The Buffalo News' Agenda: Get Regier and Ruff Fired

[LastPommerFan]

I don't think I agree with this.

 

Hockey games can turn around in 2-3 shifts, simpy because the coach has access to his players non-stop throughout the game. The coach certainly has direct input, if he so chooses.

 

Soccer on the other hand, is something totally different, where the coach has half-time to make adjustments, and other than that he's limited to screaming at the closest guy from the sidelines.

 

I can't think of anything a "good coach" might say during the 2-3 minutes between shifts that would drastically change the course of the game, and he never talks to one of the 6 guys on the ice.

[Kristian]

I can't think of anything a "good coach" might say during the 2-3 minutes between shifts that would drastically change the course of the game, and he never talks to one of the 6 guys on the ice.

 

That's simply not true, I never went to a game where I could hear the bench, where the coach did not talk to the guys on the ice,

 

Maybe the game's coached differently where I'm at?

 

As to what he might say? Beats me, I'm not a coach.

[drnkirishone]

Hockey is much less system based and "plays" then football. Therefor the coaches do not have as big of a impact as their football counterparts. Honestly the biggest thing the coach has control over in hockey is simply who goes out the next shift. Whilest that is a fairly big impact thing just about every sport I can think of gives the coach that power

[RazielSabre]

I can't think of anything a "good coach" might say during the 2-3 minutes between shifts that would drastically change the course of the game, and he never talks to one of the 6 guys on the ice.

 

A good coach can work with his players to develop a system that wins, that communicates as a team and wins. You only have to look at the early 2000's Rangers vs today's Preds to see that.

[deluca67]

That isn't even remotely what I said. But go ahead, twist words to fit your crusade as per usual.

 

Edit: Oh, and I'll take the past 15 years of Sabres history over Bills history every single time. Championship? No. But to argue the two franchises' results are even slightly equivalent over the last 15 years is laughable.

No need to twist at all.

 

You said it, NO CHAMPIONSHIPS. As Metallica says "Nothing Else Matters." At the end of the day Status Quo has as much to show for their efforts as all the failed front office combinations the Bills have had over the past 15 years.

 

I can't think of anything a "good coach" might say during the 2-3 minutes between shifts that would drastically change the course of the game, and he never talks to one of the 6 guys on the ice.

You've never seen or heard a NHL head coach yell instructions to the players on the ice? :doh:

 

A "good coach" is all about communication. A "good coach" is continuously working the bench issuing instructions and critiques. The idea that coaches are useless behind the bench is one of the oddest points made in the ongoing Lindy Ruff debate.

[RazielSabre]

No need to twist at all.

 

You said it, NO CHAMPIONSHIPS. As Metallica says "Nothing Else Matters." At the end of the day Status Quo has as much to show for their efforts as all the failed front office combinations the Bills have had over the past 15 years.

 

 

You've never seen or heard a NHL head coach yell instructions to the players on the ice? :doh:

 

A "good coach" is all about communication. A "good coach" is continuously working the bench issuing instructions and critiques. The idea that coaches are useless behind the bench is one of the oddest points made in the ongoing Lindy Ruff debate.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of status quo, or the fact its not a pronoun.

 

I do agree with your summary of what a coach does though.

[LastPommerFan]

That's simply not true, I never went to a game where I could hear the bench, where the coach did not talk to the guys on the ice,

 

Maybe the game's coached differently where I'm at?

 

As to what he might say? Beats me, I'm not a coach.

You've never seen or heard a NHL head coach yell instructions to the players on the ice? :doh:

 

A "good coach" is all about communication. A "good coach" is continuously working the bench issuing instructions and critiques. The idea that coaches are useless behind the bench is one of the oddest points made in the ongoing Lindy Ruff debate.

 

Miscommunication. I was refering to the fact that the Coach rarely says anything to the goalie, hence he never talks to one of the players, he does talk to the others. I just don't think it matters that much. I think Bylsma and Quenneville are terrible coaches, but they have a cup a piece. I'm not arguing that the coach has no impact, just that it is nearly trivial. Thus my opinion that it doesn't matter if he stays or goes.

[Campy]

Hockey is much less system based and "plays" then football. Therefor the coaches do not have as big of a impact as their football counterparts. Honestly the biggest thing the coach has control over in hockey is simply who goes out the next shift. Whilest that is a fairly big impact thing just about every sport I can think of gives the coach that power

 

It may just be your choice of words... While I don't know you, I'm guessing you never played organized hockey? There are definite systems that are run. Each position has certain responsibilities - they have certain places they need to be. That's what their system tells them.

