Jump to content

Jeff Skinner - The Poll


The Jeff Skinner - Ralph Krueger Quagmire  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is at fault for the current Jeff Skinner - Ralph Krueger situation (Jeff Skinner mostly playing on the 4th line and being benched 2+ games so far)?

    • Jeff Skinner is at fault. Ralph Krueger is doing what is best for the team.
    • Ralph Krueger is at fault. Jeff Skinner is being mismanaged/misused.
    • Other (current GM, former GM, assistant coaches are at fault for creating this situation)
  2. 2. What is the best course of immediate action regarding Jeff Skinner?

    • Jeff Skinner should play for the Buffalo Sabres as a top six forward.
    • Jeff Skinner should play for the Buffalo Sabres as a bottom six forward.
    • Jeff Skinner should ride bench for the Buffalo Sabres.
    • Jeff Skinner should be traded to another team.
    • Jeff Skinner should be bought out or buried.
  3. 3. What is the best course of immediate action for Ralph Krueger?

    • Ralph Krueger should remain the Head Coach of the Buffalo Sabres.
    • Ralph Krueger should be moved/promoted to another role in the Hockey Department of the Buffalo Sabres.
    • Ralph Krueger should no longer work for the Buffalo Sabres.


Recommended Posts

@IKnowPhysics

I don’t expect everyone to read all my rants, especially when they are as unpopular as my opinions on Skinner.

But your stat breakdown fails to properly address Skinner’s first Krueger season by looking at it in linear fashion, the way a new coach would.

  • October: Skinner scores 7 goals in 13 games while getting 18 minutes a game
  • November: Skinner slumps to 3 goals in 14 games, but Krueger keeps playing him 17 minutes a game 
  • December: Skinner’s slump continues. He scores once in 12 games putting him on a two-month streak of 4 goals in 26 games, and 11 in a row without scoring before he gets injured in a Dec. 27 game against Boston. Krueger starts cutting his ice time more as the streak continues and he ends up averaging a shade under 16 minutes - still top six minutes - for the month.
  • January: Skinner averages 19 minutes in his two-game return, but is -3 without a point.
  • February: Skinner’s goalless streak grows to 22 games where his stat line reaches 0/3/3/-17 before he finally scores. Skinner’s stat line for the month ends up 3/1/4 at a little over 14 minutes a game.
  • March: Krueger, perhaps encouraged by a brief spark of recent offence, gives him more ice time - 18 minutes a game over 4 games. Jeff responds by going -5 and pointless.

To me it looks like a textbook case of a player who played himself out of his coach’s good graces and then failed to play his way back in. What am I missing?

https://www.espn.com/nhl/player/gamelog/_/id/5540/year/2020/jeff-skinner

Edited by dudacek
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Is it okay if I voted to bury Skinner AND fire Kreuger? 

I might agree with the Skinner fans if he'd even come close to playing well when he got that stint on the top line, but he didn't. He's been rubbish. 

you get my vot eas well...exactly what should take place

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

Is it okay if I voted to bury Skinner AND fire Kreuger? 

I might agree with the Skinner fans if he'd even come close to playing well when he got that stint on the top line, but he didn't. He's been rubbish. 

 

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

@IKnowPhysics

I don’t expect everyone to read all my rants, especially when they are as unpopular as my opinions on Skinner.

But your stat breakdown fails to properly address Skinner’s first Krueger season by looking at it in linear fashion, the way a new coach would.

  • October: Skinner scores 7 goals in 13 games while getting 18 minutes a game
  • November: Skinner slumps to 3 goals in 14 games, but Krueger keeps playing him 17 minutes a game 
  • December: Skinner’s slump continues. He scores once in 12 games putting him on a two-month streak of 4 goals in 26 games, and 11 in a row without scoring before he gets injured in a Dec. 27 game against Boston. Krueger starts cutting his ice time more as the streak continues and he ends up averaging a shade under 16 minutes - still top six minutes - for the month.
  • January: Skinner averages 19 minutes in his two-game return, but is -3 without a point.
  • February: Skinner’s goalless streak grows to 22 games where his stat line reaches 0/3/3/-17 before he finally scores. Skinner’s stat line for the month ends up 3/1/4 at a little over 14 minutes a game.
  • March: Krueger, perhaps encouraged by a brief spark of recent offence, gives him more ice time - 18 minutes a game over 4 games. Jeff responds by going -5 and pointless.

