Lindy Ruff - on the hot seat?

[Weave]

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.

 

Let me me preface what I am about to post with this...... I am very neutral on the subject of Lindy Ruff. I am cursed with the ability to both understand and appreciate both sides of the discussion. I suspect he is a rather good coach. At this point I am not necessarily advocating for a coaching change. I am exploring further the idea that "bad matchups" and "good matchups" matter in evaluating a coach.

 

And again, you don't get to pick the team you play in the playoffs so "good matchup/ bad matchup" is irrelevant. Teams are built, players developed, staff selected to further an overall system and gameplan. If the players and system developed result in poor matchups, shouldn't that fall on the coach that developed those players and implemented that system? Especially when the coach and GM work so closely together on player decisions?

 

If you are willing to marginalize a playoff loss as a bad matchup and not something to evaluate a coach or team on, are you equally willing to dismiss a good matchup as something that a coach/GM shouldn't be evaluated on? Should we dismiss for critical evaluation purposes those playoff wins against Philly's dirt slow defense because it was a favorable matchup for our forward speed (for example)?

 

Lindy's job is to identify weaknesses in our playoff opponents and implement a plan to use his team's strengths to take advantage of any weaknesses. I don't care how favorable or unfavorable the matchup is, every team has a weakness to exploit. Every team has a strength to use to go after that weakness. What we haven't seen in recent years is a coach who has formulated a gameplan sufficiently good enough to neutralize his opponents' strength. We've seen Lindy do this effectively in the past so I believe he has it in him. But we haven't seen him do it since 2006-7. I have a thought running around my head that, while a good coach, Lindy's tactical strengths may not be a good fit with the strengths of the players on his roster. Certainly the GM would have alot of blame if this were to be accurate, but we've all heard the coach and GM claim that player decisions are made as a team so Lindy ought to share alot of responsibility if the players don't mesh with the coach's strengths.

[X. Benedict]

Let me me preface what I am about to post with this...... I am very neutral on the subject of Lindy Ruff. I am cursed with the ability to both understand and appreciate both sides of the discussion. I suspect he is a rather good coach. At this point I am not necessarily advocating for a coaching change. I am exploring further the idea that "bad matchups" and "good matchups" matter in evaluating a coach.

 

And again, you don't get to pick the team you play in the playoffs so "good matchup/ bad matchup" is irrelevant. Teams are built, players developed, staff selected to further an overall system and gameplan. If the players and system developed result in poor matchups, shouldn't that fall on the coach that developed those players and implemented that system? Especially when the coach and GM work so closely together on player decisions?

 

If you are willing to marginalize a playoff loss as a bad matchup and not something to evaluate a coach or team on, are you equally willing to dismiss a good matchup as something that a coach/GM shouldn't be evaluated on? Should we dismiss for critical evaluation purposes those playoff wins against Philly's dirt slow defense because it was a favorable matchup for our forward speed (for example)?

 

Lindy's job is to identify weaknesses in our playoff opponents and implement a plan to use his team's strengths to take advantage of any weaknesses. I don't care how favorable or unfavorable the matchup is, every team has a weakness to exploit. Every team has a strength to use to go after that weakness. What we haven't seen in recent years is a coach who has formulated a gameplan sufficiently good enough to neutralize his opponents' strength. We've seen Lindy do this effectively in the past so I believe he has it in him. But we haven't seen him do it since 2006-7. I have a thought running around my head that, while a good coach, Lindy's tactical strengths may not be a good fit with the strengths of the players on his roster. Certainly the GM would have alot of blame if this were to be accurate, but we've all heard the coach and GM claim that player decisions are made as a team so Lindy ought to share alot of responsibility if the players don't mesh with the coach's strengths.

 

I appreciate the balance.

 

IMO Lindy is a very good coach. And Buffalo always ices a well-coached team - this is hard to notice day to day, because the coach in Buffalo is a constant. (it is easier to notice how well Nashville is coached, when you play them only once or twice a year).

 

Teams naturally vacillate through the course of a season - slumps happen. Individual players get snake-bit - goalies hit rough patches etc. But also the opposite happens....some players get hot, goalies will ride a hot streak. And hopefully by the end of the season it all pulls together.

