BetweenThePipes00 Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 ... there is probably no bigger Lindy Ruff supporter on this board than myself but ... three of the final four changed coaches during the season. Just sayin', it does work sometimes. Never know when you will catch lightning in a bottle. Now, just to argue with myself and kill the thread before it gets started ... In the Sabres case, I have no faith LQ would hire the right guy, and I don't think Ruff should be the guy to take the fall for the screwups of those above him. Also, the Sabres have little in common with the Blackhawks (very young and talented after years of rebuilding, would probably have been almost as good with Savard still coaching), Canes (veteran team with loads of playoff experience and rings from 2006, just needed a kick in the ass) or Penguins (ultra talented, tasted success just last year and learned from it ... the hangover plus Therrien's beligerant style wore on them). The Sabres don't have the horses of any of these teams at the moment, and we'd still have all the same concerns about the roster that we do now even if they had changed coaches and somehow snuck into the playoffs over NYR or MTL ... But it CAN make a difference ... something I have to keep in mind down the road someday when I am bummed that Lindy is gone ...
SwampD Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 ... there is probably no bigger Lindy Ruff supporter on this board than myself but ... three of the final four changed coaches during the season. Just sayin', it does work sometimes. Never know when you will catch lightning in a bottle. Now, just to argue with myself and kill the thread before it gets started ... In the Sabres case, I have no faith LQ would hire the right guy, and I don't think Ruff should be the guy to take the fall for the screwups of those above him. Also, the Sabres have little in common with the Blackhawks (very young and talented after years of rebuilding, would probably have been almost as good with Savard still coaching), Canes (veteran team with loads of playoff experience and rings from 2006, just needed a kick in the ass) or Penguins (ultra talented, tasted success just last year and learned from it ... the hangover plus Therrien's beligerant style wore on them). The Sabres don't have the horses of any of these teams at the moment, and we'd still have all the same concerns about the roster that we do now even if they had changed coaches and somehow snuck into the playoffs over NYR or MTL ... But it CAN make a difference ... something I have to keep in mind down the road someday when I am bummed that Lindy is gone ... Just commented on this in the PDT. EDIT: Wow! Right down to the "just sayin" :thumbsup:
Buffalo Wings Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 I don't know....I've been a Lindy fan for years and I've been as disappointed as everyone, but I don't think we should look at these cases and presume it would be a good idea to fire Lindy just because other teams have done it and made the playoffs/conference finals. Yes, Lou Lamoriello did it with the Devils in 2000 and they won the cup. Yes, the Penguins & Hurricanes are doing the same thing and one of them will be in the finals. I just don't see how we should take these three out of a much larger sample and try it.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Posted May 15, 2009 I don't know....I've been a Lindy fan for years and I've been as disappointed as everyone, but I don't think we should look at these cases and presume it would be a good idea to fire Lindy just because other teams have done it and made the playoffs/conference finals. Yes, Lou Lamoriello did it with the Devils in 2000 and they won the cup. Yes, the Penguins & Hurricanes are doing the same thing and one of them will be in the finals. I just don't see how we should take these three out of a much larger sample and try it. I agree, like I said, I don't think it would have worked with the Sabres. I just found it interesting that under the right circumstances it does work, better than I would have thought.
carpandean Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Two of those three (both EC teams) also made significant changes to their rosters at the deadline (as did Anaheim and Calgary), so perhaps it's the GM that we need to change, or maybe both. Oh, wait, too late for that; they're both staying. ;)
SwampD Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 I don't know....I've been a Lindy fan for years and I've been as disappointed as everyone, but I don't think we should look at these cases and presume it would be a good idea to fire Lindy just because other teams have done it and made the playoffs/conference finals. Yes, Lou Lamoriello did it with the Devils in 2000 and they won the cup. Yes, the Penguins & Hurricanes are doing the same thing and one of them will be in the finals. I just don't see how we should take these three out of a much larger sample and try it. I guess we need another twelve years to make up our minds.
Stoner Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 I guess we need another twelve years to make up our minds. Exactly. I think cooler heads will prevail here. Just a mid-May accidental fart of a post. You can't fire a coach who's taken you to the playoffs TWICE since Hasek left! What would they do without him! Plus, he'd go somewhere else and probably take THAT team to the playoffs a couple of times! Egads.
