Who Will Have a Better Season - Bills or Sabres?

[WildCard]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

1. Foligno wasn't dictating anythimng, he was describing what he saw. 

2. Botteril is in year 2 of trying to change the culture.  I think you are greatly mistaken regarding how difficult culture change in an organization really is.  There are alot of Masters dissertations on the very subject.  It's an extremely challenging subject.  How easy do you think it would be to implement significant culture change in any of the organizations you've been a part of?  It's the most challenging thing any leader can accomplish.

McDermont did it in a year. McDavid came in and they immediately made the playoffs. The Leafs tanked and then immediately made the playoffs. The Devils, with the apparent cancer that caused issues in Edmonton that is Taylor Hall, made the playoffs this year, lead by Taylor Hall

[erickompositör72]

Pro-tankers seem to still be defending the "theory" of the tank, rather than the empirical results we have lived with, post-tank.

I see a lot of "the tank could have worked if only [x], or if we didn't do [y], or if we didn't hire [z]"

That's exactly the problem with the concept of the tank. The risk-reward proposition is not favorable. It's pretty simple. Now we're paying for it. It will take a genius GM to get us out of this predicament. Hopefully JBot is just that.

[SwampD]

4 minutes ago, WildCard said:

McDermont did it in a year. McDavid came in and they immediately made the playoffs. The Leafs tanked and then immediately made the playoffs. The Devils, with the apparent cancer that caused issues in Edmonton that is Taylor Hall, made the playoffs this year, lead by Taylor Hall

The Leafs didn't tank. They were sellers at the deadline. Huge difference.

[erickompositör72]

8 minutes ago, WildCard said:

McDavid came in and they immediately made the playoffs.

Yeah, I know. Who did we tank for, again?

[WildCard]

4 minutes ago, SwampD said:

The Leafs didn't tank. They were sellers at the deadline. Huge difference.

The Leafs didn't purposefully come in last to get Auston Matthews?

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, WildCard said:

McDermont did it in a year. McDavid came in and they immediately made the playoffs. The Leafs tanked and then immediately made the playoffs. The Devils, with the apparent cancer that caused issues in Edmonton that is Taylor Hall, made the playoffs this year, lead by Taylor Hall

The Leafs planned downturn was extremely short and didn't result in major change to the culture.  The Oilers are still talking about changing the culture there as their success was fleeting.

And did the Bills eliminate everything and strip it down to the core?  I don't think I'd describe their rebuild that way.

[WildCard]

6 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

Pro-tankers seem to still be defending the "theory" of the tank, rather than the empirical results we have lived with, post-tank.

I see a lot of "the rebuild could have worked if only [x], or if we didn't do [y], or if we didn't hire [z]"

That's exactly the problem with the concept of the tank. The risk-reward proposition is not favorable. It's pretty simple. Now we're paying for it. It will take a genius GM to get us out of this predicament. Hopefully JBot is just that.

It didn't take a genius GM to know not to trade for Robin Lehner, or to not hire Dan Byslma, or to not sign Kyle Okposo, or to not rely on Zemgus Girgensons in the top 6

[SwampD]

Just now, WildCard said:

The Leafs didn't purposefully come in last to get Auston Matthews?

They certainly didn't hit the ice in two consecutive season openers with the sole purpose of coming in dead f###### last!

[WildCard]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

The Leafs planned downturn was extremely short and didn't result in major change to the culture.  The Oilers are still talking about changing the culture there as their success was fleeting.

And did the Bills eliminate everything and strip it down to the core?  I don't think I'd describe their rebuild that way.

The Oilers don't have a culture problem, they have a talent problem because Chiarelli is a moron and traded away the MVP for a 2nd pairing d-man, a top 6 winger for a fringe prospect, and signed a waste of space to play top 6 minutes and anchor down a generational talent at the sweet tune of $6M plus a year. The Oilers tried their best to have a good ol' culture change by bringing in a Cup winner in Lucic and removing pieces they swore were rotten. Well Eberle and Hall had monster seasons, Lucic still sucks, and the Oilers still suck

I don't think the Bills removing everything or not has anything to do with it. The Bills undoubtedly had what is defined as a culture of losing. Other than Cleveland, I can't think of a more losing culture there is. McDermont came in and changed that, in 1 season. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by WildCard

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

The Oilers don't have a culture problem, they have a talent problem because Chiarelli is a moron and traded away the MVP for a 2nd pairing d-man, a top 6 winger for a fringe prospect, and signed a waste of space to play top 6 minutes and anchor down a generational talent at the sweet tune of $6M plus a year. The Oilers tried their best to have a good ol' culture change by bringing in a Cup winner in Lucic and removing pieces they swore were rotten. Well Eberle and Hall had monster seasons, Lucic still sucks, and the Oilers still suck

Hmmm.... moron GM's seem to follow tanks at an alarming rate.  I wonder what to make of that.