 

I can't say I've ever thought the team has quit on this coach. Sure, they've had games were they've played bad. But the coach's job is to make sure those valleys don't last as long as they might.

 

I'm not sure how many coach's alive could have gotten 100 pts. out of the 2009 roster. A team that wasn't as good as its record.

Getting the team from last year into the playoffs without a center for most of the year was pretty good coaching too.

 

Ruff usually uses every player on his roster....could a new coach get short term gains by going to three lines and running Vanek and Pomminstein 27 minutes a night? Maybe. But it is a losing formula in the long run.

 

I could get into nuanced discussions of line moves and zone entries, which Lindy changes up all the time.

 

But I don't think anything I can add would satisfy those that want to see him gone.

[Eleven]

Bowman put together the greatest team in Sabres history

 

What?! He freaking destroyed one of the greatest teams in Sabres history! Even with full roster control, that man never got past the Isles loss--which, for you who want the coach to be fully responsible, was solely on him.

 

 

Let me me preface what I am about to post with this...... I am very neutral on the subject of Lindy Ruff. I am cursed with the ability to both understand and appreciate both sides of the discussion. I suspect he is a rather good coach. At this point I am not necessarily advocating for a coaching change. I am exploring further the idea that "bad matchups" and "good matchups" matter in evaluating a coach.

 

And again, you don't get to pick the team you play in the playoffs so "good matchup/ bad matchup" is irrelevant. Teams are built, players developed, staff selected to further an overall system and gameplan. If the players and system developed result in poor matchups, shouldn't that fall on the coach that developed those players and implemented that system? Especially when the coach and GM work so closely together on player decisions?

 

If you are willing to marginalize a playoff loss as a bad matchup and not something to evaluate a coach or team on, are you equally willing to dismiss a good matchup as something that a coach/GM shouldn't be evaluated on? Should we dismiss for critical evaluation purposes those playoff wins against Philly's dirt slow defense because it was a favorable matchup for our forward speed (for example)?

 

Lindy's job is to identify weaknesses in our playoff opponents and implement a plan to use his team's strengths to take advantage of any weaknesses. I don't care how favorable or unfavorable the matchup is, every team has a weakness to exploit. Every team has a strength to use to go after that weakness. What we haven't seen in recent years is a coach who has formulated a gameplan sufficiently good enough to neutralize his opponents' strength. We've seen Lindy do this effectively in the past so I believe he has it in him. But we haven't seen him do it since 2006-7. I have a thought running around my head that, while a good coach, Lindy's tactical strengths may not be a good fit with the strengths of the players on his roster. Certainly the GM would have alot of blame if this were to be accurate, but we've all heard the coach and GM claim that player decisions are made as a team so Lindy ought to share alot of responsibility if the players don't mesh with the coach's strengths.

 

 

Weave, there's a lot there, and as usual from you, it's not fluff or argumentative bs; each sentence is packed with at least one idea, and probably two. I've gotta ask you to pardon me and allow me to reply on a night when I don't come home from work at 915.

 

 

As for the Toe Blake quote that I promised earlier:

 

"Left wing Frank Maholvlich, an eighteen-season veteran of the NHL, was one of Blake's greatest admirers, even though he never played for him. He felt Blake was responsible for fifty percent of what was needed to win.

 

"'I've always felt that a good coach is the one who wins,' Blake agreed. 'But fifty percent? If that had been the case with me, my teams would have won a lot more games.'"

 

--Red FIsher, "Toe," reprinted in The Greatest Hockey Stories Ever Told at 127 (B. Urstadt, ed.) (Lyons, 2006).

 

 

Fact is, the coach can't do much with ###### players. And the example above about the Sabres in the eighties and early nineties has been unaddressed, for good reason. There's no good argument that those teams could win a playoff series, just like now. The team is lacking some pieces. Ruff, who has developed Vanek, Pommer, Roy, a few others; and who has taken the team to four freaking conference finals, is not only okay, but the best coach in the team's history. Wait for it--and you won't have to wait long--this team will rise under Ruff for a third time. (Oh, everyone forgot that he already did it twice?!)

