This Team Has No Personality

[SDS]

I don't think so. Take a baseball team that really does not have a quality closer. You go out and get say Mariano Rivera for your team. Suddenly your ex-closer only needs to be a set-up guy, and he thrives with less pressure. Your former set-up guy becomes your 6th and 7th inning guy, and you improve there too. You have a better pitcher every inning by adding one leader.

 

In hockey, if you get better players at the top--for your first line--guys like Vanek, Roy, Stafford, Pominville, Ennis--get much better because they become second and third line players--where they are very very good. That was the model from 2005-07. When you let the followers be followers and not try and make them something they are not--leaders--they will give you more production. The Sabres are trying to make guys be more than they are, and that not only means we lack leaders, but we get even less production out of the followers.

 

So I stand by my original point--we need guys to lead, give this team a better personality, and it will elevate the rest of the team around them.

 

I guess we are talking in circles here because what you added was talent - not leadership. Your example brought in the best closer in baseball, so that the other players could assume lesser roles that fit their lesser talent. There isn't a lick of "leadership" in that example. You brought in top talent to make your team better.

 

Your 2nd paragraph jumped from "better players" to "leaders" without a bridge.

 

So, I will reiterate again - when fans desire leadership - their REAL desire is for better performing players.

 

I will give YOU the example that disproves your point: Chris Kelsay. The Bills re-signed him for his leadership qualities and yet every fan wants him off the team. Why? Because he is a talentless leader and no fan wants to watch them.

[Dave Dryden]

I guess we are talking in circles here because what you added was talent - not leadership. Your example brought in the best closer in baseball, so that the other players could assume lesser roles that fit their lesser talent. There isn't a lick of "leadership" in that example. You brought in top talent to make your team better.

 

Your 2nd paragraph jumped from "better players" to "leaders" without a bridge.

 

So, I will reiterate again - when fans desire leadership - their REAL desire is for better performing players.

 

I will give YOU the example that disproves your point: Chris Kelsay. The Bills re-signed him for his leadership qualities and yet every fan wants him off the team. Why? Because he is a talentless leader and no fan wants to watch them.

OK-- I just don't see this as being as dichotomous as you do--skill v. leadership. You are basically saying that leadership=skill and nothing more. I think skill is a necessary pre-requisite to being a leader on a sports team, but that skill is not leadership. You use Kelsay--I'll use Fitzpatrick. He's got some talent--enough in my judgment to be a very good starting QB--but he's really a leader. He makes his line better because he puts them in a better blocking scheme and he releases the ball quickly. Other players want to play for him because they like him and how he works hard and selflessly. That has nothing to do with talent. To be sure his leadership abilities would mean nothing if he could not throw a ball more than 10 yards. But we just disagree if you think that all fans will see leadership based on ability alone.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Jay McKee, JP Dumont, Mike Grier.

 

At the time they led mainly by their consistant play, but once they were gone, along with Pyatt, Biron and Fitzpatrick...the team took on a different makeup. Steady guys who could elevate their play in the playoffs and have a physical impact...all while not having boatloads of talent.

 

The die was cast then. July 1st with Drury and Briere only shined the spotlight on it. Remember, even Briere speared Ovechkin and Drury refused to fight OV when challenged. The President's Trophy team was soft. You had to send goons out to attack 3 all-stars and a goalie, after Stafford had answered Neil and Emery could have tickled Biron to death but had mercy. Peters would lock out an armbar in every fight, Kaleta would instigate and turtle, Mair was ok, but took more runs from behind on guys than any Sabre I can remember. It was a soft culture that was signed off on by the higher ups.

 

Ted Nolan's team played more playoff games in 1 year than the Sabres have played these last 4. Were they talented? Or did they have personality and were leaders?

[SDS]

OK-- I just don't see this as being as dichotomous as you do--skill v. leadership. You are basically saying that leadership=skill and nothing more. I think skill is a necessary pre-requisite to being a leader on a sports team, but that skill is not leadership. You use Kelsay--I'll use Fitzpatrick. He's got some talent--enough in my judgment to be a very good starting QB--but he's really a leader. He makes his line better because he puts them in a better blocking scheme and he releases the ball quickly. Other players want to play for him because they like him and how he works hard and selflessly. That has nothing to do with talent. To be sure his leadership abilities would mean nothing if he could not throw a ball more than 10 yards. But we just disagree if you think that all fans will see leadership based on ability alone.

 

:doh:

 

I'm saying the EXACT OPPOSITE as what you wrote. YOU are the one equating leadership to skill. I AM THE ONE saying it is talent that you really want and leadership is the WRONG thing to ask for. How is that not clear? How could you possibly have read that I equated the two????

 

You asked for players to fill out your TOP LINE on the Sabres. You aren't filling that line with leadership. You WANT to fill it with talent. If you wanted leadership you would throw Kaleta on that line - right? Kennedy busted his ass - he should have been on there - right? Obviously, not.