To me it looks like a textbook case of a player who played himself out of his coach’s good graces and then failed to play his way back in. What am I missing?

https://www.espn.com/nhl/player/gamelog/_/id/5540/year/2020/jeff-skinner

Good data to show Skinner just hasn’t performed.  Still, I don’t know what putting him on the 4th line accomplishes.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dudacek said:

@IKnowPhysics

I don’t expect everyone to read all my rants, especially when they are as unpopular as my opinions on Skinner.

But your stat breakdown fails to properly address Skinner’s first Krueger season by looking at it in linear fashion, the way a new coach would.

  • October: Skinner scores 7 goals in 13 games while getting 18 minutes a game
  • November: Skinner slumps to 3 goals in 14 games, but Krueger keeps playing him 17 minutes a game 
  • December: Skinner’s slump continues. He scores once in 12 games putting him on a two-month streak of 4 goals in 26 games, and 11 in a row without scoring before he gets injured in a Dec. 27 game against Boston. Krueger starts cutting his ice time more as the streak continues and he ends up averaging a shade under 16 minutes - still top six minutes - for the month.
  • January: Skinner averages 19 minutes in his two-game return, but is -3 without a point.
  • February: Skinner’s goalless streak grows to 22 games where his stat line reaches 0/3/3/-17 before he finally scores. Skinner’s stat line for the month ends up 3/1/4 at a little over 14 minutes a game.
  • March: Krueger, perhaps encouraged by a brief spark of recent offence, gives him more ice time - 18 minutes a game over 4 games. Jeff responds by going -5 and pointless.

To me it looks like a textbook case of a player who played himself out of his coach’s good graces and then failed to play his way back in. What am I missing?

https://www.espn.com/nhl/player/gamelog/_/id/5540/year/2020/jeff-skinner

I think this whole thing is as simple as, whatever put Skinner in the doghouse would be much more readily tolerated by RK if he were getting points.  But as you show above, the points haven't been coming for quite some time so whatever Skinner isn't doing is not at all tolerated.

1 minute ago, gilbert11 said:

 

Good data to show Skinner just hasn’t performed.  Still, I don’t know what putting him on the 4th line accomplishes.

It puts him on a line more appropriate to his performance level.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, darksabre said:

1. Don't know, don't care.

2. Don't know, don't care.

3. Don't know, don't care.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=7279572

10/10 gif choice must be said 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Weave said:

I think this whole thing is as simple as, whatever put Skinner in the doghouse would be much more readily tolerated by RK if he were getting points.  But as you show above, the points haven't been coming for quite some time so whatever Skinner isn't doing is not at all tolerated.

It puts him on a line more appropriate to his performance level.

Being benched is certainly not appropriate to his performance level, either. Statistically. And that's with literally ignoring everything else he does well, which I understand is a prerequisite to this conversation and speaking only of goals/points. Only points matter, I get it haha. 

Skinner scoring 4 goals a in a month is now being written of as "bad" because it's not his usual rate. The plot is being lost. Skinner's usage has been so bonkers in the few months he's had 0 (while still being a net positive contributor (hello penalty drawing, hello KO)) that while Skinner certainly bears responsibility to not living up to the expectations we have of him, the fact his raw totals are AS low as they are bears significant reflection on the coach. 

 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"We are going to make roster decisions heavily incorporating analytics (they said this, right?) (yet evaluate in-season performance based solely on points ie non advanced metrics)" is what Krueger is saying, basically. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

Krueger mentioned "attitude and work ethic" in his pregame comments. That would seem to answer the question.

Attitude would actually somehow be a more palatable standing, even if I wholly disagreed with it being a determining factor in this case. 

There isn't a reasonable statistical argument that there are 12 F better suited to dressing than Skinner. There are forwards actively contributing negatively - Skinner was not that. 

If Krueger has assessed Skinner's attitude to be so poor that it's infiltrating team performance like a noxious gas, and he's somehow convinced himself this was quantifiable to the point of thinking we'd be more likely to win without him, there's an inherent INTERNAL logic to it, even if I still completely disagree with the strategy. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Attitude would actually somehow be a more palatable standing, even if I wholly disagreed with it being a determining factor in this case. 

There isn't a reasonable statistical argument that there are 12 F better suited to dressing than Skinner. There are forwards actively contributing negatively - Skinner was not that. 

If Krueger has assessed Skinner's attitude to be so poor that it's infiltrating team performance like a noxious gas, and he's somehow convinced himself this was quantifiable to the point of thinking we'd be more likely to win without him, there's an inherent INTERNAL logic to it, even if I still completely disagree with the strategy. 

3 pts in the 3 games he's been sat and an overall better looking product on the ice, innit?

