static70 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Dealing in absolutes always leads to tunnel vision. But it is your opinion...... :beer: Well, if your a coach of a professional sports franchise, I would hope you would have the "tunnel" vision set on a championship, for if your goal is anything but a championship, then you are an interim coach until somebody better comes along.
matter2003 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Sure, if 95% of all coaches have never accomplished it, then I would not call them successful. As I posted earlier, you don't consider a successful coach by not winning championships, and this is merely semantics you speak of on how great a coach can be without winning one. At the end of the day, an Owner of a sports franchise brings in staff (including a GM and Coach) to win championships, there are, I will admit, rebuilding processess and time parameters to achieve this, but the very reason to play the game is to win it all in a season. 11 going on 12 seasons is more than ample time to do so, even with the obstacles that had to be overcome with bankruptcy and the change of ownership. Fortunately people who actually know and understand hockey consider Lindy Ruff one of the best coaches in the NHL...in fact, it has often been reported the respect Lindy Ruff has around the NHL is greater than it is in Buffalo. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees...
static70 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Fortunately people who actually know and understand hockey consider Lindy Ruff one of the best coaches in the NHL...in fact, it has often been reported the respect Lindy Ruff has around the NHL is greater than it is in Buffalo. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees... I never said Lindy wasn't a good coach, on the contrary, if you look back at all of my posts, you will see that I clear state that Lindy is a good coach, sometimes being good isn't enough. Sometimes it takes something more than just being good. What that is? I don't know, I'm not a coach, merely a fan, but as a fan, I like many other fans pay his salary, the players salaries and offer an ROI (return on investment) to the owner. I would like to believe the owner will repay the kind service to us fans for offering all of this money to his organization by delivering a championship or 2. Its merely respectful to do so, and if this GM and Coach cannot do this, then go out and get those that can. For me, its pretty simple actually, I do love my hometown sports teams, even the lowly Bills, but I would atleast like to shake the tree if the fruit won't fall on its own.
tom webster Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Or make tackles on third and long...really Mark Baker was the player to elude 7 Bills and get a first down on 3rd and 16? Actually Mark Ingram. For the record, he is the father of this year's Heisman Trophy and is presently spending time in Federal Prison, but not for stealing that first down.
cdexchange Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Forwards back checking better? Shots allowed and total hits say otherwise. PK is improved? Miller Not giving up late leads? Miller again, this team has the third most giveaways in the NHL. Miller is succeeding. The franchise is merely racking in the benefits despite a lack luster roster. You consider the argument "ridiculous" and a "waste of time" because all you have to hold to is are the standings. Which is the direct result of Miller's with next to zero contributions from the head coach and roster. Which fits right into point. I guess this is a pointless debate if all you can bring is that you can't fire a coach in the middle of the season if they have a winning record. Even if this team is lack luster in every aspect the head coach has a influence on. After all Dick Jouron was 5-1 last season. Look how that turned out. This part is true. The rest, not so much.
cdexchange Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 I agree....the defensive play is much better than last year. Teams are basically taking lots of bad shots from distance and Miller is making the saves without rebounds in many cases. Yup, it's quite obvious. In fact, it's hard to believe that anybody who is actually watching the games can't see it.
matter2003 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Actually Mark Ingram. For the record, he is the father of this year's Heisman Trophy and is presently spending time in Federal Prison, but not for stealing that first down. arrghh..got Stephen Baker the touchdown maker and Mark Ingram confused...
Taro T Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Quite frankly, you cannot call it a style for individual player effort. You can say during the Hasek years it was still defensive, but the individual talent led to success with Drury and Briere here, the system never changed, the talent did. And since I've watched the Sabres all 39 years, I have never seen a coach go so long with 1 team without success. If you consider success anything but winning a championship then that is your opinion. A Stanley Cup Banner in the rafters at HSBC is my opinion. If you honestly think that Lindy's system hasn't changed over the years, then you don't know what the flip you are talking about. Through the years, the way the puck leaves the zone has changed, the defensemen's responsibility in the offensive and neutral zones have changed, and the forwards responsibilities have changed. Yes, the talent changed through the years, which precipitated all those other changes. Your 2nd last sentence is nothing but a strawman, as I have made no statement whatsoever regarding which (if any) of those systems I consider successful. And considering that Al Arbour is the only other coach that immediately comes to mind for having coached since 1970 AND coached for 12+ years w/ 1 team, I am not surprised that you haven't seen another coach be with 1 team for so long "without success."