 

In fact, I'll argue that as a fan - you really have no idea who this team considers a leader because you have no way of knowing what happens in the locker room and day to day interactions. The only thing you see is the on ice performance. You see a lack of production and say "no leadership". What you really meant was "these guys aren't good enough for the roles they are playing. They lack sufficient talent."

[SDS]

 

Ted Nolan's team played more playoff games in 1 year than the Sabres have played these last 4. Were they talented? Or did they have personality and were leaders?

 

Hasek was pretty good, so yeah- I would say they were talented enough in the right position to accomplish that. Those teams that won 1-0 or 2-1 and were outshot 45-12 would have been SMOKED without #39 in the net.

[SDS]

Other players want to play for him because they like him and how he works hard and selflessly.

 

So, do you really think RF is the QB for the BB because of what you wrote? You don't think TE worked equally as hard and as selflessly? Do you think TE won the starting job because of his poor leadership skills, despite having RF's great ones right there for all the coaches to see?

 

Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt.

 

The players like playing for RF because when it is game time he is a better performing player.

 

We could do this all day long and I guarantee you will pick the better performing player over some non-producer with "intangibles" almost every time.

[SwampD]

:doh:

 

I'm saying the EXACT OPPOSITE as what you wrote. YOU are the one equating leadership to skill. I AM THE ONE saying it is talent that you really want and leadership is the WRONG thing to ask for. How is that not clear? How could you possibly have read that I equated the two????

 

You asked for players to fill out your TOP LINE on the Sabres. You aren't filling that line with leadership. You WANT to fill it with talent. If you wanted leadership you would throw Kaleta on that line - right? Kennedy busted his ass - he should have been on there - right? Obviously, not.

 

In fact, I'll argue that as a fan - you really have no idea who this team considers a leader because you have no way of knowing what happens in the locker room and day to day interactions. The only thing you see is the on ice performance. You see a lack of production and say "no leadership". What you really meant was "these guys aren't good enough for the roles they are playing. They lack sufficient talent."

You may have meant that, but that's not what you said. I think you guys have arrived at the same place but are just using different words to say it.

 

EDIT:I don't care if the team is filled with a bunch of personality lacking Steve Wozniak like Asperger cases, as long as they win.

[SDS]

You may have meant that, but that's not what you said. I think you guys have arrived at the same place but are just using different words to say it.

 

No I didn't. I said fans mistakenly confuse the two and then went on and on trying to explain that fans who ask for leadership, really are asking for someone who produces results. They are not the same and I said so in every single post.

 

We may indeed be at the same place, but the whole point of my discussion is to get people to ask for what they really want. No one is truly asking for Mike Grier (circa 2006) on the 1st line - they are asking for Steven Stamkos.

[deluca67]

Jay McKee, JP Dumont, Mike Grier.

 

At the time they led mainly by their consistant play, but once they were gone, along with Pyatt, Biron and Fitzpatrick...the team took on a different makeup. Steady guys who could elevate their play in the playoffs and have a physical impact...all while not having boatloads of talent.

 

The die was cast then. July 1st with Drury and Briere only shined the spotlight on it. Remember, even Briere speared Ovechkin and Drury refused to fight OV when challenged. The President's Trophy team was soft. You had to send goons out to attack 3 all-stars and a goalie, after Stafford had answered Neil and Emery could have tickled Biron to death but had mercy. Peters would lock out an armbar in every fight, Kaleta would instigate and turtle, Mair was ok, but took more runs from behind on guys than any Sabre I can remember. It was a soft culture that was signed off on by the higher ups.

 

Ted Nolan's team played more playoff games in 1 year than the Sabres have played these last 4. Were they talented? Or did they have personality and were leaders?

I think "personality" is the wrong word. Ted Nolan's team had an identity. That is more important than "personality." You knew what you were getting with that Ted Nolan team. "The Hardest Working Team in Hockey" was a great identity that fans could really relate to.

[bunomatic]

I'll say it if no one else will. The majority of this team are Pu$$ies just like Darcy Regier. After watching the game last night against the flyers I realized Regiers made this team in his image. They're not aggressive,nobody wants to lead,they're all content to let someone else do the dirty work necessary to win,they're tentative. Aside from Cody or weber I don't think anyone this team plays fears this team in any way. Other teams go into these games not like they're going into battle but like they're going to play a non contact game of shinny. Hell, most teams put in their backup against this team. Thats a slap in the face and I don't think it fazes these guys. The new owner and (hopefully) the new management group can't take over soon enough. I want a team that people literally fear to play. I want teams coming into Buffalo to know they'll be leaving with bruises and they will have to battle to escape with 2 points. A team full of nasty,gritty,sons a bitche$ that would just as soon go through you as go around you. Am I dreaming? Is that too much to ask for?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Hasek was pretty good, so yeah- I would say they were talented enough in the right position to accomplish that. Those teams that won 1-0 or 2-1 and were outshot 45-12 would have been SMOKED without #39 in the net.