[deluca67]

Wow. Which season are you talking about?

The 1979-80 Sabres team that lost to the Islanders. IMO, it took one of the all-time greatest teams in NHL history to stop the all-time greatest Sabres team. What Bowman was able to do with that team shows what great coaching could do. The bar was set so high in his first year everything else he did as coach and as GM failed in comparison in his time in Buffalo.

[X. Benedict]

The 1979-80 Sabres team that lost to the Islanders. IMO, it took one of the all-time greatest teams in NHL history to stop the all-time greatest Sabres team. What Bowman was able to do with that team shows what great coaching could do. The bar was set so high in his first year everything else he did as coach and as GM failed in comparison in his time in Buffalo.

 

Great team. But Bowman certainly didn't put that team together. He walked into it.

[Eleven]

Great team. But Bowman certainly didn't put that team together. He walked into it.

 

And then ruined it, the freaking jerk.

[deluca67]

Great team. But Bowman certainly didn't put that team together. He walked into it.

That was my error in wording. He came into a veteran team and got the most out it. Perrault was never better and was a machine in the playoffs, which I credit Bowman for.

[deluca67]

And then ruined it, the freaking jerk.

By trading away veteran players that were passing their prime? That team was at the end of it's time and needed an overhaul.

[Eleven]

By trading away veteran players that were passing their prime? That team was at the end of it's time and needed an overhaul.

 

Yeah, that worked well. No playoff wins until 1993, despite numerous coach changes. See above.

 

Bowman was a ###### idiot GM here.

[deluca67]

Yeah, that worked well. No playoff wins until 1993, despite numerous coach changes. See above.

 

Bowman was a ###### idiot GM here.

How many Hall-of-Fame level talent did he draft while in Buffalo? Barrasso, Andreychuk and Housley come to mind. His 1982 draft has to be considered one of the all-time great drafts in NHL history.

[X. Benedict]

How many Hall-of-Fame level talent did he draft while in Buffalo? Barrasso, Andreychuk and Housley come to mind. His 1982 draft has to be considered one of the all-time great drafts in NHL history.

Only when you don't consider what he could have done.

 

1982.....Housley, Cyr, and Andreychuk.

 

Scotty could have moved for Brian Bellows or Scott Stevens because Detroit wanted out of the 2 spot.

When Boston flubbed and drafted Gord Frickin Klusack - we thought it was a done deal. Everyone wanted Bellows and Detriot wanted a second first.

 

Anyway....Housley and Cyr instead of Bellows or Stevens.

 

Scotty still talks up Housley.

[carpandean]

Don't tell me that match-ups don't matter. Rock destroys scissors every time, but just isn't made to handle paper.

[nfreeman]

Don't tell me that match-ups don't matter. Rock destroys scissors every time, but just isn't made to handle paper.

Very nice, and a welcome interlude from the DeLuca schizophrenic stubborn-fest.

[bunomatic]

That was my error in wording. He came into a veteran team and got the most out it. Perrault was never better and was a machine in the playoffs, which I credit Bowman for.

 

I have a hard time giving Bowman too much credit for Perraults success. Barry Melrose would look like a genius coaching Perrault.

[deluca67]

Very nice, and a welcome interlude from the DeLuca schizophrenic stubborn-fest.

Keep blowing that smoke! :thumbsup:

[nfreeman]

Keep blowing that smoke! :thumbsup:

 

So, you are insisting that:

 

1. The Kovy trade was a good move for NJ;

 

2. Roy is better than the #1 playoff scorer in the entire NHL over the last 6 years; and

 

3. Bowman was a good GM for the Sabres.

 

And I'm the one blowing smoke?

 

Here's another question: if you like players like Roy and Kovy who "put up numbers" but don't do anything in the playoffs or help their teams win, why don't you like the Sabres as currently constructed?

[PromoTheRobot]

If you want the Sabres to be able to hire top-notch talent in the future, you can't come off looking impetuous by firing people you just extended. So like it or not Ruff is here to stay. Regier too. No one worth a damn is going to accept a position with an owner who says he wants you then fires you two months into a season. Argue all you want but the die was cast when Pegs gave Lindy and Darcy their deals.