SwampD Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Two of those three (both EC teams) also made significant changes to their rosters at the deadline (as did Anaheim and Calgary), so perhaps it's the GM that we need to change, or maybe both. Oh, wait, too late for that; they're both staying. ;) Is this true? Other than adding Satan, I can't think of any other significant move that Pitt or Carolina did at the deadline. Exactly. I think cooler heads will prevail here. Just a mid-May accidental fart of a post. You can't fire a coach who's taken you to the playoffs TWICE since Hasek left! What would they do without him! Plus, he'd go somewhere else and probably take THAT team to the playoffs a couple of times! Egads. At this point if he went somewhere else and won, I'd be fine with that.
wonderbread Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Exactly. I think cooler heads will prevail here. Just a mid-May accidental fart of a post. You can't fire a coach who's taken you to the playoffs TWICE since Hasek left! What would they do without him! Plus, he'd go somewhere else and probably take THAT team to the playoffs a couple of times! Egads. At this point I am ready to burn the sucker down. Fire everyone. Trade everyone. Start over at least we would have a reason that we missed the playoffs not sopme cockamamie BS reason.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Posted May 15, 2009 Is this true? Other than adding Satan, I can't think of any other significant moves that Pitt or Carolina did at the deadline. At this point if he went somewhere else and won, I'd be fine with that. Pittsburgh added Kunitz ... Carolina got Cole back.
SwampD Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Pittsburgh added Kunitz ... Carolina got Cole back. So I guess if it's not the coach, you only need one player to go from out of the playoffs to the ECF's. Now I'm hopeful for next year. ;)
shrader Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Two of those three (both EC teams) also made significant changes to their rosters at the deadline (as did Anaheim and Calgary), so perhaps it's the GM that we need to change, or maybe both. Oh, wait, too late for that; they're both staying. ;) I've been thinking over this deadline deal thing a bit over the last couple days. I keep coming back to the fact that in the one year where we had our best shot, 2006, the team did absolutely nothing at the deadline. They sent Noronen packing for a draft pick, that's it. I'd say that inactivity worked out pretty well for us. Sure, some will say that they lost because they didn't pick up any defensemen at that deadline, but we would've wound up with more players in the Janik/Jillson mold if they did make any moves. I don't see that changing anything. Detroit made no in-season changes this year and added only Brad Stuart last year. If they take a 2nd cup in a row, that's good backup to the idea that deadline moves don't always make or break a team. Really, if you have the right team in place, there is no need to shake things up just for the sake of making a deal. That's one big if, though.
carpandean Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Pittsburgh added Kunitz ... Carolina got Cole back. Don't forget that Pittsburgh added Guerin and Carolina added Jussi Jokinen (leads the NHL in GWGs in the playoffs this year.)
carpandean Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 I've been thinking over this deadline deal thing a bit over the last couple days. I keep coming back to the fact that in the one year where we had our best shot, 2006, the team did absolutely nothing at the deadline. They sent Noronen packing for a draft pick, that's it. I'd say that inactivity worked out pretty well for us. Sure, some will say that they lost because they didn't pick up any defensemen at that deadline, but we would've wound up with more players in the Janik/Jillson mold if they did make any moves. I don't see that changing anything. Detroit made no in-season changes this year and added only Brad Stuart last year. If they take a 2nd cup in a row, that's good backup to the idea that deadline moves don't always make or break a team. Really, if you have the right team in place, there is no need to shake things up just for the sake of making a deal. That's one big if, though. Really, I was just pointing out that there was more than just one effect (changing coaches) in each of those two cases. You can't blindly attribute their rejuvenation to just the coach. My comment was also supposed to be laced with sarcasm. Certainly, the right deadline moves can make a huge difference (e.g., Penguins adding wingers Guerin and Kunitz to finish passes from Crosby and Malkin), but there are many cases where doing nothing is the right move.
shrader Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Really, I was just pointing out that there was more than just one effect (changing coaches) in each of those two cases. You can't blindly attribute their rejuvenation to just the coach. My comment was also supposed to be laced with sarcasm. Certainly, the right deadline moves can make a huge difference (e.g., Penguins adding wingers Guerin and Kunitz to finish passes from Crosby and Malkin), but there are many cases where doing nothing is the right move. The thought has been on my mind the last couple days. Your post gave me a decent opportunity to present it. I'm mostly just thinking out loud (keyboard makes a decent amount of noise) on this one.
