Lindy Ruff - on the hot seat?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

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.

 

Can I have a chance to get my $30 back here? Not on Lindy, on the lose in the 1st or miss thingie...

[SDS]

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.

 

So as the old joke goes, "We have established what you are - now we are just negotiating price..."

 

It seems to me that many people have come to the same conclusion, but just on different time scales.

[Eleven]

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. .

 

Vanek and Pominville are two of the best two-way forwards on the team and are MUCH better in their own end than in 2007. Roy no longer dives, no longer takes stupid penalties on a regular basis, and has become the best stickhandler in traffic on the team. And while he's still not a Selke candidate, he's much better defensively than he was. Those are significant differences since 2007.

 

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.

 

I've gotta see a healthy team first. If this team is mostly healthy for most of the year and misses the playoffs, I'm with you. If they get bounced in the first round because it was a bad matchup, I'm not.

 

I'm much more concerned with personnel changes than the "easy fix" that probably isn't a fix at all. And for that, I'm expecting one of two things to happen: Either Darcy reverts to "pre-handcuff" mode and starts pulling off genius deals again, or he goes. That Stafford contract still has me sick.

[Eleven]

Let me try a different way: Do you think Filly is better off now than in 2007 because Hitch was fired? Or because they overhauled the personnel on the team? I am firmly of the latter opinion.

[Weave]

Vanek and Pominville are two of the best two-way forwards on the team and are MUCH better in their own end than in 2007. Roy no longer dives, no longer takes stupid penalties on a regular basis, and has become the best stickhandler in traffic on the team. And while he's still not a Selke candidate, he's much better defensively than he was. Those are significant differences since 2007.

 

 

 

I've gotta see a healthy team first. If this team is mostly healthy for most of the year and misses the playoffs, I'm with you. If they get bounced in the first round because it was a bad matchup, I'm not.

 

I'm much more concerned with personnel changes than the "easy fix" that probably isn't a fix at all. And for that, I'm expecting one of two things to happen: Either Darcy reverts to "pre-handcuff" mode and starts pulling off genius deals again, or he goes. That Stafford contract still has me sick.

 

I hate this bad matchup garbage.

 

It is too easy to rationalize a lost series as a matchup problem. Look back over history and most Sabre playoff series losses (probably most losses for all teams) can be successfully argued as bad matchups. I won't accept that. Why were they bad matchups? I think if you look into it deeper coach and GM become a big part of the root causes of bad matchups.

[SDS]

Let me try a different way: Do you think Filly is better off now than in 2007 because Hitch was fired? Or because they overhauled the personnel on the team? I am firmly of the latter opinion.

 

yet they did both, several times....

[SwampD]

Let me try a different way: Do you think Filly is better off now than in 2007 because Hitch was fired? Or because they overhauled the personnel on the team? I am firmly of the latter opinion.

I choose both.

[spndnchz]

Question: Is all this because it has to happen in a city like Philly? Washington? Toronto? Fans expecting change immediately if it doesn't work and if so it knee jerk to listen?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Let me try a different way: Do you think Filly is better off now than in 2007 because Hitch was fired? Or because they overhauled the personnel on the team? I am firmly of the latter opinion.

 

This reminds me of the weeks leading up to an election. Behind the scenes the pollsters know where this is heading. The media feels the turn in momentum. The moderates and undecideds are leaning strongly in a direction. Yet the diehards still come in front of the camera and tell us all is well, and their man is in great shape.

 

16,000 season ticket holders......let that sink in for a second. We can all pontificate and debate, but 90% of that arena is bought out by the same people.....and they have seen one craptastic showing for their $$$ so far this year. I don't know how Pegula feels right now, but given the way Lindy has been acting in the media the past few weeks, I wouldn't be surprised to learn Pegula is very concerned and Lindy plead with him that it's all about the injuries. If Pegula isn't concerned, and the lackluster showing continues, I don't know when enough of those 16,000 say "WHEN!".