BetweenThePipes00 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Defending Lindy and Darcy on passion doesn't change the facts. The facts are clear here, no championship banners hanging from the rafters for the Sabres or its fan base after 11 seasons. If that isn't a tell tail sign for some people, well, I don't know what to say then, it is what it is, or as you would say "whatever". Just repeating over and over they have not won a championship does not prove that ANYONE can do better. Still, as I said, I'll give in and agree to fire Ruff ... it is not unreasonable of you to say 12 years is enough. That is not really my problem with your stance. My problem is you do have to show me a reasonable alternative, especially when the team is in first place ... all you have given me is an unrealistic pipe dream about building a team around a guy who already has had one team built around him for eight seasons and won less than Ruff and Regier, and it doesn't really matter who the coach is, apparently, because "anyone can do better." That doesn't sound like a good plan to me. Sorry.
static70 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Just repeating over and over they have not won a championship does not prove that ANYONE can do better. Still, as I said, I'll give in and agree to fire Ruff ... it is not unreasonable of you to say 12 years is enough. That is not really my problem with your stance. My problem is you do have to show me a reasonable alternative, especially when the team is in first place ... all you have given me is an unrealistic pipe dream about building a team around a guy who already has had one team built around him for eight seasons and won less than Ruff and Regier, and it doesn't really matter who the coach is, apparently, because "anyone can do better." That doesn't sound like a good plan to me. Sorry. Thank you for atleast stating 12 seasons is not unreasonable. As for who would be a possible successor to Ruff? I brought Nolan in a sarcastic stance, but there may be others that may be possible. I would like to think that experience may account for something, but experience at what level? David Tippet comes to mind, in the past 6 seasons he had great regular season succes in Dallas, it was the constnt injury bug that dragged that team down in atleast 3 of his tenured seasons there. He is a decent coach with experience. When Nieuwendyk came in he cleaned house. Typical move by many new GM's actually. But he is one I would consider.
wjag Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 arrghh..got Stephen Baker the touchdown maker and Mark Ingram confused... The Ingram catch was the nail in the coffin. Otis Anderson chewing up the clock so the Bills couldn't get their O on the field was what cost the Bills the game. The Ingram catch was flat out painful.
Taro T Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Well, ok, if you believe this Sabres team has a snowballs chance in hell of runnin and gunnin with Pitt and Wash, I want what your smokin. Take a good look at those rosters, Playmakers, finishers, skills and the coaching staffs that let them play their game, looks like a great combination to me. Not to mention the fact both teams are "AHEAD" of Buffalo in the standings and have what it takes to smoke the Sabres in a 7 game series. Don't pretend you don't see it, just admit it and move on. Ok, lets not sit here and act like they got beat 8-0. Lets say it like it is, as I have been. No finisher to beat the Penguins in regulation, in-turn, the Penguins ate Miller alive in the Shootout. No offensive capacity in the lose to the Capitals, who? Goose and a Connolly tip in? Not alot to speak on there. Nope, 2 - 0 in Wash, and 5 - 2 in Wash. Doesn't sound like Buf has alot of chance in Wash. Remind me again who is going to have home ice advantage? Like I said, you only fool yourself, look beyond the possible defeat and start raising your voice toward what will be needed to compete with these teams. In my opinion, nothing short of Staal or Kovalchuck, but any players you know of that are realistically at the level of Crosby/Malkin or Ovechkin/Semin/Green should be touted as well. Yes, the Sabres will clearly be "smoked" if they play the Pens in the playoffs. Winning a 1 goal game and losing in a shootout (oh wait, aren't those are only held during the regular season???) are proof that the Sabres will be "smoked." If only Lindy would consider using a different system than he did in '97, or whomever the next head coach is, THEN MAYBE the Sabres would have a chance to land Kovalchuk ("oh help me Ovie Wannabe Kovalchuk, you're my only hope").
matter2003 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 The Ingram catch was flat out painful. I had nightmares about that catch for weeks...
static70 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Yes, the Sabres will clearly be "smoked" if they play the Pens in the playoffs. Winning a 1 goal game and losing in a shootout (oh wait, aren't those are only held during the regular season???) are proof that the Sabres will be "smoked." If only Lindy would consider using a different system than he did in '97, or whomever the next head coach is, THEN MAYBE the Sabres would have a chance to land Kovalchuk ("oh help me Ovie Wannabe Kovalchuk, you're my only hope"). OK tough guy, we'll see who's singing with a sarcastic tone come April and May. I'll even be nice enough not to post the ole "I told you so" Thread, just so's your feelings don't get hurt.
