SarasotaSabre Posted February 7, 2012 Report Posted February 7, 2012 I have been a member since 2007 and although I am not a volume poster, something has been giving me pause lately. I have noticed on numerous threads, and specifically a current one entitled "L-E-I-N-O- Your perspective", an abundance of mostly negative references to "Ruff's system". This reference is used most often when explaining certain players' lack of offensive production, albeit without any real analysis of why/how this "system" is apparently so stifling. Can someone with a technical/analytical background in hockey explain HOW exactly Ruff's system has a negative impact on offensive production? is it anything more than an emphasis on forwards playing responsibly both ways? I am often challenged to understand how this system is so stifling, for example, when I see d-men pinching or leading the rush on occasion. I ask this question because I see the references to the Sabres' lack of goal scoring and/or individual players' being "stifled in Ruff's system", with an ad nauseum emphasis on this system. I'd like to be educated if someone can explain this to me, because quite frankly I see it as an overused term.....
dEnnis the Menace Posted February 7, 2012 Report Posted February 7, 2012 See: Do You Know Ruff's System? Search function :angel:
SarasotaSabre Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Posted February 7, 2012 See: Do You Know Ruff's System? Search function :angel: shame on me for not knowing the search function with the emoticon as a point of emphasis .....
korab rules Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 See: Do You Know Ruff's System? Search function :angel: Not for nothing, but that thread does almost nothing to answer his question.
SarasotaSabre Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Posted February 8, 2012 Not for nothing, but that thread does almost nothing to answer his question. Thanks Korab, I think you are correct .... After I read the link Dennis the Menace provided, it is clear to me my question about Ruff's system was not at all answered in that thread in the context of how I proposed the subject: how Lindy's system negatively impacts scoring/productivity. All 5 pages of Dennis's link were discussions almost entirely on positioning, hitting, toughness, # of checks, finesse vs. grit, inflexibility, etc.....nothing to do specifically with how the system stifles scoring - which, at the core of my OP, is what I see most people I see here bitching about.
Robviously Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 See: Do You Know Ruff's System? Search function :angel: Do we really need to use the search function before any of us tries to start a new thread? Sometimes I don't read the board for a week or two and I definitely don't read through every thread that was started while I was gone. And I sure as hell don't use the search function to see what everyone's been saying.
SarasotaSabre Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Posted February 8, 2012 Do we really need to use the search function before any of us tries to start a new thread? Sometimes I don't read the board for a week or two and I definitely don't read through every thread that was started while I was gone. And I sure as hell don't use the search function to see what everyone's been saying. agreed......
TheChimp Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Not for nothing, but that thread does almost nothing to answer his question. Get a room. :ph34r:
drnkirishone Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 I may be in the minority in thinking this, but Lindy has changed his systems alot over the years to work with the roster and the changes in the game. The only thing I can consider to be the same from the Hasek o rama days (aka put unskilled players out and pray method) to this season is the way the team collapes to the net and high slot in their own zone when at even strength. Lindy has also been adamant in all forwards need to play a 2 way game, but he has made exceptions or at the very least tolerated some players selling out defensivly over the years
billsrcursed Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 I feel like I keep posting this, but I don't see how Ruff's system is the cause of most of the play we've seen this year. If Roy/Stafford go on to another team and light it up, then I'll buy in to this theory. Until then, I'll continue to believe some of these guys are locker room cancers with sub-par NHL talent/heart and are holding the rest of the team hostage. There are things I don't like about Ruff's approach to coaching, and I do think a coaching change is probably necessary, but not because of his "systems".