 

The momentum shift putting Lindy on the hot seat has been palpable. The Sabres and Lindy/Miller continue to be looked at as soft and whiners by not only many opposing fans, but by multiple Hockey Hall of Fame writers. If Pegula is oblivous to this then I have a feeling that his toy won't be as much fun to play with in the future. I don't think that is the case though...like I said, all the money in the world can secure you pretty well, but it can't stop you from looking like a fool when the curtain is pulled. Against Boston, it was there for everyone to see. If Pegula is who I think he is, he took that as an embarrasment and will not soon forget...no matter how much Lindy dances.

[Eleven]

I hate this bad matchup garbage.

 

It is too easy to rationalize a lost series as a matchup problem. Look back over history and most Sabre playoff series losses (probably most losses for all teams) can be successfully argued as bad matchups. I won't accept that. Why were they bad matchups? I think if you look into it deeper coach and GM become a big part of the root causes of bad matchups.

 

Sabres against Filly, 2000: Not a bad matchup.

 

Sabres against Pittsburgh, 2001: Not a bad matchup.

 

Sabres against Boston, 2010: Horrible matchup.

 

Sabres against Filly, 2011: Bad matchup, but it didn't turn out to be as bad as I had expected going in.

 

 

If I'm missing a round-one or round-two loss in the Ruff era, let me know. I don't think I am, probably because the man has led the team to four round-two wins.

[nfreeman]

Can I have a chance to get my $30 back here? Not on Lindy, on the lose in the 1st or miss thingie...

 

Since I know that you're a Sabres fan underneath it all, I would not feel right about a bet that incentivizes you to root against them, especially in the playoffs. I'm fine with some other kind of bet though. Did you have a position in the Enroth vs. Miller debate that you would want to wager on? Or anything else that doesn't directly result in either of us having a rooting interest against the team's success?

 

So as the old joke goes, "We have established what you are - now we are just negotiating price..."

 

It seems to me that many people have come to the same conclusion, but just on different time scales.

 

Not sure about this. I think there is a qualitative difference between thinking, as I do, that DR and LR were handcuffed under prior ownership and that they should get a real chance to succeed or fail now that supportive and non-meddling ownership is in place, and thinking that DR and LR have had 14 years to prove themselves, never mind the externalities, and that accordingly any sustained losing streak this season should get them sent packing a la Boudreau.

 

Vanek and Pominville are two of the best two-way forwards on the team and are MUCH better in their own end than in 2007. Roy no longer dives, no longer takes stupid penalties on a regular basis, and has become the best stickhandler in traffic on the team. And while he's still not a Selke candidate, he's much better defensively than he was. Those are significant differences since 2007.

 

I've gotta see a healthy team first. If this team is mostly healthy for most of the year and misses the playoffs, I'm with you. If they get bounced in the first round because it was a bad matchup, I'm not.

 

I'm much more concerned with personnel changes than the "easy fix" that probably isn't a fix at all. And for that, I'm expecting one of two things to happen: Either Darcy reverts to "pre-handcuff" mode and starts pulling off genius deals again, or he goes. That Stafford contract still has me sick.

 

I agree on Vanek and to a lesser extent Pommer. While Roy has cut out most of the diving, I don't think he's gotten much better on either end -- he knows what to do, but there are still just too many occasions on which he's out to lunch.

 

As for injuries, they would have to be pretty significant for me to regard them as a real excuse for not getting out of the first round this year. And I'm not a-tall willing to use matchups as an excuse. Both of the series in the last 2 years were very winnable. The Sabres just didn't get what they needed from their "top 6" in order to win. The playoffs are a harder game. The Sabres' forwards need to be able to play that game successfully if they are going to advance.

 

Let me try a different way: Do you think Filly is better off now than in 2007 because Hitch was fired? Or because they overhauled the personnel on the team? I am firmly of the latter opinion.

Me too.

[Eleven]

yet they did both, several times....

 

I choose both.

 

I think Hitch does just fine in Filly with the 2010 roster.

 

Question: Is all this because it has to happen in a city like Philly? Washington? Toronto? Fans expecting change immediately if it doesn't work and if so it knee jerk to listen?

 

Not sure I understand.