 

PTR

[Samson's Flow]

If you want the Sabres to be able to hire top-notch talent in the future, you can't come off looking impetuous by firing people you just extended. So like it or not Ruff is here to stay. Regier too. No one worth a damn is going to accept a position with an owner who says he wants you then fires you two months into a season. Argue all you want but the die was cast when Pegs gave Lindy and Darcy their deals.

 

PTR

Right, so the only move available to the team now is a roster shakeup. I'm not talking full on Philly off-season type stuff since it is mid-season, but sending off a top-6 guy would hopefully have the desired effect on the team dynamic as a whole that we are not effing around here and that the effort thus far has been unacceptable.

[LabattBlue]

If you want the Sabres to be able to hire top-notch talent in the future, you can't come off looking impetuous by firing people you just extended. So like it or not Ruff is here to stay. Regier too. No one worth a damn is going to accept a position with an owner who says he wants you then fires you two months into a season. Argue all you want but the die was cast when Pegs gave Lindy and Darcy their deals.

 

PTR

 

I don't expect either of them to be fired in season, but if they miss the playoffs or lose in the first round, both of them should be gone. No excuses of injuries, bad matchup, too many young players, etc...

[lalalalalaFontaine]

regier first... bring in a new gm to decide on the coach's fate...

[PromoTheRobot]

I don't expect either of them to be fired in season, but if they miss the playoffs or lose in the first round, both of them should be gone. No excuses of injuries, bad matchup, too many young players, etc...

 

That would be the soonest it could happen, and even then...

 

PTR

[FolignosJock]

Why is this thread pinned?

[X. Benedict]

Why is this thread pinned?

so the topic doesn't creep into every thread.

[deluca67]

So, you are insisting that:

 

1. The Kovy trade was a good move for NJ;

 

2. Roy is better than the #1 playoff scorer in the entire NHL over the last 6 years; and

 

3. Bowman was a good GM for the Sabres.

 

And I'm the one blowing smoke?

 

Here's another question: if you like players like Roy and Kovy who "put up numbers" but don't do anything in the playoffs or help their teams win, why don't you like the Sabres as currently constructed?

When have I ever said I was a Roy fan? I like the value you get from Roy at his current contract compared with his production. Briere has put up some pretty impressive numbers in the playoffs for Philly. He's not putting up the those same numbers with the Sabres over that time. The Sabres just didn't have the depth at center Philly did to allow Breire to settle into a lessor role.

 

How can anyone properly judge the job Bowman did here in Buffalo. He was only here for six years. Everyone knows it takes at least 14 years to properly judge a coach and GM. :doh:

 

Bowman is a great example for you and other members of Team Apathy. Even Hall of Fame coaches can be fired. Lindy is far from being a Hall of Fame coach, Lindy is no longer effective and has worn out his welcome

 

Getting a player like Kovi is a great move for any team. He is on his way to being one of the all-time great goal scorers in the league. He's making as much as Leino is this season. His cap hit over the length of the contract if far from prohibited to the Devils. I have no problems with one dimensional players as long as the one dimensional is exceptional. Kovi is an exceptional goal scorer. Kovi is the level of offensive player that many claimed Briere was.

[deluca67]

If you want the Sabres to be able to hire top-notch talent in the future, you can't come off looking impetuous by firing people you just extended. So like it or not Ruff is here to stay. Regier too. No one worth a damn is going to accept a position with an owner who says he wants you then fires you two months into a season. Argue all you want but the die was cast when Pegs gave Lindy and Darcy their deals.

 

PTR

It would better for Pegula to continue to allow apathy to spread among his customers?

 

The idea that firing Ruff and Regier would put off any potential candidates is one of the biggest jokes posted on this board in some time. Do you actually think potential candidates for one of 30 head coaching jobs and 30 GM jobs in the NHL are going to pass on it because Pegula fired Regier and/or Ruff mid-season?

 

If Pegula is the great businessman he should no that he who hesitates is lost. That throwing away another five months on the failed experiment known as Status Quo is simply bad business.