dEnnis the Menace Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Do we really need to use the search function before any of us tries to start a new thread? Sometimes I don't read the board for a week or two and I definitely don't read through every thread that was started while I was gone. And I sure as hell don't use the search function to see what everyone's been saying. I don't really care what you do. I had just been reading the other thread when I saw this one pop up, so I linked to it. Thanks Korab, I think you are correct .... After I read the link Dennis the Menace provided, it is clear to me my question about Ruff's system was not at all answered in that thread in the context of how I proposed the subject: how Lindy's system negatively impacts scoring/productivity. All 5 pages of Dennis's link were discussions almost entirely on positioning, hitting, toughness, # of checks, finesse vs. grit, inflexibility, etc.....nothing to do specifically with how the system stifles scoring - which, at the core of my OP, is what I see most people I see here bitching about. see above in regards to why I linked to it. I didn't read the entirity of your original post...my bad I may be in the minority in thinking this, but Lindy has changed his systems alot over the years to work with the roster and the changes in the game. The only thing I can consider to be the same from the Hasek o rama days (aka put unskilled players out and pray method) to this season is the way the team collapes to the net and high slot in their own zone when at even strength. Lindy has also been adamant in all forwards need to play a 2 way game, but he has made exceptions or at the very least tolerated some players selling out defensivly over the years you're not in the minority. I posted a link to a die by the blade fanpost regarding the change of Lindy's system over the years, and actually got into an argument with someone over the summer about how he's changed his system. Pre lockout Lindy's teams were very defensive oriented, with top 5/10 defenses every year. But then again, he had Hasek, and great defensive minded players (including forwards). After the lock out, and with the change to the rules, Lindy changed to a very offensive minded system where the D pinches more, and is WAY more involved, even leading the rush. Lindy's teams for he first few years were top 10 offenses, and Miller would stop enough shots that we would win. IMO, Ruff needs to rethink his system to a more balanced style of play (kind of what he's done the last few games). We might not be scoring 4,5,6 goals/game, but if we're more balanced, I think we can pull off more wins in those 3-2, 2-1 style games. The problem at the beginning of the season up until a few weeks ago was our defense was HORRIFIC! They've finally tightened up, and i think that'll make all the difference moving forward.
LTS Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 I have been a member since 2007 and although I am not a volume poster, something has been giving me pause lately. I have noticed on numerous threads, and specifically a current one entitled "L-E-I-N-O- Your perspective", an abundance of mostly negative references to "Ruff's system". This reference is used most often when explaining certain players' lack of offensive production, albeit without any real analysis of why/how this "system" is apparently so stifling. Can someone with a technical/analytical background in hockey explain HOW exactly Ruff's system has a negative impact on offensive production? is it anything more than an emphasis on forwards playing responsibly both ways? I am often challenged to understand how this system is so stifling, for example, when I see d-men pinching or leading the rush on occasion. I ask this question because I see the references to the Sabres' lack of goal scoring and/or individual players' being "stifled in Ruff's system", with an ad nauseum emphasis on this system. I'd like to be educated if someone can explain this to me, because quite frankly I see it as an overused term..... I would say that any system that is not designed to shut down the other team would not be specifically designed to reduce scoring. Lindy's system is based on a 4-5 man rush up the ice with short, accurate passes. it may not be as offensive minded as other systems that use more long passes up the ice in an attempt to stretch the defensive coverage but it's not the trap either. The reason his system would be a negative on offensive production would be that the players cannot play the system he has. So, if he does not alter things then you end up with problems. It's like trying to be a run first football team with the running backs the Patriots have.. it won't work and if you don't change you will lose. The problem with this year's team is that there is a lack of sustained pressure in the offensive zone and they've struggled to beat the 2-1-2 forecheck employed by other teams. (Well, one problem anyway). It appears to me that guys are 3-5 feet out of position almost constantly and that their coverage angles are poor. In other words, they are slow to the puck and continually chasing other teams. Part of this is due to the collapsing defensive zone coverage which allows entry (far too easily) and then pulls forwards down very low allowing a lot of open ice at the top of the circles. This leads to the opponent using their point men effectively and also opens up the slot attack when the forward responsible is either pulled out of position or becomes too focused on the puck. In addition, because they've played so poorly defensively and because they've pushed hard offensively I see the Sabres point men leaving the line early in an attempt to reduce odd man rushes. This allows teams to leave the zone easier. You can go on and on but in the end it has to do with puck possession and the Sabres haven't done much of it. They've been horrendous in passing all year and if I didn't know better I would say the Sabres sticks have blades that are 1-2 inches shorter than regulation given how often the puck just gets away from them. Hope that helps. I feel like I keep posting this, but I don't see how Ruff's system is the cause of most of the play we've seen this year. If Roy/Stafford go on to another team and light it up, then I'll buy in to this theory. Until then, I'll continue to believe some of these guys are locker room cancers with sub-par NHL talent/heart and are holding the rest of the team hostage. There are things I don't like about Ruff's approach to coaching, and I do think a coaching change is probably necessary, but not because of his "systems". Exactly. Other than Briere.. who was scoring just fine here as well, I am struggling to think of a player who left the Sabres who actually IMPROVED his game. A cursory look shows me: Lydman - I hear his name in trade talks Tallinder - out injured (we know how that works) Paille - same player Campbell - finally playing like he did when he was in Buffalo Connolly - injured, avg. scoring, same player even surrounded with better talent Afinogenov - nothing Paetsch - still in the AHL MacArthur - I don't think he's changed much.. Kotalik - yep, see above Kalinin - see above Drury - stayed the same and degraded over time I hate to think I am missing someone and if someone can recall one I'd love to hear it.. but I can't recall a player being better after leaving the Sabres.