[Weave]

Sabres against Filly, 2000: Not a bad matchup.

 

Sabres against Pittsburgh, 2001: Not a bad matchup.

 

Sabres against Boston, 2010: Horrible matchup.

 

Sabres against Filly, 2011: Bad matchup, but it didn't turn out to be as bad as I had expected going in.

 

 

If I'm missing a round-one or round-two loss in the Ruff era, let me know. I don't think I am, probably because the man has led the team to four round-two wins.

 

Why are they bad matchups? And how much did the coach/GM combo have to do with the matchup being bad? That's my point.

 

You have to play the team that is in front of you. If that team is a bad matchup it has to be because of the work the coach/GM combo did to build/develop the team.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

The team needs size and experience.

 

The overall effort as of late has looked honest at the very least. I missed the detroit game but every other game I've seen i saw hard play along the boards and some great hits and grit... all from the rookies.

 

The roster is crippled at the moment, too many big names are sitting out, and while the young guys have done relatively well, they still have plenty of room for improvement.

 

The group of kassian, mcnabb, brennan, and tropp have all looked great, and the sooner they can become regulars the sooner we can get this showon the road. We have plenty of skill players, but without size it's going to be hard to match up to the physical and skilled teams.

 

I'm not so sure a coaching switch should be the way to go just yet. There are going to be some growing pains but i think this ownership group realizes that physical play is essential, and it shows in how we've drafted the past few years.

[spndnchz]

Question: Is all this because it has to happen in a city like Philly? Washington? Toronto? Fans expecting change immediately if it doesn't work and if so it knee jerk to listen?

I think Hitch does just fine in Filly with the 2010 roster.

 

 

 

Not sure I understand.

 

Let me re-emphasize the sill abele

Question: Is all this because it has to happen in a city like Philly? Washington? Toronto? Fans expecting change immediately if it doesn't work and if so, is it knee jerk to listen?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Why are they bad matchups? And how much did the coach/GM combo have to do with the matchup being bad? That's my point.

 

You have to play the team that is in front of you. If that team is a bad matchup it has to be because of the work the coach/GM combo did to build/develop the team.

 

The only teams that were "good" matchups were Washington and Montreal....because Montreal is recovering from a gutting and Washington is what the Sabres are, flashy, soft, and entrenched with McPhee/Boudreau....that is until a week ago.

 

Philly, Boston, Pitt, Tampa...all would wear out the Sabres over the course of a series. 3 of those in a row? Never gonna happen. Now you have Florida nad Toronto on the upswing, and New Jersey skulking around.

 

Sekera, Gragnani, Leopold, Ehrhoff.....on the ice for 40 minutes a game against Philly, then Pitt, then Boston, then Detroit...........yeah.....bad matchup.

[Sabre Dance]

Vanek and Pominville are two of the best two-way forwards on the team and are MUCH better in their own end than in 2007. Roy no longer dives, no longer takes stupid penalties on a regular basis, and has become the best stickhandler in traffic on the team. And while he's still not a Selke candidate, he's much better defensively than he was. Those are significant differences since 2007.

 

 

 

I've gotta see a healthy team first. If this team is mostly healthy for most of the year and misses the playoffs, I'm with you. If they get bounced in the first round because it was a bad matchup, I'm not.

 

I'm much more concerned with personnel changes than the "easy fix" that probably isn't a fix at all. And for that, I'm expecting one of two things to happen: Either Darcy reverts to "pre-handcuff" mode and starts pulling off genius deals again, or he goes. That Stafford contract still has me sick.

 

1) Being the two best forwards on a lousy team doesn't say much.

 

2) Show me a Stanley Cup-winning team in recent NHL history that hasn't had to deal with injuries at some point in the season.

 

3) So, are you saying that teams that win the Stanley Cup do so solely because they get favorable matchups in the playoffs? Or lose because of unfavorable ones? From my limited experience as an NHL fan (45+ years), the team that outworks, outhits and outscores their opponent wins games, playoff series and the Stanley Cup. Some matchups may be more or less "favorable" but you still have to play the games.

