OT: Loyalty versus what may best for the team.

[deluca67]

We have seen it come up in the past with the Buffalo Sabres and we may possibly see it coming up this season with the Buffalo Bills. That is the idea of a starter losing their position to a backup who is playing better. We saw it last year with Enroth and Miller and there is a good chance we may see it this season with Fitzpatrick and Young. I am the of the mind set that you should always play those that are playing best. If Enroth is on a run, you play him until the run is over. If Vince Young comes in and outplays Fitzpatrick, Young should be named the starter. If Spiller is outplaying Jackson, you start Spiller. To me it seems like a no-brainer, you play your best. History will show that it is not always the case. That sometimes loyalty outweighs what is best for the team.

 

What are your thoughts the concept of loyalty vs. what may be best for the team.

 

And, just to get it out of the way, Lindy and Darcy suck and should be fired.

[2ForTripping]

I think loyalty is playing your best ,doing whats best for the organeyesation., the crest on the front not the name on the back. it is a business afterall and hasn't Pegs stated what the existence of this franchise is? Ice your best team ,,,let the egos pout

[Rox11]

Loyalty is nice but just have a group on the ice that is willing to give everything they got, every shift. I spent $175 on a Vanek shirt a few years back ... I hope he stays a Sabre, but I won't be too surprised if he's part of 'the business'.

I'm hoping for big things this off-season ... I've been hoping for more than 30 years ....

[nobody]

Team first - always.

 

No player, coach, GM or any other member of the organization should be more important than the team.

[bunomatic]

Team first - always.

 

No player, coach, GM or any other member of the organization should be more important than the team.

 

Agreed. No one including G.M, and coach.

[SwampD]

I think it's a tricky thing. Sometimes choosing a player over team can make the team better. In 2003, the Devils put Ken Daneyko on the ice for game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, even though he was well past his prime and had not played a minute of the finals to that point. He only got about 10 minutes of icetime but was out there when the final horn sounded. Even though there was someone better to put on the ice, they chose the player over the team and the team responded and it really worked for them.

[Hank]

<p>

<br />

We have seen it come up in the past with the Buffalo Sabres and we may possibly see it coming up this season with the Buffalo Bills. That is the idea of a starter losing their position to a backup who is playing better. We saw it last year with Enroth and Miller and there is a good chance we may see it this season with Fitzpatrick and Young. I am the of the mind set that you should always play those that are playing best. If Enroth is on a run, you play him until the run is over. If Vince Young comes in and outplays Fitzpatrick, Young should be named the starter. If Spiller is outplaying Jackson, you start Spiller. To me it seems like a no-brainer, you play your best. History will show that it is not always the case. That sometimes loyalty outweighs what is best for the team. <br />

<br />

What are your thoughts the concept of loyalty vs. what may be best for the team. <br />

<br />

And, just to get it out of the way, Lindy and Darcy suck and should be fired.<br />

<br />

<br />

</p>

 

I agree with you on riding the hot goalie, no matter who the two goalies are. I somewhat agree with running backs. Tate averaged 100+ yards the first three weeks of the season while Foster was out, but I don't think you stay with him when Foster comes back. If you use multiple backs like the giants do that you stick with the hot hand, but not if you have a feature back. I disagree on the QB. As far as loyalty goes, there should not be any, it's a business.

[deluca67]

I think it's a tricky thing. Sometimes choosing a player over team can make the team better. In 2003, the Devils put Ken Daneyko on the ice for game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, even though he was well past his prime and had not played a minute of the finals to that point. He only got about 10 minutes of icetime but was out there when the final horn sounded. Even though there was someone better to put on the ice, they chose the player over the team and the team responded and it really worked for them.

That reminds me of John McNamara keeping Bill Buckner on the field in Game 6 of 1986 World Series instead of using a defensive replacement late in the game as he had all season. I know there were other factors and a Game Seven left to be won, you can say McNamara's loyalty to Buckner cost the Red Sex the '86 World Series. If Dave Stapleton is on the field to make that play, the Series is over.

[ROC Sabres]

IMO loyalty works both ways. If you have a player that you want to be the best giving 1/2 of that then you need to make the change (as good as he may be that 1/2 of the time). If you have a player that gives his all day in,day out, you can't help but want to side with that player and give them every opportunity to show that you're right.