spndnchz Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 I would say that any system that is not designed to shut down the other team would not be specifically designed to reduce scoring. Lindy's system is based on a 4-5 man rush up the ice with short, accurate passes. it may not be as offensive minded as other systems that use more long passes up the ice in an attempt to stretch the defensive coverage but it's not the trap either. The reason his system would be a negative on offensive production would be that the players cannot play the system he has. So, if he does not alter things then you end up with problems. It's like trying to be a run first football team with the running backs the Patriots have.. it won't work and if you don't change you will lose. The problem with this year's team is that there is a lack of sustained pressure in the offensive zone and they've struggled to beat the 2-1-2 forecheck employed by other teams. (Well, one problem anyway). It appears to me that guys are 3-5 feet out of position almost constantly and that their coverage angles are poor. In other words, they are slow to the puck and continually chasing other teams. Part of this is due to the collapsing defensive zone coverage which allows entry (far too easily) and then pulls forwards down very low allowing a lot of open ice at the top of the circles. This leads to the opponent using their point men effectively and also opens up the slot attack when the forward responsible is either pulled out of position or becomes too focused on the puck. In addition, because they've played so poorly defensively and because they've pushed hard offensively I see the Sabres point men leaving the line early in an attempt to reduce odd man rushes. This allows teams to leave the zone easier. You can go on and on but in the end it has to do with puck possession and the Sabres haven't done much of it. They've been horrendous in passing all year and if I didn't know better I would say the Sabres sticks have blades that are 1-2 inches shorter than regulation given how often the puck just gets away from them. Hope that helps. Exactly. Other than Briere.. who was scoring just fine here as well, I am struggling to think of a player who left the Sabres who actually IMPROVED his game. A cursory look shows me: Lydman - I hear his name in trade talks Tallinder - out injured (we know how that works) Paille - same player Campbell - finally playing like he did when he was in Buffalo Connolly - injured, avg. scoring, same player even surrounded with better talent Afinogenov - nothing Paetsch - still in the AHL MacArthur - I don't think he's changed much.. Kotalik - yep, see above Kalinin - see above Drury - stayed the same and degraded over time I hate to think I am missing someone and if someone can recall one I'd love to hear it.. but I can't recall a player being better after leaving the Sabres. Dumont
Who Else? Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Ask Drury and Kotalik how Lindy's "system stiffled their scoring.
shrader Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 macArthur, Pyatt Are you still beating that Taylor Pyatt drum because if those are the numbers you're going to base anything off of, you're better off focusing on some other conspiracy instead. Two positive seasons and then the rest are nearly identical to his Buffalo years.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Are you still beating that Taylor Pyatt drum because if those are the numbers you're going to base anything off of, you're better off focusing on some other conspiracy instead. Two positive seasons and then the rest are nearly identical to his Buffalo years. Name 1 forward the Sabres have had since who can score 15-20 goals on a regular basis and lead the team in hits?
spndnchz Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Name 1 forward the Sabres have had since who can score 15-20 goals on a regular basis and lead the team in hits? When did Pyatt lead the team in hits?
shrader Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Name 1 forward the Sabres have had since who can score 15-20 goals on a regular basis and lead the team in hits? Averaging 0.36 points per game while he was in Buffalo. 0.37 points per game after he left. If this is the case you want to base the "Lindy is holding guys back" crusade against, feel free. Edit: And note, those stats may not be accurate up to today. I pulled them off of hockeydatabase and it's possible they don't have every single game from this season updated yet.
darksabre Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Do we really need to use the search function before any of us tries to start a new thread? Sometimes I don't read the board for a week or two and I definitely don't read through every thread that was started while I was gone. And I sure as hell don't use the search function to see what everyone's been saying. Lazy.
