Andrew Peters on why the Sabres season turned around

[Chevyvanmiller]

Andrew Peters is back on WGR 55 today with Tim Graham. He just relayed a very interesting story.

He said that he heard it on very good authority that back in December when the Sabres were losing, Lindy was being very hard on everybody. It became intolerable. Evidently, it was then that Tage stood up and completely snapped and let into Lindy.

According to Peters, an assistant coach attempted to intervene and was told, “F off. Yours is coming too. “

It was right after that that the winning streak began and the team became the juggernaut that they are now. So evidently Tage was the impetus for all of it.

[quill]

Ridiculous. 

[tom webster]

3 minutes ago, Chevyvanmiller said:

Andrew Peters is back on WGR 55 today with Tim Graham. He just relayed a very interesting story.

He said that he heard it on very good authority that back in December when the Sabres were losing, Lindy was being very hard on everybody. It became intolerable. Evidently, it was then that Tage stood up and completely snapped and let into Lindy.

According to Peters, an assistant coach attempted to intervene and was told, “F off. Yours is coming too. “

It was right after that that the winning streak began and the team became the juggernaut that they are now. So evidently Tage was the impetus for all of it.

We already discussed this in another thread. Personally, I believe nothing from Peter’s mouth. He’s just a disgruntled employee who is still living off breaking Eichel’s trade because of his connection to the Tuch family.

[Porous Five Hole]

Just now, tom webster said:

We already discussed this in another thread. Personally, I believe nothing from Peter’s mouth. He’s just a disgruntled employee who is still living off breaking Eichel’s trade because of his connection to the Tuch family.

[BuffRaleigh]

Whatever it was - it worked.  And it was glorious.

[SDS]

6 minutes ago, tom webster said:

We already discussed this in another thread. Personally, I believe nothing from Peter’s mouth. He’s just a disgruntled employee who is still living off breaking Eichel’s trade because of his connection to the Tuch family.

I am no fan of Andrew Peters or his clown show podcast. However, what would be his incentive to lie about this? That seems to be detailed enough where it either happened or it would have to be a complete fabrication. The latter seems unlikely.

[Chevyvanmiller]

9 minutes ago, SDS said:

I am no fan of Andrew Peters or his clown show podcast. However, what would be his incentive to lie about this? That seems to be detailed enough where it either happened or it would have to be a complete fabrication. The latter seems unlikely.

I felt the same way, Scott. Especially since the revelation was preceded by a 10-minute conversation between Peter’s and Graham where it was revealed that there had been a big rift between the two that had been repaired. Peter’s said that ‘personal demons” had led to him disrespecting Graham, and others, and that he was delighted to be back on WGR after so many years.

With that knowledge, I can’t imagine he would fabricate a story about the team, coach and captain. It’s either the truth or he’s truly lost touch with reality.

[Sabre The Cup]

The incentive to lie is that it may have been leaked by the Adams camp to take some of the blame off him. 
 

When this story cane out there were a few very pro-Adams posters that came out of the woodwork to defend him. 

[quill]

4 minutes ago, SDS said:

I am no fan of Andrew Peters or his clown show podcast. However, what would be his incentive to lie about this? That seems to be detailed enough where it either happened or it would have to be a complete fabrication. The latter seems unlikely.

It doesn't matter if that particular event with Tage happened or not, but for anyone to say "Tage was the impetus for all of it" in reference to that event being responsible for the turnaround, is just plain crazy. Anyone who really thinks something like that was responsible for the turnaround wasn't around when Lyon ignited the goal tending hot streak in mid December and Jarmo became GM at the same time. 

[dudacek]

The above account is more detailed and sensational than I heard Peters tell it a month or two ago.

I have no doubt Peters was told a story by a source (I think he earlier indicated it was an alumni) who was allegedly told the story by a player.

Initially they said they were guessing it was Tage, that it happened over the berating of another player they were guessing was Power. And the assistant thing was not part of the story.

Something similar probably happened and the story got better with the retelling.

Peters’ tendencies and biases should be obvious to anyone who listens.

Even if the above is exactly correct this is not why the Sabres got good.