 

This is that intangible known as character that everyone loves to talk about.

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

 

And, just to get it out of the way, Lindy and Darcy suck and should be fired.

AHAHAHAHAHA! i laughed so hard! no lie! ahahahahaha

[fan2456]

Chan's offense, to date, is predicated on pre-snap reads and a quick delivery of the ball. That ain't Young's strong suit, imo. If he proves himself, fine but I'm not holding my breath.. Yes, loved Enroth in spring 2011, but Miller should have replaced him when healthy. Sorry. And, I'm not a HUGE Miller supporter. This Sabre's team has much bigger needs than goaltending. Small and/or soft. They have their GM's personality.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

I'm a loyalty guy.

 

I decide who i think is best.....and I roll with them 100%. You have to be willing to pay the piper if you are wrong though.

 

Sometimes you need to anticipate a decline from a sturdy player.

 

There is a fair amount of loyalty by the decision makers with the Sabres, and that's not a bad thing. They just have had way too much time to prove that they have no clue when it comes who they are being loyal to.

[qwksndmonster]

I hope Young plays well enough to put pressure on Fitz, but I'm not holding my breath for this one. Fitz is the best guy available right now, and the coach and team believe in him. I think this team can make the playoffs with Fitz.

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't think it's as simple as playing the best guy, because so much goes into who exactly is the best. Is it the most talented? Best intangibles? Playing the best at the moment? From a talent perspective, the Sabres should chase Semin hard this summer...but I personally think that would be a terrible idea based on intangibles. I also think that playing the hot hand until it goes cold is a short-sighted approach and not necessarily the best way to go over the long haul, particularly if it alienates some important vets in the locker room. And that's just it, sports aren't played on paper, and there's a lot that needs to go into decisions of who should player beyond who is hot at the moment.

[LastPommerFan]

I hate that Lindy is constantly moving guys up and down the lines rather than sticking with some semblance of consistency and loyalty, and frankly, I'm shock that you, Deluca, agree with Ruff's approach.

 

Football and Hockey require the coach to look at the entire team dynamic when making a change like that. Baseball, on the other hand, is pretty much just plug and play 9 (or 10 in the AL) guys into the lineup. With the exception of maybe the pitcher-catcher relationship, one spot in the lineup doesn't really affect the performance of the other 8 (or 9) guys.

 

The way you phrase your question is boring because of course you should always do what's "best for the team". I'd rather see it as, "would you let your players work through tough stretches, or replace them with whoever is playing well right now?"

[SwampD]

I don't think it's as simple as playing the best guy, because so much goes into who exactly is the best. Is it the most talented? Best intangibles? Playing the best at the moment? From a talent perspective, the Sabres should chase Semin hard this summer...but I personally think that would be a terrible idea based on intangibles. I also think that playing the hot hand until it goes cold is a short-sighted approach and not necessarily the best way to go over the long haul, particularly if it alienates some important vets in the locker room. And that's just it, sports aren't played on paper, and there's a lot that needs to go into decisions of who should player beyond who is hot at the moment.

Those same intangibles that has NJ in the ECFs?

 

We need to start another thread titled "Character and intangibles versus Talent". I personally would rather fail chasing talent, with the idea that you can coach character and intangibles, than chasing the other. The idea that you get good character guys and some talent that was never there before is going to magically blossom out of it is silly.

 

The upside, when it works, is greater when you go after talent, but, hey, there is just no place on the Sabres for a 40 goal scorer. ;)

[TrueBlueGED]

Those same intangibles that has NJ in the ECFs?

 

We need to start another thread titled "Character and intangibles versus Talent". I personally would rather fail chasing talent, with the idea that you can coach character and intangibles, than chasing the other. The idea that you get good character guys and some talent that was never there before is going to magically blossom out of it is silly.

