LabattBlue Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Were there reasonable expectations to the contrary, given the roster? Given the fact that they have an "all world" goaltender who is in his prime, still had a pretty good stable of talent even after the D&B fiasco, and half the teams in the NHL make the playoffs, yeah I think it is very reasonable to have expected more out of the past four years.
nfreeman Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Again, Kovi was the best player in the NHL over the last half of the Season. Roy has 272 points and Briere has 238 points since Briere jumped ship. I never said Bowman was the greatest GM in Sabres history. He did get great value in the Gare trade, which was the point. He is the greatest coach in NHL history and could easily get more out the Sabres current roster than Ruff is, even at his current age. Are you kidding? How have the Devils done before the Kovy trade as compared with after? How has Roy done in the playoffs compared with Briere? How has the team done with Roy in Briere's role as compared with how they did with Briere in that role? How did the Sabres do in the playoffs before the Gare trade as compared with after? Hint: for each of the above questions, it's not even close. You mean the lengthy record of two playoff misses and two first round exits in the last 4 years which occurred immediately following and resulted directly from DR's bosses forcing the dismantling of a great team out of a combination of incompetence and penny-wise, pound-foolishness? Fixed it for ya. I agree 100% and reached the same conclusion a while ago. There are plenty of pieces here to enter the market if that becomes necessary. There are not that many moves that need to be made. The team is close. I began to watch Vanek in college. I had hoped in the last four years they would finally pair him with a one center so i would know if my instincts were correct. He is, right now, the Sabres only impact player. He is the guy that draws the shutdown line. That is the context within which he plays every game. Do you think people realize that and undestand what it means time and space wise. Pom is a nice piece but when coupled with a less than physical play small center and Vaneks skating defects, that line loses it staying power in the zone. Vanek is at best, average on the offensive boards, and with Hecht and Pom the line is undersize, especially when opposed by the other teams best defensive line.The same problem exists when Roy centers. It could be interesting to watch Adam, Vanek, Kassian for a couple of shifts or Adam, Boyes/Tropp,Vanek. A bigger, physical RW with a forcheck game, hands(not Stafford) and some offensive instincts. I mention Adam because of his size, Hecht would probably be ok too with a bigger RW because his vision and hands are better than Adams right now. The point is . When you play against the best defensive line and two out of your linemates are play small, it is just too easy for the D to take you off the puck and out of the zone.. Excellent post. Good hockey analysis IMHO especially the bolded part.
ROCBuffalo Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Look what happened when Pitt went down without their 2 best d men and 3 of the top forwards, their coach taught them right and they still dominated, maybe some day pegula will realize that we are never winning a cup with Darcy, lindy and half the over paid bums we got. Very good point, a coach makes a team win even though there best players are out, but we did win early this year with 8 rookies in the lineup (including one on the bench.) We will be fine, I trust Lindy to be a good coach. He just needs to bring one or it is a bust.
Eleven Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Given the fact that they have an "all world" goaltender who is in his prime, still had a pretty good stable of talent even after the D&B fiasco, and half the teams in the NHL make the playoffs, yeah I think it is very reasonable to have expected more out of the past four years. Ruff developed that talent after the D&B fiasco. He took the same core from 2007-08 and helped them become division winners two years later. The playoff losses are hard, but first- and second-round series are about matchups, and (I remember posting how NJ screwed both themselves and Buffalo by pipping Buffalo for second place in 2010) the matchups have NOT been kind. I didn't expect the team to win either of the last two series, and I didn't even expect them to hang with Filly, much less lead the series after five. A roster with Stafford and Connolly having important roles isn't going to get very far with any coach.
LabattBlue Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Ruff developed that talent after the D&B fiasco. He took the same core from 2007-08 and helped them become division winners two years later. The playoff losses are hard, but first- and second-round series are about matchups, and (I remember posting how NJ screwed both themselves and Buffalo by pipping Buffalo for second place in 2010) the matchups have NOT been kind. I didn't expect the team to win either of the last two series, and I didn't even expect them to hang with Filly, much less lead the series after five. A roster with Stafford and Connolly having important roles isn't going to get very far with any coach. ...and what about the two years where they missed the playoffs completely?
nfreeman Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 ...and what about the two years where they missed the playoffs completely? You're putting that on Darcy and Lindy? Really?
LabattBlue Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 You're putting that on Darcy and Lindy? Really? Where should the blame fall? Are you trying to say that with Miller in goal this team did not have enough talent to make the playoffs in 07-08 and 08-09? Is this a case of lets lay ALL the blame for these years at the feet of those no longer around(Quinny & OSP??), and give everyone who survived some more rope to hang themselves with?? I'm tired of the status quo.
Kristian Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 I'm tired of the status quo. A-freakin'-men. The roster got a heckuva lot more expensive this summer than under Quinn, but so far the on-ice performance looks exactly the same as it's always done under Ruff. Plain boring.
