Jump to content

Risto Under Ralph Krueger


WildCard

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Right or wrong.... they have access to information we don't.  Not saying that makes them right; just saying that we are ignorant.  ?

Phil Housley spent 40 games ignoring advanced information we have access too and presumably he did too. So he was ignorant and we weren't in that instance. 

This argument always drives me up a wall. "Well they know stuff we don't" and they do, but that doesn't mean they are using that extra information well. Sobotka under Housley might be the most perfect example ever created. If I give someone all the information and give someone else 50% of it but the 50% person reviews properly what they have in front of them to reach a sound conclusion while the 100% individual does not, that added information means nothing. While I recognize you said that doesn't make them right, we are constantly pushed towards deferring to their extra knowledge. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ross Rhea said:

Bet their more right than you or me or anyone else on this board.

Idk, collectively this board probably is right fairly regularly. Individual posters might not be but board consensus I would guess gets it generally correct. Trading for ROR is a prime example. Trading for Lehner. Sam Reinhart's abilities. Jokiharju being better than Nylander (okay this one isn't proven yet). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Phil Housley spent 40 games ignoring advanced information we have access too and presumably he did too. So he was ignorant and we weren't in that instance. 

This argument always drives me up a wall. "Well they know stuff we don't" and they do, but that doesn't mean they are using that extra information well. Sobotka under Housley might be the most perfect example ever created. If I give someone all the information and give someone else 50% of it but the 50% person reviews properly what they have in front of them to reach a sound conclusion while the 100% individual does not, that added information means nothing. While I recognize you said that doesn't make them right, we are constantly pushed towards deferring to their extra knowledge. 

The information that you don’t know is what the coaches are asking each individual player to do and what they are asking them to do as a team. And that changes from game to game, and even maybe even a particular shift. You are also not hearing from the players. You are looking and judging the outputs, without knowing all the inputs. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SDS said:

The information that you don’t know is what the coaches are asking each individual player to do and what they are asking them to do as a team. And that changes from game to game, and even maybe even a particular shift. You are also not hearing from the players. You are looking and judging the outputs, without knowing all the inputs. 

Yup and Housley had ***** inputs because he ignored outputs he had access too. Sometimes people from outside can see the problems where as those in the midst of it don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Yup and Housley had ***** inputs because he ignored outputs he had access too. Sometimes people from outside can see the problems where as those in the midst of it don't. 

Man, I didn't know being an NHL head coach was so easy, I think you should apply. You sound like a perfect fit, seeing as you know everything and all!

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ross Rhea said:

Man, I didn't know being an NHL head coach was so easy, I think you should apply. You sound like a perfect fit, seeing as you know everything and all!

This is condescending. It's also one of the laziest, least researched, and boring attempts at a comeback I've seen on here in a bit. Phil... is that you? 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't get all the information but the information we do get can still lead us to the correct conclusion. Information like Mitts isn't ready to be 2c. Sobotka isn't a 2c.  The Sabres were bad at getting to the net last year and terrible on defense. We know all of that without being a coach because we watch and we analyze stuff on the back end. Dismissing that entire perspective because we are missing pieces basically equates to "don't talk about hockey because you don't know everything." Seems boring and quite honestly stupid to phrase it that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

We don't get all the information but the information we do get can still lead us to the correct conclusion. Information like Mitts isn't ready to be 2c. Sobotka isn't a 2c.  The Sabres were bad at getting to the net last year and terrible on defense. We know all of that without being a coach because we watch and we analyze stuff on the back end. Dismissing that entire perspective because we are missing pieces basically equates to "don't talk about hockey because you don't know everything." Seems boring and quite honestly stupid to phrase it that way. 

If you can't read this and see the problem with your thinking I don't know what to tell you. Ignoring that which you do not know isn't the answer either.

Edited by Torpedo Forecheck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

We don't get all the information but the information we do get can still lead us to the correct conclusion. Information like Mitts isn't ready to be 2c. Sobotka isn't a 2c.  The Sabres were bad at getting to the net last year and terrible on defense. We know all of that without being a coach because we watch and we analyze stuff on the back end. Dismissing that entire perspective because we are missing pieces basically equates to "don't talk about hockey because you don't know everything." Seems boring and quite honestly stupid to phrase it that way. 

Putting a team together entails way more than simply plugging numbers into an Excel spreadsheet. They are actual people playing this game and having to work together.

The problem I have with your rants is that they strongly imply that our coaches just completely disregard stats. You don't know this. I have to believe that they absolutely know what the numbers say, but don't use them solely to make their decisions, and rightly so.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

If you can't read this and see the problem with your thinking I don't know what to tell you. Ignoring that which you do not know isn't the answer either.

You see me in here bitching about Risto? No because I don't have all the info and the info I do have says Krueger has him playing well enough. It isn't about ignoring what you don't know, it is not assuming that because Housley and Risto had conversations I wasn't a part of that Housley knew what he was doing or that Risto still wasn't playing like *****. No one has all the information.  If I look up and the sky is black in December and I say, well it looks like it will snow, should I say and assume nothing because I am not a meteorologist and don't have all the info? 

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Putting a team together entails way more than simply plugging numbers into an Excel spreadsheet. They are actual people playing this game and having to work together.

The problem I have with your rants is that they strongly imply that our coaches just completely disregard stats. You don't know this. I have to believe that they absolutely know what the numbers say, but don't use them solely to make their decisions, and rightly so.

It's ranting to say that we can see when something isn't working and that just because I am not the coach doesn't mean I can't comment on it? 

Housley may not of ignored stats but he sure as hell couldn't use them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It's ranting to say that we can see when something isn't working and that just because I am not the coach doesn't mean I can't comment on it? 

Housley may not of ignored stats but he sure as hell couldn't use them. 

No, but it is ranting to think that they don't also see what's wrong, and if they do, are too stupid to see the solutions that you so plainly see, and let us know in every thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SwampD said:

No, but it is ranting to think that they don't also see what's wrong, and if they do, are too stupid to see the solutions that you so plainly see, and let us know in every thread.

I am not sure I have offered a single solution in this thread. As a matter of fact I have been very quiet about the team thus far other than wanting to see Sobotka upgraded. Krueger has them playing well.  My only logical conclusion then is that this is personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I am not sure I have offered a single solution in this thread. As a matter of fact I have been very quiet about the team thus far other than wanting to see Sobotka upgraded. Krueger has them playing well.  My only logical conclusion then is that this is personal.

Okay, you got me. Maybe not every thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

So, have we figured out if it was Ristolainen's, Scandella's, or Sobotka's girlfriend that was quoted as saying essentially that Krueger was the 1st coach in a long time that make him feel wanted and possibly even useful?

Or was it somebody totally off the board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

So, have we figured out if it was Ristolainen's, Scandella's, or Sobotka's girlfriend that was quoted as saying essentially that Krueger was the 1st coach in a long time that make him feel wanted and possibly even useful?

Or was it somebody totally off the board?

That was Okposo or Sobotka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Taro T said:

So, have we figured out if it was Ristolainen's, Scandella's, or Sobotka's girlfriend that was quoted as saying essentially that Krueger was the 1st coach in a long time that make him feel wanted and possibly even useful?

Or was it somebody totally off the board?

I still think it was Girgensons, especially if you compare how he was treated by Bylsma and Housley to his place on the team under Nolan.

Edited by dudacek
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...