 

There are also set plays off the draw and and on the power play. In the offensive zone, have you noticed that some teams (or in some cases, some lines) like to cycle down low while others try to stretch the defense with a lot of play at the point and half wall? Sometimes, like football, it's because it's what the defense is giving you, but other times it's because each team and each line is running the systems their coaches told them would be best against that particular team because of their defensive system or because of certain guys the opponent has on the ice. It's not just 5 guys out there skating around trying to make something happen. Or at least it shouldn't be.

 

But if all you're saying is that they don't play for 3 seconds, take a break to have a coach call in the next play, and play for 3 more seconds, you're right. That's just one of the roughly 574 things that makes hockey better than football. :thumbsup:

[TrueBlueGED]

No need to twist at all.

 

You said it, NO CHAMPIONSHIPS. As Metallica says "Nothing Else Matters." At the end of the day Status Quo has as much to show for their efforts as all the failed front office combinations the Bills have had over the past 15 years.

 

 

You've never seen or heard a NHL head coach yell instructions to the players on the ice? :doh:

 

A "good coach" is all about communication. A "good coach" is continuously working the bench issuing instructions and critiques. The idea that coaches are useless behind the bench is one of the oddest points made in the ongoing Lindy Ruff debate.

 

In other words, every team should clean house approximately every 2-3 years. Yes, that's an effective model. Actually, why stop there? Why not just start contracting teams that can't win championships? Shouldn't hurt the sport if that's all that matters.

[RazielSabre]

No need to twist at all.

 

You said it, NO CHAMPIONSHIPS. As Metallica says "Nothing Else Matters." At the end of the day Status Quo has as much to show for their efforts as all the failed front office combinations the Bills have had over the past 15 years.

 

 

You've never seen or heard a NHL head coach yell instructions to the players on the ice? :doh:

 

A "good coach" is all about communication. A "good coach" is continuously working the bench issuing instructions and critiques. The idea that coaches are useless behind the bench is one of the oddest points made in the ongoing Lindy Ruff debate.

What you have to remember is that Metallica are money grabbing ######.

[frissonic]

So what does get these coaches their seemingly liftetime contracts anyway. If you look at the top four active coaches in terms of tenure you get:

-Greg Popovich (Spurs): multiple rings

-Lindy

-Trotz: 2 playoff series victories during his entire stay

-Andy Reid (Eagles): multiple playoffs games, one superbowl appearance

 

Then if you look at the names recently removed from that list you have:

-Tony LaRussa: two world series titles with the Cards, as well as his past history

-Jeff Fisher: already mentioned, one superbowl appearance

-Jerry Sloan (Jazz): no titles, one NBA title appearance... I don't watch baseketball so correct me if I'm wrong on that one

 

 

So there's not a whole lot of titles in that list yet these guys are holding their jobs. And a guy like LaRussa road his past success for years before he finally won something in St. Louis. If it's all about winning championships, why are these guys kept around?

 

Not nit-picking, but Sloan took the Jazz to two back-to-back NBA title runs, both of which they lost to the Bulls during their repeat-3peat rampage.

[shrader]

Not nit-picking, but Sloan took the Jazz to two back-to-back NBA title runs, both of which they lost to the Bulls during their repeat-3peat rampage.

 

Yeah, I had a feeling there was a second one in there, which is why I threw in that "correct me if I'm wrong". I don't follow the NBA at all. I'm just hoping I got Sloan's first name right.

[SwampD]

In other words, every team should clean house approximately every 2-3 years. Yes, that's an effective model. Actually, why stop there? Why not just start contracting teams that can't win championships? Shouldn't hurt the sport if that's all that matters.

Once every 15 years would be nice. ;)

[Sabre Dance]

In other words, every team should clean house approximately every 2-3 years. Yes, that's an effective model. Actually, why stop there? Why not just start contracting teams that can't win championships? Shouldn't hurt the sport if that's all that matters.

 

What you need to do is to look at coaches who DO have championships, see how long they were with their respective teams and use that number of seasons in your comparisons. Seriously, there is no magic formula - championship teams in any sport are the result of a "perfect storm". Your owner has to pick the right GM and scouting staff, who get you the right players and pick the right coach. The coach has to teach and motivate the players and give them the right "system". Finally, luck plays a large part. Injuries, schedules, who you play in the playoffs.... There are things a team can do to improve its odds of going deep into the playoffs, but no amount of money can guarantee success.

