Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PASabreFan

Kim explains how she and Terry pick coaches

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I posted a stat from an article on another thread that Kahun was top 30 in the NHL over the last two seasons in primary assists.  That may help explain VO’s looking good with him in their very short time together.

This isn't a lineup thread, but Olofsson - Cozens - Kahun would be a nice little youthful offensive zone / favorable matchup 3rd line next season if we could find a true stopgap 2C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 5:31 PM, nfreeman said:

Good post @Taro T although I’m not sure Team scoring was optimized last year.  But it was great seeing Eichel have a monster year and VO score a ton Of exciting goals as a rookie. 

Either way I sure want to see how team scoring goes with 2-3 new and improved forwards in the top 9.  

He scored them on the powerplay. Skinner and Eichel were definitely better at ES than Olofsson and Eichel were. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 5:24 PM, Taro T said:

One thing getting lost in the Skinner vs Olofsson discussion is that by playing with guys that can be defensively responsible, Eichel had the luxury of getting anywhere in the offensive zone rather than staying high knowing he'd have to cover for Pominville who couldn't get back once he got low & Skinner who could get back but would likely stay near the net longer than circumstances dictate that he should've.

Absolutely would've let Skinner play with Eichel after he came back when Olofsson was out, but really didn't have as much consternation keeping Skinner on the 2nd line as others here because Jack was having a truly career breakout year.  And my gut says the team's scoring is optimized by optimizing Eichel's production.

My 2 cents.  

Except, Skinner and Eichel carried the play better than VO and Eichel did at even strength. I feel like I'm watching a different VO at ES than everyone else. I understand the idea of wanting to spread out the talent, definitely, and that's a valid argument, but we shouldn't pretend that VO actually did better in that spot than Skinner did/would have, cause it's not true. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Except, Skinner and Eichel carried the play better than VO and Eichel did at even strength. I feel like I'm watching a different VO at ES than everyone else. I understand the idea of wanting to spread out the talent, definitely, and that's a valid argument, but we shouldn't pretend that VO actually did better in that spot than Skinner did/would have, cause it's not true. 

There’s no doubt that 1st year Skinner was more effective overall with Jack than this year’s Olofsson.

This year’s Skinner, I’m not so sure.

I thought Olofsson was more trustworthy without the puck than Skinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

There’s no doubt that 1st year Skinner was more effective overall with Jack than this year’s Olofsson.

This year’s Skinner, I’m not so sure.

I thought Olofsson was more trustworthy without the puck than Skinner.

I can agree with this line of thinking, even if I'm probably drawing a different conclusion for how Skinner's play would've looked had he been paired with Jack this past year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

choosing peter greene GIF

 Catch a player by the toe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Thorny said:

Except, Skinner and Eichel carried the play better than VO and Eichel did at even strength. I feel like I'm watching a different VO at ES than everyone else. I understand the idea of wanting to spread out the talent, definitely, and that's a valid argument, but we shouldn't pretend that VO actually did better in that spot than Skinner did/would have, cause it's not true. 

1st year Skinner & Eichel definitely.  But from the time Olofsson finally scored an ES goal though to him getting the knee injury, they were working at ES as well.  And again, getting fully engaged Eichel because he didn't have to always cover for his linemates enabled him to have that breakout season, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 7:36 PM, PerreaultForever said:

Not disagreeing that he "goes hard" but when one guy doesn't follow the system or go the way the other guys go it isn't going to work. We have for years floundered with juggled lines that fail to work as groups but rather play as individuals. Kreuger tried to instill more of a team system with well defined roles, but if a guy doesn't buy into that it doesn't matter how hard he goes, it won't work. Skinner hasn't shown me he can be a team player or do what he's asked to do so I guess as a coach you drop him down the lineup as Kreuger did or you give up and let him be himself, but if you do that, does it destroy your ability to coach the rest of the roster? Not sure if that works either.

My acts like a spoiled child comment was more in relation to the selfish retaliation penalties he has a tendency to take all too frequently. That is a very costly in big games (if we ever get to play any). 

