Goaltending and Environment: Kevin Woodley of InGoal Magazine on the Instigator Podcast

[Taro T]

38 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I saw/heard rumblings from one or two local sources that the Sabres had talked to at least one person about joining the coaching staff but those discussions fizzled.

I wouldn’t call it a “report” and what the persons role was going to be and whether it would involve replacing anyone was unclear.

seemed pretty vague at the time and my recollection of it is vague as well.

If someone has a link it would be appreciated.

The rumor was that they reached out to 2 coaches about joining the staff and that an actual offer was made to one that would have replaced Wilford.  Both apparently turned the Sabres down.  The source of the rumor typically is very credible so personally expect the rumor is fact.

No indication of why the coach that was offered Wilford's job turned the Sabres down, nor any indication what role the other coach they'd spoken to would have had.

Don't have a link to it.

[JohnC]

51 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I saw/heard rumblings from one or two local sources that the Sabres had talked to at least one person about joining the coaching staff but those discussions fizzled.

I wouldn’t call it a “report” and what the persons role was going to be and whether it would involve replacing anyone was unclear.

seemed pretty vague at the time and my recollection of it is vague as well.

If someone has a link it would be appreciated.

Your description using words such as “rumblings” and “rumors” is a fairer representation than using the stronger word such as “report”. On the other hand, KA has stated/acknowledged on the radio that Buffalo is not an appealing destination for many players because of its perceived reputation. He then stated that the only way to change that perception is to win more. 

[DarthEbriate]

Funny thing about hockey, and other sporting league offseasons...  they last for months. You can jettison an underperforming coach right at the end of the season. Then, when you do go coach-searching: the people you interview know that you're serious. You're not just having investigatory conversations. You're hosting a real search and real interviews. Serious coaches, and their agents, may even reach out to you because... Dahlin, Power, Byram. That's a pretty solid D-corps that I <insert headstrong and self-confident coach name> think I can get more out of than the Sabres have seen.

[Archie Lee]

42 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Funny thing about hockey, and other sporting league offseasons...  they last for months. You can jettison an underperforming coach right at the end of the season. Then, when you do go coach-searching: the people you interview know that you're serious. You're not just having investigatory conversations. You're hosting a real search and real interviews. Serious coaches, and their agents, may even reach out to you because... Dahlin, Power, Byram. That's a pretty solid D-corps that I <insert headstrong and self-confident coach name> think I can get more out of than the Sabres have seen.

I agree with this. 

I suppose there is an argument for not firing an assistant until you are certain you can hire a better replacement. But, the proper way to do it (my view) is to start by firing the assistant you want to replace. This accomplishes a couple of things: 

1). It creates an urgency or necessity to find someone better; and

2). It serves to cast a wider net than you would by merely calling a few coaches you hope might be interested. In other words, interested coaches will contact you.

I’m ambivalent on Wilford. Better is better. I imagine though that we would all swap Ruff for Brind’Amour before we would swap Wilford for Tim Gleason. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Archie Lee

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

I agree with this. 

I suppose there is an argument for not firing an assistant until you are certain you can hire a better replacement. But, the proper way to do it (my view) is to start by firing the assistant you want to replace. This accomplishes a couple of things: 

1). It creates an urgency or necessity to find someone better; and

2). It serves to cast a wider net than you would by merely calling a few coaches you hope might be interested. In other words, interested coaches will contact you.

I’m ambivalent on Wilford. Better is better. I imagine though that we would all swap Ruff for Brind’Amour before we would swap Wilford for Tim Gleason. 

Another thing it does is it lets the guy you bring in not be DIRECTLY (even though it likely isn't due to him directly, there'll be a direct line of so and so got interviewed and THEN the boob got dropped, so it'll be perceived that way) responsible for one of his fraternity members losing their job.  Cut the guy cleanly on cleanout day, then anybody coming in isn't getting viewed as a backstabber or similar.