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, quill said:

It doesn't matter if that particular event with Tage happened or not, but for anyone to say "Tage was the impetus for all of it" in reference to that event being responsible for the turnaround, is just plain crazy. Anyone who really thinks something like that was responsible for the turnaround wasn't around when Lyon ignited the goal tending hot streak in mid December and Jarmo became GM at the same time. 

I didn’t hear the original telling of the story so I’m not sure what he said. Is it his interpretation that this event turned things around or was he told that is the consensus of people inside the locker room and he’s just relaying what he was told by someone else?

I think that’s a big difference there.

[Porous Five Hole]

15 minutes ago, SDS said:

I am no fan of Andrew Peters or his clown show podcast. However, what would be his incentive to lie about this? That seems to be detailed enough where it either happened or it would have to be a complete fabrication. The latter seems unlikely.

We are skeptical because he’s never broken a story other than Eichel and is wrong a lot.  He’s had a rift with the team since his radio show ended and he’s publicly stated how much he despised GMKA. No one in the Org talks to him outside of alumni stuff. So no one covering the team having this except him? 
 

I don’t think he’s lying. Someone probably told him this. But it sounds overdramatized to me. 

[Nacho Libre]

6 minutes ago, quill said:

It doesn't matter if that particular event with Tage happened or not, but for anyone to say "Tage was the impetus for all of it" in reference to that event being responsible for the turnaround, is just plain crazy. Anyone who really thinks something like that was responsible for the turnaround wasn't around when Lyon ignited the goal tending hot streak in mid December and Jarmo became GM at the same time. 

I agree. I have a rock that keeps tigers away that may be of interest to anyone disagrees 

[quill]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

I didn’t hear the original telling of the story so I’m not sure what he said. Is it his interpretation that this event turned things around or was he told that is the consensus of people inside the locker room and he’s just relaying what he was told by someone else?

I think that’s a big difference there.

Exactly. That's what bothers me about the original post. There is no link to what exactly Andrew Peters said or the context in which he was telling the story. I have nothing against Peters. I just think the notion of that being the reason for the turnaround, whether it's Peters who said it or not, is out to lunch. 

[...]

7 minutes ago, Chevyvanmiller said:

I felt the same way, Scott. Especially since the revelation was preceded by a 10-minute conversation between Peter’s and Graham where it was revealed that there had been a big rift between the two that had been repaired. Peter’s said that ‘personal demons” had led to him disrespecting Graham, and others, and that he was delighted to be back on WGR after so many years.

With that knowledge, I can’t imagine he would fabricate a story about the team, coach and captain. It’s either the truth or he’s truly lost touch with reality.

I think a lot of people here are discounting the personal journey Peters has been through over the years. He's an open book on his podcast and it's refreshing. 

As @SDS implied, Peters has nothing to gain from putting forward anything he does - it's not like they are desperate to make their pod a treasure of NHL media. 

Often, they will bring on others who have heard the same tidbits they have to corroborate the stories. 

To the bolded - it doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to be what he was told and he accurately conveys what he was told. FWIW, that is exactly how the news business sees "news"; the "news" doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to be what someone said or a particular version of events.

 

 

[Nacho Libre]

13 minutes ago, quill said:

It doesn't matter if that particular event with Tage happened or not, but for anyone to say "Tage was the impetus for all of it" in reference to that event being responsible for the turnaround, is just plain crazy. Anyone who really thinks something like that was responsible for the turnaround wasn't around when Lyon ignited the goal tending hot streak in mid December and Jarmo became GM at the same time. 

The most wayward arguments are the ones that claim there was “one thing” that ignited the turnaround. This I can assure to a certainty 

It’s multiple factors breaking a certain way in combination. It wasn’t magic 

Edited April 16 by Nacho Libre

[JohnC]

24 minutes ago, SDS said:

I am no fan of Andrew Peters or his clown show podcast. However, what would be his incentive to lie about this? That seems to be detailed enough where it either happened or it would have to be a complete fabrication. The latter seems unlikely.