 

The upside, when it works, is greater when you go after talent, but, hey, there is just no place on the Sabres for a 40 goal scorer. ;)

 

Semin is on the Devils? News to me. Let's not pretend Semin and Kovalchuk are the same player, or that the intangible concerns are the same. The concern about Kovalchuk wasn't effort as a whole, but rather defensive effort...do you want your franchise cornerstone for the next 15 years to be a completely 1-dimensional player? With Semin, the concern is will he ever give consistent effort. And for all the talk about how the Sabres are too soft and disappear in big moments, it's a bit humorous to see anybody advocating for Semin....who is the poster child for turning invisible when it counts. Not to mention his production is on a downward trend.

 

I agree with the rest of what you said though, sometimes you absolutely have to gamble on upside over intangibles. I just happen to think the place to do this is the draft, not free agency. While I'm wary of what I've read on Grigorenko, for instance, I think there's a difference between intangible concerns with an 18 year old kid because who knows what will happen as he matures. But with a 28 year old, 6 year vet? At some point we know that poor intangibles have a negative impact on tangible performance, because it's been proven over a career.

[SwampD]

Semin is on the Devils? News to me. Let's not pretend Semin and Kovalchuk are the same player, or that the intangible concerns are the same. The concern about Kovalchuk wasn't effort as a whole, but rather defensive effort...do you want your franchise cornerstone for the next 15 years to be a completely 1-dimensional player? With Semin, the concern is will he ever give consistent effort. And for all the talk about how the Sabres are too soft and disappear in big moments, it's a bit humorous to see anybody advocating for Semin....who is the poster child for turning invisible when it counts. Not to mention his production is on a downward trend.

 

I agree with the rest of what you said though, sometimes you absolutely have to gamble on upside over intangibles. I just happen to think the place to do this is the draft, not free agency. While I'm wary of what I've read on Grigorenko, for instance, I think there's a difference between intangible concerns with an 18 year old kid because who knows what will happen as he matures. But with a 28 year old, 6 year vet? At some point we know that poor intangibles have a negative impact on tangible performance, because it's been proven over a career.

It just seems like a Buffalo sports fan defense mechanism. After years of having no shot at getting good FAs, as soon as one becomes available, we are programmed to come up with all the reasons why they wouldn't work here.

[TrueBlueGED]

It just seems like a Buffalo sports fan defense mechanism. After years of having no shot at getting good FAs, as soon as one becomes available, we are programmed to come up with all the reasons why they wouldn't work here.

 

There's definitely some truth to that. With Kovalchuk in particular, everybody knew the Sabres didn't even have a shot, so I think some of the criticisms of the signing were defense mechanisms. Makes sense. On the flip side, now that the Sabres do have assets to acquire big names, I think there may be a tendency to want to chase after every big name who becomes available just because it was nothing but a pipe dream in the past. Along with the "if it doesn't work just bury the contract in Rochester" I think we're looking at classic overcompensation.

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

i think we should for sure keep D Roy...

[dEnnis the Menace]

We have seen it come up in the past with the Buffalo Sabres and we may possibly see it coming up this season with the Buffalo Bills. That is the idea of a starter losing their position to a backup who is playing better. We saw it last year with Enroth and Miller and there is a good chance we may see it this season with Fitzpatrick and Young. I am the of the mind set that you should always play those that are playing best. If Enroth is on a run, you play him until the run is over. If Vince Young comes in and outplays Fitzpatrick, Young should be named the starter. If Spiller is outplaying Jackson, you start Spiller. To me it seems like a no-brainer, you play your best. History will show that it is not always the case. That sometimes loyalty outweighs what is best for the team.

 

What are your thoughts the concept of loyalty vs. what may be best for the team.

 

And, just to get it out of the way, Lindy and Darcy suck and should be fired.

 

This is a good concept to discuss, as it's brought up a lot during the season. Good question.

 

I think there needs to be a balance between the two, as a few others were saying. Only playing the hot hand is definitely short sighted. You need to know when to fold the hand you've got, hot or not, and play another. I am a Miller fan, and during the season was advocating keeping him in, but looking back, there were a few games where having Enroth play would've been good just to (1) give Miller a rest and (2) because that level of play was not sustainable. In terms of the Bills, I really don't think Young will push Fitz too much, mostly because of the system that Gailey has in place. It's built around Fitz and his tendencies.

 

i think we should for sure keep D Roy...

 

only in a 3rd line capacity.