DR HOLLIDAY Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 OK tough guy, we'll see who's singing with a sarcastic tone come April and May. I'll even be nice enough not to post the ole "I told you so" Thread, just so's your feelings don't get hurt. I really doubt that you will be even around the boards by that time and with that kind of attitude you should really just become a leaf fan.......... :thumbsup:
Taro T Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 OK tough guy, we'll see who's singing with a sarcastic tone come April and May. I'll even be nice enough not to post the ole "I told you so" Thread, just so's your feelings don't get hurt. Tough guy? Really? B-) I will thank you in advance for being kind enough to spare my fragile feelings come May. :rolleyes: Not pretending anything. I simply don't see the Sabres being "smoked" by the Pens in the playoffs, if they do in fact meet up there. I'd see that series going 6 or 7 w/ both rosters as they are currently constituted, which even if the Pens did win is not getting "smoked."
SwampD Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 I'm still not a fan of his Xs and Os (I feel those flurries where we just can't get the puck out of our zone are a direct result of forward postioning), but giving Stafford that penalty shot was brilliant.
X. Benedict Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Well, take it at face value. Ruff did not make Drury or Briere successful, nor is he responsible for their current playing abilities or lack thereof. It was merely a matter of chemistry. This team needed a leader, Drury and Briere provided that leadership. Very true that both players have not had success with their new teams, just the right fit here, which also speaks volumes on this coach/gm tandem. Its a failure of massive proportions that these 2 players left, and Lindy is as directly responsible as Darcy. After all, the coach does give input to the GM on whether or not to keep players and the reasons as to why. The following 2 seasons since their absence speaks volumes on that. As for this season, same core roster, but the division opponents have each had significant roster moves which puts them in a temporary position of weakness. As for the years prior to Drury and Briere, once again, no success found except Hasek and he was brought in prior to the Reiger/Ruff era in Buffalo. Remind me again why Ruff is the greatest thing in Buffalo since sliced bread? Some wierd accounting. The coach is not responsible for certian players on the roster, not resposible for production while on the team, but equally resposible with the GM when they leave?
LabattBlue Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Tough guy? Really? B-) I knew someday that your Internet tough guy persona would show through. All those good CBA and Sabres historical posts were all a charade. Now I have to be afraid to talk to you. :lol:
spndnchz Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Quite frankly, you cannot call it a style for individual player effort. You can say during the Hasek years it was still defensive, but the individual talent led to success with Drury and Briere here, the system never changed, the talent did. And since I've watched the Sabres all 39 years, I have never seen a coach go so long with 1 team without success. If you consider success anything but winning a championship then that is your opinion. A Stanley Cup Banner in the rafters at HSBC is my opinion. Yeah, Boeheim sucks too. 30+ years coaching and only one National Championship. Fire him. :doh:
X. Benedict Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Yeah, Boeheim sucks too. 30+ years coaching and only one National Championship. Fire him. :doh: 31 years of failure with 1 national championship.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Thank you for atleast stating 12 seasons is not unreasonable. As for who would be a possible successor to Ruff? I brought Nolan in a sarcastic stance, but there may be others that may be possible. I would like to think that experience may account for something, but experience at what level? David Tippet comes to mind, in the past 6 seasons he had great regular season succes in Dallas, it was the constnt injury bug that dragged that team down in atleast 3 of his tenured seasons there. He is a decent coach with experience. When Nieuwendyk came in he cleaned house. Typical move by many new GM's actually. But he is one I would consider. You know Tippett is currently coaching Phoenix, right? Tippett is a fine coach but by your standards he really is just halfway to being Lindy Ruff (six years without one of those banners to hang from the rafters) with less playoff success. And not sure he fits your free-wheeling plan for the Buffalo Kovalchuks since three times in six years his teams were 20th or worse in scoring. Sorry, I know I am just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point ... we just disagree. The team, flawed as it is, is in first place. I don't think they are as good as Washington or Pittsburgh or New Jersey, but they are right there with them and have beaten each of those teams this season. They have also beaten league-leading Chicago and Calgary, two teams most would say are better on paper. Has Miller been great? Absolutely. But that's just their best player being their best player. Where would Washington be without AO? Not 24-9-6, I promise you. Why should Ruff's influence be dismissed just because Miller has been great? Just because it is the goalie instead of an offensive player? When guys play bad it's Ruff fault, but when they play well he gets no credit? I understand your frustration with 39 years and no Cups, I am right there with you, but I don't see the coach as the problem RIGHT NOW. (I have more frustration with Regier and it will grow even more if he stands pat at the deadline.) I find it hard to believe just anyone could do more with this group, and the kind of overhaul you are talking about to build around an expensive offensive star who MIGHT come to town ... I just find it unrealistic. I know, I know, we have 11 years of proof the current way doesn't work ... but there is also 8 years of evidence that building around Kovalchuk hasn't worked, and that team has had several other very high picks.