korab rules Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 macArthur, Pyatt Going here again? We covered this 11 months ago. Here was your post: Let's break this down.... Who has left over the past 5 years? Help me if I miss some. Dumont, McKee, Grier, Pyatt, Fitzpatrick, Zubrus, Briere, Drury, Campbell, Afinigenov, Kotalik, Kalinin, Paetch, Spacek, Bernier, Paille, MacArthur, Torres, Moore, Lydman, Tallinder, Biron, Kennedy. Let's break it down by group. Push = played same after leaving lindy, Better = played better leaving Lindy, Worse = played worse after leaving lindy. Established Vets from out of system: Grier - Brought in for defense and leadership, did his job, left because organizational non-commitment, went on to play similar role elsewhere, PUSH Fitzpatrick - Steady 6/7 in Buffalo after being typical journeyman. Left Buffalo and became All-star starter (haha!). In reality, another PUSH Zubrus - Rental who played Lindy's system ok. Went on to play similar 3rd line roles elsewhere. PUSH Spacek - Was an established 2/3 d-man coming in. Played fairly well but sometimes disinterested. Left and has played similar if not better at an advanced age P/B Torres - Was confused by Lindy's system. Totally worthless and relegated to pressbox in weeks. Left and has played decent on a top 5 team. Better Moore - See Torres. Took a bit but regained some of his mojo. Push/Slightly better Established vets in system, or in system from pre-prime of career: Dumont - Played well and was a top 6. Was let go for 2.5mil, then went on to become a leader on a rejuvinated Nashville, getting 4mil per. Better McKee - Started young and progressed well. Left and didn't have same success. Worse Briere - Came over struggling and turned into 1A center. Let go @5 mil, continued his success and cashed in while on a Stanley Cup team. Push/Better Drury - Was established and seemed to thrive in system. Left for payday and hit the wall. Worse Campbell - New rules made him an asset. Developed slowly but surely. Left and didn't improve. Push/Worse Afinogenov - Much promise but stagnant in Buffalo. Left and had some success but never developed to potential. Push/Slightly worse Kotalik - Had potential to develop into power forward. Mainly Pp and shootout specialist who upped grit in playoffs. Left and stagnated. Push/worse Kalinin - Tons of potential but never developed nasty side. Left and was role player but never progressed. Push/worse Lydman - Played steady. Nothing great, nothing horrible. Left and is defensive shutdown and top +/-. Better Tallinder - Never progressed at great speed. Left and was lost on flailing team until recently. Push/TBD Biron - OK. Steady lockeroom presence. Left and did fairly well in 1A gig, but didn't thrive. Better backup than ever replaced with. Push Young guys when leaving system: Pyatt - Frustraiting lack of physical play. Light went on in '06 playoffs. Let go and has turned into steady 2 way player. Never a minus and leads Phoenix in goals and consistantly top few in hits. Much Better Paetch - Extra body pretty much everywhere. Push Bernier - Showed flashes but was outcast in 2 weeks. Played fairly well in vancouver but faded in Fla. Slightly better Paille - Became outcast in Buffalo slowly. Turned into nice 3/4 liner for Boston playoff team and has subsided. Push MacArthur - Gritty and inconsistant. Dealt before arbitration could hit. Thriving as top forward and Toronto turned down 1st and 3rd for him. Much better Kennedy - Extra body pushed into duty on young team. Seemed to progress but let go. Steady player used as extra body elsewhere. Push/TBD I think this is a pretty fair assesment. What seems to be the trend is that Rentals haven't fared well in Buffalo, but they haven't thrived much more anywhere else. More a sign of poor talent assesment from up top. Established vets seem to come in and play par for the course, and move on with no real acceleration or depreciation elsewhere. Can't praise or fault here. Vets that developed in Buffalo....here is the most ambiguous data. On one hand you can argue that for the most part these players did the same or worse once leaving Buffalo, but on the other hand you can argue that they spent so much time in the system that they were damaged goods when leaving. There was a lot of young potential there at one time with the majority never fulfilling both their expectations or contracts. It seems that guys that were always Buffalo property totally fizzle out, but young guys that were brought in before their prime and then left either outplayed their time in Buffalo, or didn't regress, Drury being the exception. Young players....here is the most damning data. Out of the 6 young guys let go, 4 didn't really matter, but 2 were obvious mistakes or were used the wrong way in Buffalo. Their value to current teams is much higher. While it isn't a huge sample, 33% burning you in the butt is not a great record. It really looks like if you are a good player with your skills already developed, Lindy and the Sabres don't really help or hurt much. If you are a young player in the system, either you progress elsewhere or are so burnt out by your extended stay in Buffalo that you never reach your potential. Other than Campbell....can you find a homegrown player that fully developed while in Buffalo and maintained a healthy level of play elsewhere? Lots of busts in my opinion. Here was mine proving