[Eleven]

Why are they bad matchups? And how much did the coach/GM combo have to do with the matchup being bad? That's my point.

 

You have to play the team that is in front of you. If that team is a bad matchup it has to be because of the work the coach/GM combo did to build/develop the team.

 

Because the Sabres personnel didn't have the size/physicality to match up well against those teams. I have no problem laying some of the blame at the GM's feet. Again, I don't expect teams where both Stafford and Connolly are expected to play major roles, to go too far. But they would have matched up well against Washington instead of Filly last year. And sometimes there are good matchups. Filly in 2006 is an excellent example.

 

As for the "new coach will fix everything" argument: anyone my age or older should remember well the decade between 1983 and 1993 that saw numerous coaching changes but not a single playoff series win. It wasn't until the talent was upgraded that the team won a series. It's still the players who have to play the game. There's an excellent quote from Toe Blake on this in a book I have at home; I'll try to remember to post it later.

[nfreeman]

The only teams that were "good" matchups were Washington and Montreal....because Montreal is recovering from a gutting and Washington is what the Sabres are, flashy, soft, and entrenched with McPhee/Boudreau....that is until a week ago.

 

Philly, Boston, Pitt, Tampa...all would wear out the Sabres over the course of a series. 3 of those in a row? Never gonna happen. Now you have Florida nad Toronto on the upswing, and New Jersey skulking around.

 

Sekera, Gragnani, Leopold, Ehrhoff.....on the ice for 40 minutes a game against Philly, then Pitt, then Boston, then Detroit...........yeah.....bad matchup.

Well, they were awfully close to beating Philly last year, and the loss wasn't due to being out-physicaled. It was because none of their "top 6" scored a single goal in the 2nd or 3rd periods of a 7-game series. And Tampa isn't a physical team.

 

As for your list of defensemen -- Ehrhoff doesn't belong on that list. I will agree that no more than 2 of the other 3 should be in a playoff top 6 defensive group.

[X. Benedict]

 

 

The momentum shift putting Lindy on the hot seat has been palpable. The Sabres and Lindy/Miller continue to be looked at as soft and whiners by not only many opposing fans, but by multiple Hockey Hall of Fame writers.

 

Who are you referring to?

[X. Benedict]

Again, Kovi was the best player in the NHL over the last half of the Season.

 

Corry Perry by far was the best player in the last half of last season.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Who are you referring to?

 

Go and twitter "Lindy histrionics" and you will find one. If you go back to his tweets in the aftermath of the Miller/Lucic game, you can see give and take with some others.

 

I think Twitter allows guys to say things they can't in the paper. Reading what many national guys said after that Boston debacle really was an eye-opener.

[X. Benedict]

Go and twitter "Lindy histrionics" and you will find one. If you go back to his tweets in the aftermath of the Miller/Lucic game, you can see give and take with some others.

 

I think Twitter allows guys to say things they can't in the paper. Reading what many national guys said after that Boston debacle really was an eye-opener.

 

Well that was frustrating - I'm no master Twitter guy. I'm no closer than I was 20 minutes ago. I was really just curious, so I can't tell if you were being evasive or I was supposed to find a lot of stuff.

[deluca67]

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.

First of all Briere's role was playing second fiddle to Drury. He was third Fiddle in Philly when Richards & Carter were there. Roy on the other hand has pretty much been the only center the Sabres have had under that time. I'm no Roy apologist and even I can recognize that Roy has been able accomplish a lot despite Lindy's "system." All at the bargain basement price of $4 mil per season. How much was Briere's contract? I'll give you a hint, the first word is "Too" and the second has four letters.

 

You got me on the Kovi deal. He didn't win the Stanley Cup in his first season with the Devils. What a bust! In his tenth year and he'll probably only finish the year with 400 career goals.

 

Bowman put together the greatest team in Sabres history and drafted HOF talent. He moved Gare as his career began to fade and picked up Foligno who went on to score 240 goals as a Sabre. What a bum.

[X. Benedict]

 

Bowman put together the greatest team in Sabres history and drafted HOF talent.

 

Wow. Which season are you talking about?