The incident could have happened but that doesn't mean that the repercussions from the incident was as profound as portrayed. There are other reports that the new GM made it clear to the team that it was being outworked by lesser teams and that was no longer going to be tolerated with no consequences. More likely than not it was a combination of factors that got the switch turned on. 

[Nacho Libre]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The above account is more detailed and sensational than I heard Peters tell it a month or two ago.

I have no doubt Peters was told a story by a source (I think he earlier indicated it was an alumni) who was allegedly told the story by a player.

Initially they said they were guessing it was Tage, that it happened over the berating of another player they were guessing was Power. And the assistant thing was not part of the story.

Something similar probably happened and the story got better with the retelling.

Peters’ tendencies and biases should be obvious to anyone who listens.

Even if the above is exactly correct this is not why the Sabres got good.

[SDS]

1 minute ago, Nacho Libre said:

The most wayward arguments are the ones that claim there was “one thing” that ignited the turnaround. This I can assure to a certainty 

It’s multiple factors breaking a certain way in combination. It’s wasn’t magic 

maybe I’m in the market for that rock. Do you know if it works on predatory poker players?

my only caveat to any of this and it’s clear that we know nothing here, is that if multiple players came together and said this is where THEY think the turning point happened, I am not in a position to tell them they are wrong.

[...]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

The incident could have happened but that doesn't mean that the repercussions from the incident was as profound as portrayed. There are other reports that the new GM made it clear to the team that it was being outworked by lesser teams and that was no longer going to be tolerated with no consequences. More likely than not it was a combination of factors that got the switch turned on. 

Assuming one believes in the Big Bang Theory, the universe is still creating itself. The first thousand years were a chaotic stew of intense heat and density where the universe existed as a glowing, opaque plasma of ionized gas. The universe as we know it today, did not exist. A lot things after the Big Bang had to occur. Without the Big Bang, however, nothing would have occurred (theoretically).

[GASabresIUFAN]

Where is @Brawndo when we need him.  
 

 

[dudacek]

People want the Sabres to be some kind of magic story where they were godawful in November, someone found a magic lamp and they became great.

The fact of the matter is it took time for a number of things to happen:

The young talent to mature: guys like Samuelsson, UPL, Quinn Benson and Krebs got better as talented young players tend to do.

Management to acquire the right types of players to complement the young talent: guys like Lyon, Malenstyn, Doan, McLeod and Byram filled holes in the roster makeup.

Lindy to get the players to buy into his system: a lot of learning and unlearning had to happen through experience before the team knew what he wanted, believed in what he wanted, and executed what he wanted.

These are the types of things that evolve, they aren’t quick fixes.

Do I think things like the Peters story or Adams being fired played a role? Possibly and definitely, but they are all part of creating a critical mass.

Good teams are the sum of their parts and their journey, not the product of a single incident or catalyst.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, ... said:

Assuming one believes in the Big Bang Theory, the universe is still creating itself. The first thousand years were a chaotic stew of intense heat and density where the universe existed as a glowing, opaque plasma of ionized gas. The universe as we know it today, did not exist. A lot things after the Big Bang had to occur. Without the Big Bang, however, nothing would have occurred (theoretically).

I'm a dullard. You are getting too cosmic for me. 🧐

[Sabre The Cup]

3 minutes ago, ... said:

Assuming one believes in the Big Bang Theory, the universe is still creating itself. The first thousand years were a chaotic stew of intense heat and density where the universe existed as a glowing, opaque plasma of ionized gas. The universe as we know it today, did not exist. A lot things after the Big Bang had to occur. Without the Big Bang, however, nothing would have occurred (theoretically).

This is incorrect.

The Big Bang started when a veteran confronted Lindy Ruff in the locker room, according to a source. 

[PromoTheRobot]

44 minutes ago, tom webster said:

We already discussed this in another thread. Personally, I believe nothing from Peter’s mouth. He’s just a disgruntled employee who is still living off breaking Eichel’s trade because of his connection to the Tuch family.

Peters' meal ticket just expired with the Sabres winning the Atlantic. All ne knows how to do is rag on the Sabres. He sounds completely lost these days.