I don't actually know its looked better.  I haven't watched, but is that the general feedback?

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

3 pts in the 3 games he's been sat and an overall better looking product on the ice, innit?

I don't actually know its looked better.  I haven't watched, but is that the general feedback?

Against a terrible team? Massively small sample size? Better withouth Jack too? 

Meh

And 3 points in 3 games isn't good. It's akin to ~ 25th/26th best in the league 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wrong about Skinner necessarily needing to be on a top line. Not that I don't think that may still be the better avenue, but Skinner was working in a 4th line role. Our advanced metrics were way better as a team when we had him pushing play from the fourth line, in a DEFENSIVE role. He was drawing penalties and getting chances.

He was succeeding (as a 4th liner) and Krueger said it wasn't enough. He didn't ask Skinner to contribute positively as a 4th liner, he asked him to produce top 6 numbers from a 4th line spot. 

He's wrong about this. He's not our 13th best forward - he needs to play. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So to review: 

 

Last team Skinner was on: They got rid of him for almost nothing 

This team: He hit his pay day and does not play with anywhere near the level of compete he did while pursuing that pay day. Now he is sitting 

 

Carolina made the right choice. We got stuck with their garbage

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

So to review: 

 

Last team Skinner was on: They got rid of him for almost nothing 

This team: He hit his pay day and does not play with anywhere near the level of compete he did while pursuing that pay day. Now he is sitting 

 

Carolina made the right choice. We got stuck with their garbage

We got ride of ROR for almost nothing. That in and of itself doesn't mean much. 

There are two issues with Skinner that keep being conflated into 1 - That he's not playing as well as he did in Carolina and early-Buffalo right now, and that he's playing QUITE as bad as he is. The former is on him, he's definitely slumping/underperforming and it's been that way for a little while. 

But it's like because Skinner isn't, in 4th line, defensive zone-start heavy usage performing at the production levels we've previous seen, he deserves to be benched. 

There's a happy medium. That they can't strike a balance is ridiculous. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Skinner scoring 4 goals a in a month is now being written of as "bad" because it's not his usual rate. The plot is being lost. 

 

I don't think Skinner scoring 4 goals in a month is bad. Disappointing by the standards he previously set, but not bad.

Scoring 4 goals in 46 games, or 7 in 60, that's bad, especially for a guy who is in the league for his offence. That's a look at your other options level performance.

I actually thought Jeff's work in the details of the game were as good as I've seen them in the first half-dozen or so games this year. And even as his production sucked over the past year, Jeff still did two things really well: draw penalties and generate a high number of shots in high danger areas.

But (again, over the past year) I struggle to see where else he has helped the team.

Generally speaking he doesn't get in hard on the forecheck and retrieve pucks. He doesn't get open for tap-ins or burying one-timers. He doesn't support his linemates well by getting open for them, finding them when they are open, or rotating to fill the holes when they attack. His passing is outright bad. He will make some really nice steals from behind at times, but  he's not winning a ton of puck battles, or providing good puck support for his teammate's battles, and he is generally the last man back on the backcheck. He is non-entity on zone exits, doesn't carry the puck much through the neutral zone or shine on entries. He doesn't wear down the opposition physically, block shots or win faceoffs. He doesn't kill penalties and has not added much to the PP those times he's been on it.

Is his overall play "worse" than the other guys rotating through the bottom six? Not really. Should he have been tried earlier and more sincerely with the talent more than the 5 periods he got this year? Yes. Has he been doing more than Lazar, Sheahan, Reider, Mittelstadt, Cozens, Olofsson, Hall, Reinhart, Okposo, Thompson or Asplund? Maybe Thompson and Okposo. Has he contributed more than your typical bottom-sixer? No.

And sitting out a bottom-six player isn't worth losing your ***** over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dudacek said:

I don't think Skinner scoring 4 goals in a month is bad. Disappointing by the standards he previously set, but not bad.

Scoring 4 goals in 46 games, or 7 in 60, that's bad, especially for a guy who is in the league for his offence. That's a look at your other options level performance.

I actually thought Jeff's work in the details of the game were as good as I've seen them in the first half-dozen or so games this year. And even as his production sucked over the past year, Jeff still did two things really well: draw penalties and generate a high number of shots in high danger areas.

But (again, over the past year) I struggle to see where else he has helped the team.