Coaches are like lawn mowers. I only ever HAD to replace one lawn mower in my life (I ran it without oil and the engine seized). The rest of the new mowers I bought were just because I wanted a new one. The old ones still started and ran fine and they still cut the grass to my specs. I just got tired of wheeling out the same dang mower every year. Maybe we have just seen enough of Ruff and want to see a different face behind the bench. His replacement may not do any better, and may even do worse...but at least he's new.

[TrueBlueGED]

Once every 15 years would be nice. ;)

 

It's that kind of thinking that gets married men in trouble :P

 

 

What you need to do is to look at coaches who DO have championships, see how long they were with their respective teams and use that number of seasons in your comparisons. Seriously, there is no magic formula - championship teams in any sport are the result of a "perfect storm". Your owner has to pick the right GM and scouting staff, who get you the right players and pick the right coach. The coach has to teach and motivate the players and give them the right "system". Finally, luck plays a large part. Injuries, schedules, who you play in the playoffs.... There are things a team can do to improve its odds of going deep into the playoffs, but no amount of money can guarantee success.

Coaches are like lawn mowers. I only ever HAD to replace one lawn mower in my life (I ran it without oil and the engine seized). The rest of the new mowers I bought were just because I wanted a new one. The old ones still started and ran fine and they still cut the grass to my specs. I just got tired of wheeling out the same dang mower every year. Maybe we have just seen enough of Ruff and want to see a different face behind the bench. His replacement may not do any better, and may even do worse...but at least he's new.

 

Which is fine, and people are entitled to that view. It's just not the approach I personally take to things--when I make changes it's for improvement, not just for a change. To stick with the lawnmower analogy, if I'm buying a new one when my old one still works, I'm not going to go from the one I own to another which is identical in every way just because it has a different name slapped on it, I'm going to get one that's bigger and has more power.

[shrader]

Which is fine, and people are entitled to that view. It's just not the approach I personally take to things--when I make changes it's for improvement, not just for a change. To stick with the lawnmower analogy, if I'm buying a new one when my old one still works, I'm not going to go from the one I own to another which is identical in every way just because it has a different name slapped on it, I'm going to get one that's bigger and has more power.

 

I wonder if St. Louis regrets giving Tony LaRussa 10 years before he actually won it all. This whole "winning coach" thing is entirely overrated. Take a look at the list of Stanley Cup winning coaches since 1980. You'll find three guys on that list that won more than once during their entire coaching career. Those three? Scotty Bowman, Al Arbour, and Glen Sather. So basically we've got a whole bunch of guys who go there once and then never got to the top of the mountain ever again. There is no mythical elite coach.

[nobody]

There is no mythical elite coach.

 

Not anymore. It is a crap shoot every year now.

[deluca67]

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of status quo, or the fact its not a pronoun.

 

I do agree with your summary of what a coach does though.

Words can have more than one meaning or use.

 

Miscommunication. I was refering to the fact that the Coach rarely says anything to the goalie, hence he never talks to one of the players, he does talk to the others. I just don't think it matters that much. I think Bylsma and Quenneville are terrible coaches, but they have a cup a piece. I'm not arguing that the coach has no impact, just that it is nearly trivial. Thus my opinion that it doesn't matter if he stays or goes.

Coaches send messages to goalies all the time, usually through defensemen.

 

In other words, every team should clean house approximately every 2-3 years. Yes, that's an effective model. Actually, why stop there? Why not just start contracting teams that can't win championships? Shouldn't hurt the sport if that's all that matters.

Teams should change when things are not working or stagnate. Here in Buffalo we have both. Keeping a coach around that is incapable of getting the job done is foolish even if you end up changing coaches every 2-3 years. Just because the Bills have burned through a lot of coaches doesn't mean Wade Phillips is a good head coach and the Bills should have kept him for the sake on continuity.

[drnkirishone]

It may just be your choice of words... While I don't know you, I'm guessing you never played organized hockey? There are definite systems that are run. Each position has certain responsibilities - they have certain places they need to be. That's what their system tells them.

 

There are also set plays off the draw and and on the power play. In the offensive zone, have you noticed that some teams (or in some cases, some lines) like to cycle down low while others try to stretch the defense with a lot of play at the point and half wall? Sometimes, like football, it's because it's what the defense is giving you, but other times it's because each team and each line is running the systems their coaches told them would be best against that particular team because of their defensive system or because of certain guys the opponent has on the ice. It's not just 5 guys out there skating around trying to make something happen. Or at least it shouldn't be.

