WHEN R WE GOING TO HAVE BETTER MGMT

[darksabre]

That's what I was afraid of. See, to me, words matter. It says "vote this post up." Was this board created in China and translated into English? "Give this post a plus-one" would be clearer and also have a hockey angle. Anyway, there's a difference between voting a post "up" and voting the poster up. And what does any of that have to do with "reputation"? I might like something BM wrote, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to see his reputation improve! :)

 

The new version of this board still bugs me a bit.

 

How do you warn someone?

 

Only the Mods can warn people. Ask Blue to give you a shot o the warn.

[Stoner]

Laziness

 

Also, I don't think it's any coincidence that the complaints about how the league changed directly coincide with the Sabres starting to suck. It's an easy crutch for the organization to fall back on. (Golisano's letter after the Neil hit on Drury still sticks in my craw and remains, IMHO, a big turning point for the franchise.) Darcy can say the league is changing, and he's doing everything he can to make sure, in three or four years, the Sabres have the right kind of players. Meanwhile, he didn't recognize, apparently, that the league was changing three years ago, and in three or four years, the league could look completely different. Being reactive in sports management is bad.

[SwampD]

That's what I was afraid of. See, to me, words matter. It says "vote this post up." Was this board created in China and translated into English? "Give this post a plus-one" would be clearer and also have a hockey angle. Anyway, there's a difference between voting a post "up" and voting the poster up. And what does any of that have to do with "reputation"? I might like something BM wrote, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to see his reputation improve! :)

 

The new version of this board still bugs me a bit.

 

How do you warn someone?

Where's the minus 1 button?

[red]

I have always wondered whether the switch back to the old NHL was deliberate or just water seeking its level. I suspect, it wasn't so much a conscious thing, but more a slow erosion. The interference penalty could be called on just about every rush up the ice. I think the players, the coaches and the league gave it a two year run and they all concluded that it wasn't the best game for hockey. There wasn't enough talent out there for all teams to implement. It took the defense out of the game.

 

I like the game the way it is.

 

I can't remember the source, but it was being reported at one time during I believe the second run of the Sabres to the Finals (before we lost Drury and Briere) that some coaches and GM's were complaining and lobbying Bettman to change the rules back and allow more of a physical style of play back in.

 

I'm not sure, but I seem to remember it being teams mostly out West (Vancouver, etc) who were complaining.

 

It was a small blip of a report, that came out once and was never heard from again.

 

I, too, prefer a more physical contest to purely wide-open garbage games of back and forth. I mean, why have a goalie at all if you just want basketball on ice?

 

My point was that alot of blame goes to Regier and management for not building right. I can't fault the critics (as I'm one of them) that they were complete baffoons handling contracts and made large investments with the wrong players.

 

My main defense of Regier is that the Sabres were ideally suited for the new NHL, post-lockout. Why the rules were relaxed when the league came out so adamant about making the game more exciting (I think big hits and great saves in tight-gripped 3-2 contests are exciting) after the lockout is beyond me. Reading that article, methinks that there was only so much offensive talent to go around. Buffalo, Carolina, Ottawa and a few others were really suited and benefited to the new rules. But the majority could not cope. Ultimately, I think the league looked at its collective talent and clubs that had emphasized size over speed and skill and favored the complainers.

 

My main gripe with Regier is why did it take the Sabres so long to change?

[stenbaro]

I can't remember the source, but it was being reported at one time during I believe the second run of the Sabres to the Finals (before we lost Drury and Briere) that some coaches and GM's were complaining and lobbying Bettman to change the rules back and allow more of a physical style of play back in.

 

I'm not sure, but I seem to remember it being teams mostly out West (Vancouver, etc) who were complaining.

 

It was a small blip of a report, that came out once and was never heard from again.

 

I, too, prefer a more physical contest to purely wide-open garbage games of back and forth. I mean, why have a goalie at all if you just want basketball on ice?

 

My point was that alot of blame goes to Regier and management for not building right. I can't fault the critics (as I'm one of them) that they were complete baffoons handling contracts and made large investments with the wrong players.

 

My main defense of Regier is that the Sabres were ideally suited for the new NHL, post-lockout. Why the rules were relaxed when the league came out so adamant about making the game more exciting (I think big hits and great saves in tight-gripped 3-2 contests are exciting) after the lockout is beyond me. Reading that article, methinks that there was only so much offensive talent to go around. Buffalo, Carolina, Ottawa and a few others were really suited and benefited to the new rules. But the majority could not cope. Ultimately, I think the league looked at its collective talent and clubs that had emphasized size over speed and skill and favored the complainers.

 

My main gripe with Regier is why did it take the Sabres so long to change?

I dont think it was his choice..Its my opinion he was told to status quo and see where it goes..

[deluca67]

We've all seen how well three goaltenders works out.

We also saw how only having one goalie can hurt a teams playoff chances.

[blugold43]

 

 

My main gripe with Regier is why did it take the Sabres so long to change?

exactly. you knew they were not going to leave the game like that. you knew as the season went on it was going to tighten up and two years later, the "braintrust" are just figuring it out. what a joke...another stupid calculation on darcy's part.

 

by the way, i think the guy that started this thread is awesome.

[X. Benedict]

Are those the same guys who beat the Sabres twice last year? Yet I'm sure you can sift through the hound's breakfast of the Sabres lineup and be pretty happy. Maybe familiarity should breed more contempt?

 

No actually, the team that beat the Sabres has Comrie and Guerrin.

[Sabre Dance]

I have always wondered whether the switch back to the old NHL was deliberate or just water seeking its level. I suspect, it wasn't so much a conscious thing, but more a slow erosion. The interference penalty could be called on just about every rush up the ice. I think the players, the coaches and the league gave it a two year run and they all concluded that it wasn't the best game for hockey. There wasn't enough talent out there for all teams to implement. It took the defense out of the game.

 

I like the game the way it is.

 

It wasn't only coaches and GMs complaining - certain legendary hockey pundits (one of whose last name rhymes with "merry") pooh-poohed the "river hockey" style of play and moaned about the lack of hitting.

I think the style of play is pretty decent right now - there is one vestige of the "run and gun" seasons that needs to go. They are still calling WAAY too many ticky-tack hooking and interference penalties. They need to cut that crap out and call a few more goalie interference penalties. Way too many goalies got run last year. No one wants to retaliate and take the extra two minutes, so the goalies are left to fend for themselves. If I were a goalie coach, I'd have my charges watching as many Billy Smith tapes as possible. (I hated Smith when he played, but no one bothered him in the goal crease. Yeah, I used to play goal :rolleyes: )