you wrong. Wow - good work, a lot to wade through, but a lot of stretching to make your point. Fitz a push? In the 5 seasons since he left Buffalo he has played 77 games in the NHL. 59 of them were in Vancouver in the first season post buffalo. He is now out of hockey. Be fore Buffalo, he played 2 games in the NHL. Spacek - playing better? based on what? he's a straight push. Moore and Zubrus (and other rentals) - as others have said, rentals can't fairly be included in this. Dumont - as NFreeman said, I think you can credit his numbers in Nashville with what he learned here - he came here as a 22 year old kid, and other than Briere, was the biggest fish that got away during a very poor period of decision making by this franchise. Briere is a push, as NFreeman has stated. Afinogenov a push? After accepting a tryout contract for the league minimum because NO ONE would offer him a regular contract he had one season that matched his second best season with Buffalo. He is now in the KHL. Kotalik a push? Ruff got him a ridiculous contract that noo one wants and he recently went unclaimed through waivers and re-entry waivers. No one wants him at even half the contract ruff got for him. Kalininan a push? He spent one year in the NHL split between NY and Phoenix and is now in the KHL. Lydman was great here, should have been resigned, I will give you a push/better on this one. Tallinder is TBD, but it didn't start out very well. Where on earth are you coming up with Tallinder as a Norris Candidate? Until being paired with the natural, he hadn't done a damn thing since breaking his arm. The first time. Pyatt - you and your uncle just can't get over his eyes, can you? He had one good season where he played with the sedin twins for most of the year. BFD. Other than that he has been a journeyman 3rd liner. Paetch was nothing before he got here, and left as the chief SGM in chz's photo. That's not a push, its a tug. Bernier falls in with the other rentals, but this is a huge stretch to say he is playing better. He was just waived. Again. The guy just doesn't give a ######. At least ruff got one good game out of him. Paille's a push, Kennedy's TBD, but the fact he can't sniff an NHL player's jock at this point speaks volumes. Mac is Mac - he's not doing anything differently than he did here, but he is doing it with more ice time. He's a frustrating player, soft, undersized and not very responsible defensively, but he manages to score goals regularly. The problem is his stats say he is worth more than his play, which is why he can't stick with a team. So your indictment of Ruff as a coach is that two guys who left here (Mac and Pyatt)are doing as well as they did while here, or maybe a little better than they did while they were here? Your characterization of them as obvious mistakes is a bit of an exaggeration, in fact, they may have been calculated decisions (see below). As you note, the six guys who left is a pretty small sample size. You mentioned going back to the pre-lockout days, and that would seem appropriate. Lets add in Sabres roster stalwarts from that era who did nothing once they left like holzinger, curtis brown, grosek, Satan, Varada, Dixon Ward, Rasmussen, Denis Hamel, Dominic Pittis, Norm Milley, Milan Bartovic, Derek Plante, Darryl Shannon and Mike wilson. That will give us a larger sample size to work with, making the result statistically significant. This conversation grew out of a premise that Ruff did a good job maximizing the play of the players he was given to coach. Because of cash flow problems and financial mandates, he and Regier didn't have any choice but to use the assets within the organization, because assets from outside the organization cost too much money unless Regier could steal them. When Ruff did too good a job of developing those assets they could price themselves right out of Buffalo, as it was cheaper to fill those positions with younger, cheaper players than try to re-sign those players with the limited dollars available. From that perspective, it makes it difficult to fault Ruff for young players who did well who the organization chose not to keep. Dumont, Briere, Drury, Campbell and to a leeser extent even precious Taylor Pyatt) are such internal cap casualties. Players like this leaving the organization would be a result of financial mandates, not poor decision making. And when those players are still young (like your beloved Pyatt and even Macarthur) we should expect that they would improve as they mature and reach their prime. From that perspective, a young player that leaves and fails to improve could be considered a Ruff success. There is a new Sheriff in own, and this sheriff has deep pockets. It will be really interesting to see whether Regier can adjust to the LACK of financial constraints and do what makes the team best. Is regier a tightwad by nature or was it simply forced on him? Time will tell, but I think he may have a hard time adjusting after 14 years of financial responsibility being jammed down his throat.
dEnnis the Menace Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Wow Korab, I'm quite impressed. I think Chz's response says it all...
darksabre Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Wow Korab, I'm quite impressed. I think Chz's response says it all... Also, an excellent use of the search function.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.