Generally speaking he doesn't get in hard on the forecheck and retrieve pucks. He doesn't get open for tap-ins or burying one-timers. He doesn't support his linemates well by getting open for them, finding them when they are open, or rotating to fill the holes when they attack. His passing is outright bad. He will make some really nice steals from behind at times, but  he's not winning a ton of puck battles, or providing good puck support for his teammate's battles, and he is generally the last man back on the backcheck. He is non-entity on zone exits, doesn't carry the puck much through the neutral zone or shine on entries. He doesn't wear down the opposition physically, block shots or win faceoffs. He doesn't kill penalties and has not added much to the PP those times he's been on it.

Is his overall play "worse" than the other guys rotating through the bottom six? Not really. Should he have been tried earlier and more sincerely with the talent more than the 5 periods he got this year? Yes. Has he been doing more than Lazar, Sheahan, Reider, Mittelstadt, Cozens, Olofsson, Hall, Reinhart, Okposo, Thompson or Asplund? Maybe Thompson and Okposo. Has he contributed more than your typical bottom-sixer? No.

And sitting out a bottom-six player isn't worth losing your ***** over.

I guess that's where the disconnect comes in. 

Skinner was performing exceptionally as a 4th liner. You are undervaluing the value of carrying the play as a team and the rate at which he drew penalties (which is MASSIVEEEEE for this team) if you don't think he was providing more than average value from the 4th line or value significantly greater than some players who were dressing normally. 

Skinner and KO isn't even close. Seriously, KO is a wild wild net negative. What kind of degree of difficulty does the argument have to be - how much better does Skinner have to be than KO for one to argue 3 straight scratches isn't nothing? He's significantly better, *of course* is not negligible he's being benched for KO and Thompson.

So yes, sitting Skinner for those players is definitely worth losing sh*t over. Particularly when we all know there's a non-negligible chance Skinner has more to offer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Krueger was right the first time, and we were all wrong, because he understood the value Skinner could provide from line 4. 

Now it just looks like he didn't understand that value at all, he was simply there because he wasn't doing what Ralph wanted, and now he's found himself bumped down even further. 

Skinner in the bottom 6 was working. Maybe at a rate woefully short of previous Skinner production, but undoubtedly at a rate significantly better than other, current staples (again, not just taking raw points here - were weren't supposed to be looking at just that, now). 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A goal not given up when it would have been (should someone else be in your spot) is just as valuable as scoring a goal when it wouldn't have been. We have to remember how little offensive zone usage Skinner had been getting. KO is getting tanked by the opposition. Even with producing zero on the scoresheet Skinner was contributing to our goal differential in a very positive way relative to Okposo. 

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

 Particularly when we all know there's a non-negligible chance Skinner has more to offer. 

This is where the disconnect comes for me. The chance has become more and more negligible as time has past and Skinner's slump continues.

The Jeff Skinner of the past year smells a lot like the Kyle Okposo of a few years ago, without the excuses of "injury" and "good teammate" propping him up.

I'm not sure why you are giving as much weight as you are to the small sample size of Skinner's early season analytics. I have not seen Sheahan/Lazar to be less effective with Asplund or Mittelstadt than with Skinner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dudacek said:

This is where the disconnect comes for me. The chance has become more and more negligible as time has past and Skinner's slump continues.

The Jeff Skinner of the past year smells a lot like the Kyle Okposo of a few years ago, without the excuses of "injury" and "good teammate" propping him up.

I'm not sure why you are giving as much weight as you are to the small sample size of Skinner's early season analytics. I have not seen Sheahan/Lazar to be less effective with Asplund or Mittelstadt than with Skinner.

And it comes back to the thing we always come back to, you and me. How much I think this team needs to prioritize the immediate. 

Skinner may be KO from a few years ago. But KO from a few years ago is a lot better than the KO of today. If Skinner being in the lineup over KO helps us even one iota, a team doing everything in their power to win now would maximize the lineup in whatever way possible to achieve the goal of winning. 

Me pointing out Skinner *could* produce more is merely a sidebar. He *is* better than KO, right now. 

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

A goal not given up when it would have been (should someone else be in your spot) is just as valuable as scoring a goal when it wouldn't have been. We have to remember how little offensive zone usage Skinner had been getting. KO is getting tanked by the opposition. Even with producing zero on the scoresheet Skinner was contributing to our goal differential in a very positive way relative to Okposo. 

I wouldn't argue if Okposo was sat.

I would argue that Ralph is giving him the benefit of the doubt because he played well last year and he is coming back from an injury.

Just like he gave Jeff the benefit of the doubt and continued to play him a lot throughout the first two months of his enormous slump last year, and kept him in the lineup even after it continued. I mean, my god, 0/3/3/-17 in 22 games? Who does that and doesn't get benched?

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.   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...