[WildCard]

Just now, Weave said:

Hmmm.... moron GM's seem to follow tanks at an alarming rate.  I wonder what to make of that.

Well the Oilers didn't tank ?

[Weave]

Just now, WildCard said:

Well the Oilers didn't tank ?

Noice.

[erickompositör72]

4 minutes ago, WildCard said:

It didn't take a genius GM to know not to trade for Robin Lehner, or to not hire Dan Byslma, or to not sign Kyle Okposo, or to not rely on Zemgus Girgensons in the top 6

I would characterize all of those moves (hire Bylsma, taking a shot at an unproven Lehner, signing Okposo, relying on [former 1st rndr] Girgs) as risky. You wanted a GM who was not risk-averse (i.e. amenable to the tank), to suddenly become risk-averse?

[WildCard]

59 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don’t think our tank has showed us that tanking is the right way or the wrong.. It’s just a way - not a sure way, and a way that certainly requires suffering.

 The only thing it guarantees is access to the highest-end of 18-year-old talent. Culture certainly matters, but mostly it’s about the players you are good (or, more accurately, fortunate) enough to acquire and develop. It’s less the plan itself and more the execution of the plan that matters.

We tore it down. Around the same time, Vancouver started trying to rebuild on the fly. We’ve both been #### for quite awhile.

A great point

Just now, erickompositör72 said:

I would characterize all of those moves (hire Bylsma, taking a shot at an unproven Lehner, signing Okposo, relying on [former 1st rndr] Girgs) as risky. You wanted a GM who was not risk-averse (i.e. amenable to the tank), to suddenly become risk-averse?

I don't think anyone would characterize Lou Lamoriello as risk-averse

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, WildCard said:

A great point

I don't think anyone would characterize Lou Lamoriello as risk-averse

BTW, 26k posts since 2013?  Someone do the analytics on that !!  ?

(just noticed this)

[erickompositör72]

8 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I don't think anyone would characterize Lou Lamoriello as risk-averse

I'm not speaking to a general concept of being risk-averse or not, but rather to the degree

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I'm curious if you see me as that other poster.  I wanted us to move on from that core.  Fully.  I did not advocate trading those core pieces for assets though.  I wanted them moved in hockey trades.  Roy for Ott, not Vanek for futures.

No, you are not that other poster alluded to above.

[TrueBlueGED]

6 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

The thing is, tank "success" has already been redefined, and we ain't even out of last place. 

I've gone back and read the polls and posts. The third full season post-tank was going to, by literally everyone's standards, involve playoff series wins. I posted it. You posted it. He posted it. She posted it. It was the consensus belief. I have posts in the past where I actually pull the quotes out, and it's pretty amazing. 

But that didn't happen, we finished in last place. So by our own original definitions, the tank failed. We are the worst team in the league going into the fourth full season after the tank ended. 

Jack might be an important piece to a cup team. I'd like to see him get within 15 points of the playoffs for the first time in his career before I fully believe that, though, and if and when he finally does, the things that will have contributed to that team winning a cup will have been so far removed from the decisions made 2013-2015 that giving that success to the tank rather than the GM who cleaned up the mess of the tank and rebuilt the franchise depth destroyed by the tank will look profoundly silly. 

Right, the timeline expectations that came with the tank and from its proponents has certainly flopped. On the other hand...

7 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Well, to be precise, if the Sabres don’t emerge as league contenders until 2022, then IMHO the tank was a failure because it cost 9 years of everyone’s hockey life.  

There were quicker routes available that featured much less misery and many more playoff games along the way.  

This is a fallacy. Implicit (and in this case, explicit) to much of the criticism of the tank is an assumption that not tanking would have yielded considerably better results, to the tune of playoff success. Maybe. It's possible. But given what we know of Tim Murray's tenure, I don't think there's a good argument out there that he'd have built a competitive team. It's also entirely possible we'd have been at the bottom of the league the good ol fashioned way. When you draft the way the Sabres have for around a decade, misery tends to come regardless. 

[Weave]

6 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

 

This is a fallacy. Implicit (and in this case, explicit) to much of the criticism of the tank is an assumption that not tanking would have yielded considerably better results, to the tune of playoff success. Maybe. It's possible. But given what we know of Tim Murray's tenure, I don't think there's a good argument out there that he'd have built a competitive team. It's also entirely possible we'd have been at the bottom of the league the good ol fashioned way. When you draft the way the Sabres have for around a decade, misery tends to come regardless. 