deluca67 Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 Again, prime example of someone just trying too hard to look smarter than everyone else... You don't get bonus points for having great "stats". You brought up in another thread how the Sabres are dead last in hits. Who cares. Carolina leads the NHL in hits---guess its easy to run around hitting people when you get frustrated cause you suck so bad...besides, nothing else to do when you are losing by 3 or 4 goals every night. Pittsburgh is 2nd in the NHL in hits...how'd they do tonite? As soon as Buffalo started roughing them up and being aggressive, they looked like they would have rather gotten on the bus to go back to Pittsburgh and gave up 4 straight goals. Bottom line is this team finds ways to win. One night it might be scoring 5 goals. Another it might be Miller saving their bacon in a 1-0 win. Next night it might be laying the lumber on teams(yeah, the Sabres actually have enough guys who can play that way when needed...). They are extremely flexible, and that will help them immensely. Bottom line is their 52 points are 3 off the best in the NHL. Go follow the Thrashers if you want "stats"...Kovalchuk can score 100 goals and allow 125 when he's on the ice and they can miss the playoffs again, but they will score lots of goals and look great...he can even make Max look good again...too bad he can't help them make the playoffs... There is a saying in business: "The bottom line is the bottom line." Right now, the bottom line is they are winning games in lots of different ways. If you are still waiting for the "fluke" to end halfway thru the season, you are gonna be waiting a while.. It will end if Miller's play drops off. So now someone wants to discredit hits? Before it was shots allowed. I guess if I keep the thread going someone will try to discredit the turnovers, takeaways and power play stats. Lack of blocked shots not far behind. The "bottom line is the the bottom line?" If a businessman is staring at the bottom line and not studying all the trends and indicators he wont be in business for long. A good businessman breaks down his success in order to find weaknesses and implement changes to strengthen his business. Right now the Sabres foundation (Miller) looks solid. And the Sabres should be able to ride Miller into the playoffs. If they want to do anything in the playoffs they need to do something with the rest of their bottom third roster. Or bring someone in who can get more out of them.
X. Benedict Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 [/b] It will end if Miller's play drops off. So now someone wants to discredit hits? Before it was shots allowed. I guess if I keep the thread going someone will try to discredit the turnovers, takeaways and power play stats. Lack of blocked shots not far behind. The "bottom line is the the bottom line?" If a businessman is staring at the bottom line and not studying all the trends and indicators he wont be in business for long. A good businessman breaks down his success in order to find weaknesses and implement changes to strengthen his business. Right now the Sabres foundation (Miller) looks solid. And the Sabres should be able to ride Miller into the playoffs. If they want to do anything in the playoffs they need to do something with the rest of their bottom third roster. Or bring someone in who can get more out of them. The bottom third roster? I think the Sabres have been getting a ton of production out of lines 3 and 4, and the third D pairing.
end the curse Posted December 31, 2009 Report Posted December 31, 2009 The bottom third roster? I think the Sabres have been getting a ton of production out of lines 3 and 4, and the third D pairing. Last thing we have to worry about is our "bottom six" and defense holding up their end of the bargain. They've been the driving force behind our success this year, and without their stellar play we'd be in last place. I would go so far as to say we may have the best 3rd/4th lines and defensemen in the NHL thus far.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.