SDS Posted December 5, 2011 Author Report Posted December 5, 2011 Ruff developed that talent after the D&B fiasco. He took the same core from 2007-08 and helped them become division winners two years later. The playoff losses are hard, but first- and second-round series are about matchups, and (I remember posting how NJ screwed both themselves and Buffalo by pipping Buffalo for second place in 2010) the matchups have NOT been kind. I didn't expect the team to win either of the last two series, and I didn't even expect them to hang with Filly, much less lead the series after five. A roster with Stafford and Connolly having important roles isn't going to get very far with any coach. You're putting that on Darcy and Lindy? Really? Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fortress... You know, Ruff (in the context of his latest contract extension) asked out loud if the team had stopped listening when talking to Regier. So, he is well aware that bad/good/great coaches all have a limited shelf life. You don't have to hate on Lindy to realize that freshening up the product might be for the best.
Eleven Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 ...and what about the two years where they missed the playoffs completely? You mean when he was developing the kids? That takes a couple of years. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fortress... You know, Ruff (in the context of his latest contract extension) asked out loud if the team had stopped listening when talking to Regier. So, he is well aware that bad/good/great coaches all have a limited shelf life. You don't have to hate on Lindy to realize that freshening up the product might be for the best. I have no idea what the first paragraph means, but with respect to the second: I understand the point about a new messenger. I'm not a "change for the sake of change" guy, and that's why I'd keep Ruff, but your particular point is a valid point of view. However, I don't think that saying that Ruff hasn't met expectations is a valid point of view. People on here constantly complain about the personnel on the team and then blame the coach for the results. There is no reason to expect that the team should have gone any farther in any season in Ruff's tenure than it has, and I think a strong argument can be made that in one or two instances, the team went farther than could have been expected.
dEnnis the Menace Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 You mean when he was developing the kids? That takes a couple of years. I have no idea what the first paragraph means, but with respect to the second: I understand the point about a new messenger. I'm not a "change for the sake of change" guy, and that's why I'd keep Ruff, but your particular point is a valid point of view. However, I don't think that saying that Ruff hasn't met expectations is a valid point of view. People on here constantly complain about the personnel on the team and then blame the coach for the results. There is no reason to expect that the team should have gone any farther in any season in Ruff's tenure than it has, and I think a strong argument can be made that in one or two instances, the team went farther than could have been expected. Star Wars reference?? and I agree with your take on the development thing. Besides, we missed the playoffs by a small margin both years...it's not like we were 15th in the conference!
SDS Posted December 5, 2011 Author Report Posted December 5, 2011 I have no idea what the first paragraph means, It's a fairly famous Star Wars quote...
nfreeman Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Where should the blame fall? Are you trying to say that with Miller in goal this team did not have enough talent to make the playoffs in 07-08 and 08-09? Is this a case of lets lay ALL the blame for these years at the feet of those no longer around(Quinny & OSP??), and give everyone who survived some more rope to hang themselves with?? I'm tired of the status quo. Enough talent, yes. Enough guts and mental toughness -- no, although they came very close both years (I think they lost Vanek to injury down the stretch in the first year and Miller to injury down the stretch in the 2nd year). And yes, I think TG/LQ's decisions resulted in this team being completely besieged by losing their stars and by the overwhelming feeling that they were working for a Mickey Mouse operation during that period -- which in turn led to a backlash and over-rich contracts given to Pommer and Hecht (and, some would argue, Miller and Gaustad) out of a desperate need to plug the holes in the ###### (hello, GoDD) in the summer of 2007. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fortress... You know, Ruff (in the context of his latest contract extension) asked out loud if the team had stopped listening when talking to Regier. So, he is well aware that bad/good/great coaches all have a limited shelf life. You don't have to hate on Lindy to realize that freshening up the product might be for the best. First of all, you are too old to use "hate on" in conversation. Second, I second 11's response to the substance of your post: I have no idea what the first paragraph means, but with respect to the second: I understand the point about a new messenger. I'm not a "change for the sake of change" guy, and that's why I'd keep Ruff, but your particular point is a valid point of view. However, I don't think that saying that Ruff hasn't met expectations is a valid point of view. People on here constantly complain about the personnel on the team and then blame the coach for the results. There is no reason to expect that the team should have gone any farther in any season in Ruff's tenure than it has, and I think a strong argument can be made that in one or two instances, the team went farther than could have been expected.
SwampD Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 I'm ready for a change at the top just so we're not subjected to this god forsaken argument anymore.
Sabre Dance Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 I'm ready for a change at the top just so we're not subjected to this god forsaken argument anymore. I tend to agree, BUT, no matter who is coach I fear that we will be hearing this argument until the words "Buffalo Sabres" appear on the Stanley Cup. I sincerely hope that won't take another 40 years...
spndnchz Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?
rbochan Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him? Trick question. It's Derek Roy.
Ross Rhea Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 Trick question. It's Derek Roy. No, it's the bulldog
Realist Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 I'm finally on board with the Ruff needs to go train. There are way too many games where the team just looks absolutely flat and that is all on the coach. That being said, I don't think Pegula lets Ruff go any time soon, hence I voted, he stays.