You make some good points regarding the relationship between Skinner and his coach. Where I disagree with your stance is that Skinner has strengths and weaknesses as a player where his strength as a shooting sniper dominates his weaknesses as a two way player. Put simply his shooting talents more than compensate for his defensive play/lapses. Krueger is a coach who demands/emphasizes that all his players play a two way game. Skinner simply doesn't fit the coach's  ideal mold as a player. In this case I wish he would be more tolerant of the player and loosen the tight leash he has on him. 

The line I would prefer to see Skinner on is on a Jack line that included Reinhart. Not only is it a legitimate first line it is also an upper tier line in the league. My hope is that the coach let's Skinner be Skinner.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You make some good points regarding the relationship between Skinner and his coach. Where I disagree with your stance is that Skinner has strengths and weaknesses as a player where his strength as a shooting sniper dominates his weaknesses as a two way player. Put simply his shooting talents more than compensate for his defensive play/lapses. Krueger is a coach who demands/emphasizes that all his players play a two way game. Skinner simply doesn't fit the coach's  ideal mold as a player. In this case I wish he would be more tolerant of the player and loosen the tight leash he has on him. 

The line I would prefer to see Skinner on is on a Jack line that included Reinhart. Not only is it a legitimate first line it is also an upper tier line in the league. My hope is that the coach let's Skinner be Skinner.  

 I think we've proven that having only one scoring line doesn't get us anywhere. I think your idea will work when we upgrade the 2nd line. Only then can you let Skinner be Skinner on which ever line he fits best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ogre said:

 Catch a player by the toe...

If he loses his love for the game, let him go...

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

 I think we've proven that having only one scoring line doesn't get us anywhere. I think your idea will work when we upgrade the 2nd line. Only then can you let Skinner be Skinner on which ever line he fits best.

The imperative for this offseason is that there has to be offensive additions to create a decent second line. When there is a shortage of second line caliber of players no matter how you juggle the first two lines it is insufficient. Skinner playing with Jack maximizes his best attribute of being a sniper. Skinner playing on a second line without Jack not only makes him a lesser player on that line but it also diminishes the Jack line without him. As I stated in a prior post my preference is to have a first line made up of Skinner-Jack-Reinhart. As a first line it would rank as one of the better lines in the league. 

7 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

 I think we've proven that having only one scoring line doesn't get us anywhere. I think your idea will work when we upgrade the 2nd line. Only then can you let Skinner be Skinner on which ever line he fits best.

We are not disagreeing. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JohnC said:

You make some good points regarding the relationship between Skinner and his coach. Where I disagree with your stance is that Skinner has strengths and weaknesses as a player where his strength as a shooting sniper dominates his weaknesses as a two way player. Put simply his shooting talents more than compensate for his defensive play/lapses. Krueger is a coach who demands/emphasizes that all his players play a two way game. Skinner simply doesn't fit the coach's  ideal mold as a player. In this case I wish he would be more tolerant of the player and loosen the tight leash he has on him. 

Not going to deny Skinner is a sniper and a goal scorer but he's also a terrible passer. There are numerous instances but the glaring one I remember most this year was near the end of the season when Simmonds was on the same line and Skinner had the puck off to the side, the D went with him as did the goalie and Simmonds stood at an open net, easy pass I could still have made at my age and Skinner just tries to slip it between the pads, easy stop. To me, he's a selfish player and needs to be a team player to be a true star. And when a coach lets players dictate how players play the coach isn't a coach and the system will fall apart. 

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

The line I would prefer to see Skinner on is on a Jack line that included Reinhart. Not only is it a legitimate first line it is also an upper tier line in the league. My hope is that the coach let's Skinner be Skinner.  

It's a legitimate good line but lacks physicality and 2 way ability to be truly top rate imo. Regardless of that, the problem is no depth. Skinner's stats would go up, but I doubt our win total would until we built a legit 2nd line and right now if you load the top the second is Johanson Kahun and ? and that's not a good NHL 2nd line by any definition. You play Boston and Krejci's line will rip it to shreds as would O'Reilly in St. Louis and any number of other current 2nd lines. 