 

But if all you're saying is that they don't play for 3 seconds, take a break to have a coach call in the next play, and play for 3 more seconds, you're right. That's just one of the roughly 574 things that makes hockey better than football. :thumbsup:

 

Since you want to question my hockey background. No your wrong I played lots of organized hockey at a few different levels growing up. I will even give you a quick cheap example of hockey being less system based. In NHL12 there is only 5 different forecheck systems to pick yet in Madden there is more premade offensive playbooks then that. In nhl12 there is only 3 defensive systems to pick from yet again there is more premade playbooks for defense.

 

Yes I am aware these are simply games and that they have very very different sized budgets to make them and that neither one completly represents the X's and O's of the sport they are simulating. But it still shows that hockey is more about the players and there skill then it is about any "system". I would even argue the hockey coach doesn't so much install a system the way his counterpart does in football, so much as he installs a philosophy of what his team needs to do

[deluca67]

Since you want to question my hockey background. No your wrong I played lots of organized hockey at a few different levels growing up. I will even give you a quick cheap example of hockey being less system based. In NHL12 there is only 5 different forecheck systems to pick yet in Madden there is more premade offensive playbooks then that. In nhl12 there is only 3 defensive systems to pick from yet again there is more premade playbooks for defense.

 

Yes I am aware these are simply games and that they have very very different sized budgets to make them and that neither one completly represents the X's and O's of the sport they are simulating. But it still shows that hockey is more about the players and there skill then it is about any "system". I would even argue the hockey coach doesn't so much install a system the way his counterpart does in football, so much as he installs a philosophy of what his team needs to do

Football and Hockey are bad comparisons because of the basic designs of the games. Football is more like baseball in that regards, innings = possessions and downs = outs. Hockey is more like basketball in design due to the more free flowing nature of the game. In hockey, like basketball, there are many plays designed for specific situations and may often involve only a portion of the players on the ice. That's were the "system" comes in. Trying to think of it in a football sense really doesn't work.

[Andrew Amerk]

Lindy Ruff was hired to do something.

 

He hasnt done it in 15 YEARS.

 

How many of us would remain at our jobs that long with a similar track record?

[LastPommerFan]

Lindy Ruff was hired to do something.

 

He hasnt done it in 15 YEARS.

 

How many of us would remain at our jobs that long with a similar track record?

 

Lindy Ruff was not hired to win the Stanley Cup. Why would you hire a first time head coach with that in mind. Lindy was a replacement for a fired coach and was expected to keep away form the star goalie's wife, keep the team relevant and keep butts in the seats. He's done very well at all three, I think, I'll have to follow up with Noureen.

[RazielSabre]

Lindy Ruff was hired to do something.

 

He hasnt done it in 15 YEARS.

 

How many of us would remain at our jobs that long with a similar track record?

Most of us, including governments who we vote for and CEO's of every major corporation. Also as LPF said he was hired to be a better than the fired coach for the organisation. His not a bad coach but his got a huge amount to prove this coming season.

 

Ah, also remember that the ownership has changed several times and new ownership are more likely to keep whats in place than change as they want to cause minimal disruption.

[deluca67]

Lindy Ruff was not hired to win the Stanley Cup. Why would you hire a first time head coach with that in mind. Lindy was a replacement for a fired coach and was expected to keep away form the star goalie's wife, keep the team relevant and keep butts in the seats. He's done very well at all three, I think, I'll have to follow up with Noureen.

Four playoffs in ten seasons is keeping the team relevant? Also, fans don't buy tickets because Lindy Ruff is head coach. :doh:

[fan2456]

 

 

Lindy Ruff was not hired to win the Stanley Cup. Why would you hire a first time head coach with that in mind. Lindy was a replacement for a fired coach and was expected to keep away form the star goalie's wife, keep the team relevant and keep butts in the seats. He's done very well at all three, I think, I'll have to follow up with Noureen.

I hope to God no one hires a coach without winning a cup in mind. LPF, I know you are a Ruff guy, but that rebuttal was sketchy. I respect most of your comments. So, by your own arguement, he was a stop gap while we looked for a competant coach? There were years during his tenure when the place wasn't filled. Likewise, we haven't been relevant for much of his tenure.