LabattBlue Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 What exactly is Lindy doing so remarkably as a HC, that he should not be replaced? The only downside I see with a switch, is that Regier would be the guy overseeing the hiring of the new HC. This is a position that is results driven, and the results are not there. He was had years to mold some of these guys into winners, and they are no different today than they were 5 or 6 years ago. Anybody want to tell me that Vanek, Pominville, Roy, Hecht, Miller, Gaustad, Stafford, etc... are better players than they were in 2006 or 2007? They are still all wildly inconsistent, and will not be elevating their game to another level. Why...IMO, they have tuned Lindy out, are not challenged enough to become better players, coaching staff that can't bring out more in these players. Who knows, but I'm willing to give someone else a shot with them before Miller is over the hill, and the contracts start to end for the current core, and a decision has to be made on their future with the Sabres. Does anyone believe the Sabres would get worse if Lindy was fired?
Eleven Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 If you think Vanek, Roy and Pominville are the same players that they were in 2007, you're not watching enough hockey. Miller has been better than he was then; Hecht was not a young'un brought in for the team to develop, he was and is a known quantity playing at the top of his game; Drew Stafford is a lazy POS but even so, scored 30 for the first time last year; Goose is Goose, like Hecht, I don't think there's too much more to get out of him. What exactly is he doing so poorly that he should be fired? If your point were that you want change simply for the sake of it, I'd see validity to the point but disagree. But distorting or even misstating facts--seriously, you think Vanek is the same player he was five seasons ago?! Pommer and Roy?!--to push an agenda is not going to convince me of anything. And yeah, I definitely think the team could be worse off with a different coach, which is exactly why I'm not a "change for the sake of change" guy. You can point to one coach in any given year who won a Cup with a team, and (because of Ruff's longevity), you can say "hey, they didn't win the Cup until they hired Coach X, and they hired him after the Sabres hired Ruff!" I can point to 27 others (Ruff and Trotz excepted) who were brought in and didn't win a Cup that same given year. To me, it's the Bylsma Theory at work: Bylsma somehow is a better coach than Therrien, according to said theory. But he's not; both had great players, and one had the fortune to win a Cup with those players. Neither would win a Cup with this team, and Ruff very well may have won one with Pittsburgh's personnel. (I don't think it's ever reasonable to expect a team to win one. To seriously contend? Sure. But fortune plays too big a role (cf. 2006) to expect the win.)
LabattBlue Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 If you think Vanek, Roy and Pominville are the same players that they were in 2007, you're not watching enough hockey. Miller has been better than he was then; Hecht was not a young'un brought in for the team to develop, he was and is a known quantity playing at the top of his game; Drew Stafford is a lazy POS but even so, scored 30 for the first time last year; Goose is Goose, like Hecht, I don't think there's too much more to get out of him. What exactly is he doing so poorly that he should be fired? If your point were that you want change simply for the sake of it, I'd see validity to the point but disagree. But distorting or even misstating facts--seriously, you think Vanek is the same player he was five seasons ago?! Pommer and Roy?!--to push an agenda is not going to convince me of anything. And yeah, I definitely think the team could be worse off with a different coach, which is exactly why I'm not a "change for the sake of change" guy. You can point to one coach in any given year who won a Cup with a team, and (because of Ruff's longevity), you can say "hey, they didn't win the Cup until they hired Coach X, and they hired him after the Sabres hired Ruff!" I can point to 27 others (Ruff and Trotz excepted) who were brought in and didn't win a Cup that same given year. To me, it's the Bylsma Theory at work: Bylsma somehow is a better coach than Therrien, according to said theory. But he's not; both had great players, and one had the fortune to win a Cup with those players. Neither would win a Cup with this team, and Ruff very well may have won one with Pittsburgh's personnel. (I don't think it's ever reasonable to expect a team to win one. To seriously contend? Sure. But fortune plays too big a role (cf. 2006) to expect the win.) Roy, Vanek, Pominville are no better offensively than they were several years ago, and they certainly have not become more physical or better defensive players. Miller was out of his mind in 09-10, and other than that is the same caliber of goalie he was in 2007. As far as what is Ruff doing so poorly...i already stated it.... Last 4 years, 2 misses and 2 1st round exits. It's all about the results. No excuses!!!! He should be replaced and so should Regier.
LabattBlue Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 One other question...what exactly would have to happen for you to believe a coaching change should be made??
nfreeman Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 One other question...what exactly would have to happen for you to believe a coaching change should be made?? For me, it would be missing the playoffs or getting bounced in the first round this year. But if Lindy goes under those circumstances, DR needs to go as well.
LabattBlue Posted December 5, 2011 Report Posted December 5, 2011 For me, it would be missing the playoffs or getting bounced in the first round this year. But if Lindy goes under those circumstances, DR needs to go as well. Fair enough.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.