 

Darn straight.

 

Just like Lindy Ruff has only made the playoffs 3 out of 9 years without Hasek between the pipes.

 

 

:beer: Cheers for agreement!

[billsrcursed]

I'll say it if no one else will. The majority of this team are Pu$$ies just like Darcy Regier. After watching the game last night against the flyers I realized Regiers made this team in his image. They're not aggressive,nobody wants to lead,they're all content to let someone else do the dirty work necessary to win,they're tentative. Aside from Cody or weber I don't think anyone this team plays fears this team in any way. Other teams go into these games not like they're going into battle but like they're going to play a non contact game of shinny. Hell, most teams put in their backup against this team. Thats a slap in the face and I don't think it fazes these guys. The new owner and (hopefully) the new management group can't take over soon enough. I want a team that people literally fear to play. I want teams coming into Buffalo to know they'll be leaving with bruises and they will have to battle to escape with 2 points. A team full of nasty,gritty,sons a bitche$ that would just as soon go through you as go around you. Am I dreaming? Is that too much to ask for?

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that has been the team label for 3+ years now.

 

Hell, the game day thread against the Flyers is the best example. They come back off a west coast swing in which they were pretty successful, take a home loss to the top team in the East, and suddenly it's "sell the farm, these guys are pu$$ies, we're doomed..." only, during that west coast swing, those comments were still being echoed.

 

We're consistent if nothing else. A winning streak is NOT going to rid this team of that label...

[Dave Dryden]

No I didn't. I said fans mistakenly confuse the two and then went on and on trying to explain that fans who ask for leadership, really are asking for someone who produces results. They are not the same and I said so in every single post.

 

We may indeed be at the same place, but the whole point of my discussion is to get people to ask for what they really want. No one is truly asking for Mike Grier (circa 2006) on the 1st line - they are asking for Steven Stamkos.

We can stop. I understand. You are saying there is skill in players, and all this stuff about leadership,discipline, personality, i.e the intangibles has no meaning and is just "fan speak." And at the end, this may just be semantics. Jason Pominville has skill. Not so much on the intangibles. Give me Jason Pominville with an edge and can't stand to lose will walk through a wall not to lose attitude and we may have an impact player.

 

You might say the mental improvements would make him more skillful, and that is why fans would like it. Fair enough. But the mental side then--the attitude side--is, in your terms, a special skills subset. I'd like to see a lot more of that skills subset on this team, as opposed to skills from guys like a Kovalchuk who can skate faster, shoot harder, but lack the mental/attitude skills that bring leadership, discipline and personality to a team.

 

If you are saying that there are no mental/attitude skills, then we disagree. If you agree that there are, I think we agree and we are just hung up on semantics and are talking about what kind of "skills" this team needs right now to get better results. To be sure, if we had a team of 50 goal scorers we clearly would be good too and the need for any chemistry and leadership might be lost in the face of overwhelming physical skill compared to your oppponent. But in a professional league that type of physical skill edge will not happen, so talking about the special skill subset of leadership, discipline and personality always will be relevant--notwithstanding your point.

[matter2003]

Watching Briere play last night made me realize that what this team lacks is any personality, mostly because it has no real leaders on the ice. Briere and Drury were like fire and ice--good complements--and it gave the team a great personality. Even the Bills have a personality now, Fitz with his beard and Harvard degree, good ole' boys Chan and Buddy, and a less than talented but hard trying supporting cast. They are not very good, but I like them and care if they get better not only for the fans' sake, but the players as well.

 

I just don't like this Sabres team because it is a big nothing personality wise. Combined with its below average play on the ice, it becomes just boring. And other than the fact that they wear the Blue and Gold, this team is not interesting enough to care about whether they win or lose. Put differently, this team is not likeable.

 

The only hint of personality this team has had the past 4 seasons is from Miller, but now that he is mainstream and corporate his quirky loveable weirdness is even gone along with his A game. At least he still likes Caddyshack--but it's not enough.

 

I think the team has some good parts, but it needs to make a major move to find a personality--a couple of guys with leadership and dynamic personalities- players with fire that care as much about winning as the people on this Board. Then maybe I could like them again, like back in the two years after the lockout. DD

 

 

I agree...its just so boring to watch this team most nights...barely any exciting goals, most come off screens an deflections down low or pouncing on a rebound in front of the net after 2 guys in front tie up the D...when they do get good chances, they have a tendency to shoot the puck directly into the goalie...couple that with frustrating giveaways that happen at the worst times, and its just frustrating to watch...even when they are winning.

 

I just have a feeling of "blah" with this team...