I don't think the bolded is quite correct.  At least not in my mind it isn't.  The main tank concern in my mind always was that both methods had the same ceiling but the floor for the tank was expected to be lower, and IMO longer.

[TrueBlueGED]

16 hours ago, Hoss said:

The offensive line took a big step back. Wood and Incognito out and guys like Ducasse/Bodine replacing them (they're both abysmal). I really like what I saw from Dawkins last year, but offensive lineman are more prone to sophomore slumps than most so relying on him at the most important spot on the line will be interesting. And it'll impact McCoy who was electric last year but clearly not the player he used to be. I imagine this offensive line will accelerate the downturn of his career... if he doesn't end up arrested/suspended (not counting on it).

The team was also near the top in turnover margin which is a big reason they were winning unlikely matchups last year (like Atlanta where they were given two takeaways by the refs) but that's a very unstable stat year to year AND they got rid of Tyrod. While I was never a believer in Tyrod his ability to avoid turnovers was big for the team last year, and it doesn't look like any of the three guys they have right now will be anywhere near that. They might be able to push the ball down the field with their arms more but I'm not confident any of them will be an upgrade to him immediately.

I'll also be interested to see how the defensive backfield does this year. Poyer and Hyde played to a level they've never even really been close to before. Can they repeat that? They've also both had some injury troubles -- will that be an issue? Can Tre White build off his rookie season? He was great but so was Ronald Darby in his rookie season and he quickly went downhill after that.

And I agree with pretty much all of this. Which means, of course, it was a good post. 

[WildCard]

14 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Right, the timeline expectations that came with the tank and from its proponents has certainly flopped. On the other hand...

This is a fallacy. Implicit (and in this case, explicit) to much of the criticism of the tank is an assumption that not tanking would have yielded considerably better results, to the tune of playoff success. Maybe. It's possible. But given what we know of Tim Murray's tenure, I don't think there's a good argument out there that he'd have built a competitive team. It's also entirely possible we'd have been at the bottom of the league the good ol fashioned way. When you draft the way the Sabres have for around a decade, misery tends to come regardless. 

Exactly

5 minutes ago, Weave said:

I don't think the bolded is quite correct.  At least not in my mind it isn't.  The main tank concern in my mind always was that both methods had the same ceiling but the floor for the tank was expected to be lower, and IMO longer.

Well yeah the ceiling is the same in any rebuild, it's a Cup. ?

It's the likelihood of that ceiling, that's the argument

 

[WildCard]

9 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

And I agree with pretty much all of this. Which means, of course, it was a good post. 

Don't make us devalue Hoss' opinion

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Exactly

Well yeah the ceiling is the same in any rebuild, it's a Cup. ?

It's the likelihood of that ceiling, that's the argument

 

Agreed.  And we've disagreed on the likelihood all along.

[erickompositör72]

25 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Right, the timeline expectations that came with the tank and from its proponents has certainly flopped. On the other hand...

This is a fallacy. Implicit (and in this case, explicit) to much of the criticism of the tank is an assumption that not tanking would have yielded considerably better results, to the tune of playoff success. Maybe. It's possible. But given what we know of Tim Murray's tenure, I don't think there's a good argument out there that he'd have built a competitive team. It's also entirely possible we'd have been at the bottom of the league the good ol fashioned way. When you draft the way the Sabres have for around a decade, misery tends to come regardless. 

This is the old "if only [x] happened or [y] didn't happen..." All of those were always possibilities, and amplified the risk of a tank.

We put all our eggs in one basket. And we whiffed. And here we are.

16 minutes ago, Weave said:

I don't think the bolded is quite correct.  At least not in my mind it isn't.  The main tank concern in my mind always was that both methods had the same ceiling but the floor for the tank was expected to be lower, and IMO longer.

exactly. pro-tankers did not account for all of the variables/things out of our control that could have catastrophic results.

Edited August 14, 2018 by erickompositör72

[TrueBlueGED]

14 minutes ago, Weave said:

I don't think the bolded is quite correct.  At least not in my mind it isn't.  The main tank concern in my mind always was that both methods had the same ceiling but the floor for the tank was expected to be lower, and IMO longer.

I don't think the floor was lower. Again, more than a few teams have been terrible for extended periods without trying to be. Hell, that was one argument about why the tank was a uniquely Buffalo thing. Now, the likelihood of hitting that floor may have been higher; I'd agree with that. But I would rebut that building around top picks is more likely to reach the ceiling (which, in my mind, is extended Cup contention, not just a single win).