Stoner Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 I've been thinking over this deadline deal thing a bit over the last couple days. I keep coming back to the fact that in the one year where we had our best shot, 2006, the team did absolutely nothing at the deadline. They sent Noronen packing for a draft pick, that's it. I'd say that inactivity worked out pretty well for us. Sure, some will say that they lost because they didn't pick up any defensemen at that deadline, but we would've wound up with more players in the Janik/Jillson mold if they did make any moves. I don't see that changing anything. Detroit made no in-season changes this year and added only Brad Stuart last year. If they take a 2nd cup in a row, that's good backup to the idea that deadline moves don't always make or break a team. Really, if you have the right team in place, there is no need to shake things up just for the sake of making a deal. That's one big if, though. The problem in Buffalo though is that we have a GM, for whatever reason, who doesn't like to make moves at the deadline, doesn't like to trade in season and doesn't like to make a splash in FA! What's left?
shrader Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 The problem in Buffalo though is that we have a GM, for whatever reason, who doesn't like to make moves at the deadline, doesn't like to trade in season and doesn't like to make a splash in FA! What's left? He's made several deals in all of those situations over his career. If you want to label him, you'd be much better saying that we have a GM who isn't willing to pay the going rate for the top tier of available talent, whether it's on the trade market or free agency.
SwampD Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 He's made several deals in all of those situations over his career. If you want to label him, you'd be much better saying that we have a GM who isn't willing to pay the going rate for the top tier of available talent, whether it's on the trade market or free agency. Getting back on topic, the coach is the only variable left in this equation to try.
wonderbread Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Getting back on topic, the coach is the only variable left in this equation to try. goning back off topic. We should have made better moves thru out the entire year. DR has to get the hell off his hands and grow some nuts. It's not a funny coinicidence that our team matches our GM, neither of them have any fire or emotion.
Stoner Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 goning back off topic. We should have made better moves thru out the entire year. DR has to get the hell off his hands and grow some nuts. It's not a funny coinicidence that our team matches our GM, neither of them have any fire or emotion. Lindy doesn't have much fire or emotion left either. The whole organ-eye-zation has gone Stepford on us.
Stoner Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 He's made several deals in all of those situations over his career. If you want to label him, you'd be much better saying that we have a GM who isn't willing to pay the going rate for the top tier of available talent, whether it's on the trade market or free agency. Of course he has. He's been here since Clinton was in office. W. made some good decisions in eight years too. In recent years, Darcy has talked down all of those avenues for improving the team. Either the team is going good and you don't want to ruin the chemistry, or the team is going bad, and you don't want to give them an "out" -- "they have to work through it themselves." The arrogant stance of the organization is that they don't "do July 1." That's for teams they look down their noses at. Why is the question. It might be money, as you say, or DR might genuinely believe what he tells the public.
stenbaro Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 Of course he has. He's been here since Clinton was in office. W. made some good decisions in eight years too. In recent years, Darcy has talked down all of those avenues for improving the team. Either the team is going good and you don't want to ruin the chemistry, or the team is going bad, and you don't want to give them an "out" -- "they have to work through it themselves." The arrogant stance of the organization is that they don't "do July 1." That's for teams they look down their noses at. Why is the question. It might be money, as you say, or DR might genuinely believe what he tells the public. It is really ashame the path that the Sabres have turned to...Darcy really did a great job of building this team to what it was...His deals of bringing in Grier,and Briere, Drury were really smart pinpointed well executed moves that brought character and scoring and well needed leadership to this team.Then it went south...I really wouldnt mind seeing them blow it all up and start over..Its a natural 2 to 3 yr process..They really oughta just define who they believe can help this team win in 2 to 3 yrs from now and bring up the kids and let em play..Get rid of the Hechts, Spacek, Tallinder, Lydman,Mair, and let the young kids learn on the fly...Worst case is we develop quicker and we lose and get better draft picks..This middle oof the road less than average team is never gonna be fun to watch..
wonderbread Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 It is really ashame the path that the Sabres have turned to...Darcy really did a great job of building this team to what it was...His deals of bringing in Grier,and Briere, Drury were really smart pinpointed well executed moves that brought character and scoring and well needed leadership to this team.Then it went south...I really wouldnt mind seeing them blow it all up and start over..Its a natural 2 to 3 yr process..They really oughta just define who they believe can help this team win in 2 to 3 yrs from now and bring up the kids and let em play..Get rid of the Hechts, Spacek, Tallinder, Lydman,Mair, and let the young kids learn on the fly...Worst case is we develop quicker and we lose and get better draft picks..This middle oof the road less than average team is never gonna be fun to watch.. you don't even read my posts do you?
R_Dudley Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 you don't even read my posts do you? I do with great anticipation :blush: :nana:
wonderbread Posted May 15, 2009 Report Posted May 15, 2009 I do with great anticipation :blush: :nana: I would expect nothing less form you my fish fry buddy. :thumbsup:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.