I don't think Kreuger's initial idea was a bad one and Olofsson got points that Skinner would have had so tomato tomahto I don't care who scores if we win games.  Skinner and Johanson with Vlad seemed to work okay until the injuries hit but a legit 2C on that line makes it a lot better but without that 2C it's a glaring problem as so many have already said in various threads. I just simply don't know where/how we get that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the thread over at TBD discussing how Kim Pegula was wearing a headset for the last Bills game of the season last year. 

Won't be long before she is talking into that thing.

She already has a reputation as being feared around the Sabres offices.

Her meddling knows no bounds!  

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Not going to deny Skinner is a sniper and a goal scorer but he's also a terrible passer. There are numerous instances but the glaring one I remember most this year was near the end of the season when Simmonds was on the same line and Skinner had the puck off to the side, the D went with him as did the goalie and Simmonds stood at an open net, easy pass I could still have made at my age and Skinner just tries to slip it between the pads, easy stop. To me, he's a selfish player and needs to be a team player to be a true star. And when a coach lets players dictate how players play the coach isn't a coach and the system will fall apart. 

It's a legitimate good line but lacks physicality and 2 way ability to be truly top rate imo. Regardless of that, the problem is no depth. Skinner's stats would go up, but I doubt our win total would until we built a legit 2nd line and right now if you load the top the second is Johanson Kahun and ? and that's not a good NHL 2nd line by any definition. You play Boston and Krejci's line will rip it to shreds as would O'Reilly in St. Louis and any number of other current 2nd lines. 

I don't think Kreuger's initial idea was a bad one and Olofsson got points that Skinner would have had so tomato tomahto I don't care who scores if we win games.  Skinner and Johanson with Vlad seemed to work okay until the injuries hit but a legit 2C on that line makes it a lot better but without that 2C it's a glaring problem as so many have already said in various threads. I just simply don't know where/how we get that guy.

I respect your well thought views on Skinner but respectfully and strenuously disagree with it. Without question Skinner is not a two way player and is not an adept passer. That's not the player he is or ever was. He is however one of the best snipers in the league. It's that elite characteristic that makes him valuable. What you are doing is defining him through the prism of his weaknesses instead of doing so from his strengths. Elite shooting and goal scoring ability are prized attributes in this league. Added to the fact that when you have a sniper on a team noted for its scoring impotency then he should be valued even more. 

The Sabres' roster is made up of a lot of perimeter players. Other than Reinhart what other players hover around the net where the brutal physical action happens and where most of the goals are scored in the league? Skinner is one of the few players who scores with his quick draw shot most of his goals within a perimeter 12'. That  instinctive ability to find the hole in that congestion around the net is a talent that is nearly non-existent on this team. 

My recommendation is focus more on what a player can do and don't be blinded to his unique assets because of what he doesn't do well. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I respect your well thought views on Skinner but respectfully and strenuously disagree with it.

Who ... who was that masked man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Who ... who was that masked man?

On the advice of my attorney I will not to admit to anything incriminating. I refuse to be unmasked. 🤡 🤡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

On the advice of my attorney I will not to admit to anything incriminating. I refuse to be unmasked. 🤡 🤡

Disney Movies & Facts

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JohnC said:

I respect your well thought views on Skinner but respectfully and strenuously disagree with it. Without question Skinner is not a two way player and is not an adept passer. That's not the player he is or ever was. He is however one of the best snipers in the league. It's that elite characteristic that makes him valuable. What you are doing is defining him through the prism of his weaknesses instead of doing so from his strengths. Elite shooting and goal scoring ability are prized attributes in this league. Added to the fact that when you have a sniper on a team noted for its scoring impotency then he should be valued even more. 

The Sabres' roster is made up of a lot of perimeter players. Other than Reinhart what other players hover around the net where the brutal physical action happens and where most of the goals are scored in the league? Skinner is one of the few players who scores with his quick draw shot most of his goals within a perimeter 12'. That  instinctive ability to find the hole in that congestion around the net is a talent that is nearly non-existent on this team. 

