, stopping and paying a price to score some goals."

"You're going to hear a lot from me about 5-on-5 differential because it's the difference between winning and losing. Your special teams have to play an important role but you can't count on them all the time. It's not going to happen all the time. Five-on-five is something we can control. Getting to the net with more traffic was a big focus today."

Barf. Is "5-on-5 differential" supposed to be impress us? Prove that he's smart or something? It means nothing, and it's certainly not something Phil's team can control.

Is this what we're down to?

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Well, Phil has had a come to Jesus moment re: the oh-fence. It's important to outscore the other team at even-strength, and to do that you need to go to the net, get your nose dirty, hope for some puck luck, put your nose to the grindstone and get rewarded for your effort!

"Especially entering the offensive zone, getting more pucks to the net and more people there, stopping and paying a price to score some goals."

"You're going to hear a lot from me about 5-on-5 differential because it's the difference between winning and losing. Your special teams have to play an important role but you can't count on them all the time. It's not going to happen all the time. Five-on-five is something we can control. Getting to the net with more traffic was a big focus today."

Barf. Is "5-on-5 differential" supposed to be impress us? Prove that he's smart or something? It means nothing, and it's certainly not something Phil's team can control.

Is this what we're down to?

Getting to the net with more traffic to me implies continuing to emphasize crappy point shots which anyone can tell without stats is not the best way to run things in the offensive zone

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Getting to the net with more traffic to me implies continuing to emphasize crappy point shots which anyone can tell without stats is not the best way to run things in the offensive zone

I don't agree with that.  Getting to the net with traffic is key to consistent scoring in all cases, not just for bombing away from the points.

[Randall Flagg]

12 minutes ago, Weave said:

I don't agree with that.  Getting to the net with traffic is key to consistent scoring in all cases, not just for bombing away from the points.

I DO agree with THAT, but just bombing away from the points appears to be a consistent trend for Phil Housley teams. I'm still waffling on whether or not it's his thing or the thing our players can do without losing the puck, but it's a longer-term concern for me w/ him. 

[Wyldnwoody44]

I am souring quickly, the usage of KO and the misusage of Erod, Risto and Dahlin are just not acceptable. Phil Rolston, bye bye 

[Randall Flagg]

I was waiting for something super egregious to really get on Phil, but tonight on several levels was this. It was his worst showing as a coach, which must be something for a coach of the last place team last year. 

[Randall Flagg]

Pointed out on hfboards, apologies for small sample size, but it's directly in line with what I'm seeing out there: Sobotka has the 4th most ES ice time of any forward in the games he's played and has a 25% Corsi. 

"Corsi blah blah" for sure, but name a single legitimate offensive play he's been a part of. 

Sobotka was predetermined to be Phil's ROR, because Phil needs a ROR. The phrase "working with the talent you have" gets used a lot and may be applicable here. 

[PerreaultForever]

So it's Phil's fault that nobody on this team can score?