My recommendation is focus more on what a player can do and don't be blinded to his unique assets because of what he doesn't do well. 

 

I'm not really in disagreement with this. He can score goals but the problem is he's paid to score a LOT of goals and he simply didn't deliver. Skinner scores his 40 for a second year and we'd be in the playoffs instead of Montreal and maybe have a good shot at that draft pick too.  For me you get a contract like that the expectation goes with it, and if you fail to live up to it, part of the blame for a failed season has to fall on you. 

So you can argue about whether it's on Skinner not playing as well since he wasn't heading into free agency and motivated or if it's on Kreuger for not using him properly and taking him away from Jack but in the end they both are here and the blame was added to JBott's legacy.

I think we'd all agree however that if he doesn't bounce back and become a 30+ goal scorer again we will be in trouble and his contract will be a disaster for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not really in disagreement with this. He can score goals but the problem is he's paid to score a LOT of goals and he simply didn't deliver. Skinner scores his 40 for a second year and we'd be in the playoffs instead of Montreal and maybe have a good shot at that draft pick too.  For me you get a contract like that the expectation goes with it, and if you fail to live up to it, part of the blame for a failed season has to fall on you. 

So you can argue about whether it's on Skinner not playing as well since he wasn't heading into free agency and motivated or if it's on Kreuger for not using him properly and taking him away from Jack but in the end they both are here and the blame was added to JBott's legacy.

I think we'd all agree however that if he doesn't bounce back and become a 30+ goal scorer again we will be in trouble and his contract will be a disaster for the future.

In general we are in accord. With respect to the highlighted section if you want an increased chance for Skinner to return to his prolific scoring form then the best situation for him is to be on the Jack line. I still believe that our first line should be made up of Skinner-Jack-Reinhart. While many want that line to split up for more dispersed scoring from another line my bias is to keep that prolific line in tact. 

When considering why Skinner was less effective last year compared to his first year a significant factor was the change in coaching and the system he installed. Krueger system relies on two way players. Skinner doesn't fit that model, and I don't believe he ever will. Krueger wants his line players to play a tight and responsible two way game. Skinner certainly can give a more earnest effort on the defensive side of the game but that's not where his value lies. He's a goal scoring sniper on a team that lacks potency. We should allow him to play to his strengths and be more tolerable of his deficiencies.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In general we are in accord. With respect to the highlighted section if you want an increased chance for Skinner to return to his prolific scoring form then the best situation for him is to be on the Jack line. I still believe that our first line should be made up of Skinner-Jack-Reinhart. While many want that line to split up for more dispersed scoring from another line my bias is to keep that prolific line in tact. 

When considering why Skinner was less effective last year compared to his first year a significant factor was the change in coaching and the system he installed. Krueger system relies on two way players. Skinner doesn't fit that model, and I don't believe he ever will. Krueger wants his line players to play a tight and responsible two way game. Skinner certainly can give a more earnest effort on the defensive side of the game but that's not where his value lies. He's a goal scoring sniper on a team that lacks potency. We should allow him to play to his strengths and be more tolerable of his deficiencies.   

 

I don't agree. Krueger talks about balancing lines with 2 way player, scorer, and distributor. I think Skinner fits fne but the rest of his line wasn't the next 2 things. It was amazing how things works when Johansson could distribute, or he played with Larsson's 2-way ability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't agree. Krueger talks about balancing lines with 2 way player, scorer, and distributor. I think Skinner fits fne but the rest of his line wasn't the next 2 things. It was amazing how things works when Johansson could distribute, or he played with Larsson's 2-way ability. 

You make a good point. On the other hand my sense is that Skinner doesn't fit the mold of the player he prefers. The only time I have ever heard Krueger exhibit irritation in an interview was when he was asked about Skinner's diminished role on WGR. His response and tone was sharp and less than discreetly indicated that he was not satisfied with how he played. I may be reading too much into his tone and response.

With respect to Johansson I thought playing him with Kahun and Olofsson at the end of the season was an interesting combination. They seemed to have a rapport and their styles of play seemed to mesh.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...