Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So Rolston was 6-4 in shootouts, and 1-1 in OT.

 

His record was 1 point out of the playoffs in an 82 game season.

 

With this roster....I will take a coinflip of getting into the playoffs and a coinflip of winning the game once in OT in the playoffs.

 

Considering the previous crew missed 7 of the past 11......Rolston deserves tons of credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Or, we know that being dead last in possession isn't a recipe for sustained success. Dead. Last.

 

You need to read up......Rope-a-dope....Tampa 2 defense.....the 1992 Atlanta Braves....Giacomo.....NJ Devils circa 2000....Butler vs. Duke.....etc..etc..etc..

 

You identify you weaknesses and protect them. You identify your strengths and lean on them. You exploit the weakness in your opponent and the rules.

 

That's what Rolston did.

Posted

You need to read up......Rope-a-dope....Tampa 2 defense.....the 1992 Atlanta Braves....Giacomo.....NJ Devils circa 2000....Butler vs. Duke.....etc..etc..etc..

 

You identify you weaknesses and protect them. You identify your strengths and lean on them. You exploit the weakness in your opponent and the rules.

 

That's what Rolston did.

 

So basically, you've got nothing. Boxing? When the Sabres have the talent equivalent of Muhammad Ali, maybe I'll pay the slightest attention to that example. Tampa 2 defense? How many Super Bowls? I count the Bucs, that's it. Maybe you want to count the Colts, but I'm going to go with Peyton Manning > Rex Grossman on that one. In fact, I think Tampa 2 teams have traditionally struggled in the playoffs. Baseball...seriously? The least comparable sport of them all! Giacomo is supposedly a pretty nice hotel. The dead puck era Devils, congrats on one real comparable. How about this: this year 3/4 conference finals teams were top-5 possession teams. The one that wasn't? They got swept.

 

I don't think anybody is going to argue with the latter part of your post...hell, I've stated several times I think Rolston did what he had to do with the roster he was given. Doesn't mean I think that's a good strategy to employ once your team has a better roster. Every Cup champ since the last lockout has been at least average in possession, with the majority being upper echelon possession teams.

Posted

No, I do think that his record (at least, how it really matters) wasn't significantly better, and only looked that way because of the stupid point system in the NHL that has nothing to do with the post season. Good for him that he exploited that system, but as I said, it's a recipe for the worst possible finish. In other words, it was bad for the Sabres in the long run. If they had kept up Lindy's pace, they would have drafted in the top 5, if not top 3. Some players did perform better, but as others have pointed out, the best predictive statistics (puck possession) for success show that as a team, they weren't much better.

:blink:

 

Um, that's the point system they use.

Posted (edited)

:blink:

 

Um, that's the point system they use.

 

Yeah, but if you rely on the stupid part ("loser points") to get a big portion of your points, then when it comes to the post season, where that all goes away, you won't do well. The point is that just making the playoffs is no longer a major goal; winning the Cup is. So, playing a style that covers for deficiencies and, at best, allows them to squeak into and subsequently make an early departure from the playoffs, does not help, but rather hinders achieving the real goal. It perpetuates a cycle that they've been stuck in for six seasons: barely make/miss the playoffs, exiting early if they make it, and then drafting middling talent. I'd rather that they play a style that will allow them to win if they have a contending team, but reveals holes if they don't.

Edited by carpandean
Posted

Yeah, but if you rely on the stupid part ("loser points") to get a big portion of your points, then when it comes to the post season, where that all goes away, you won't do well. The point is that just making the playoffs is no longer a major goal; winning the Cup is. So, playing a style that covers for deficiencies and, at best, allows them to squeak into and subsequently make an early departure from the playoffs, does not help, but rather hinders achieving the real goal. It perpetuates a cycle that they've been stuck in for six seasons: barely make/miss the playoffs, exiting early if they make it, and then drafting middling talent. I'd rather that they play a style that will allow them to win if they have a contending team, but reveals holes if they don't.

Rolston was 1-1 in OT and 6-4 in the shootout. He was 8-11 in regulation. And the Sabres have been playing that style the past 16 years........their holes have been revealed and only 50% have been potentially plugged. For every 1 year of Chicago or Pittsburgh winning the Cup by getting multiple top draft picks.....there is 10 years of the Florida Panthers....or 6 years of the Edmonton Oilers....or 10 years of the NY Islanders....or 7 years of the Columbus Blue Jackets....or 10 years of the Atlanta Thrashers/ Winnipeg Jets..........How are those 35 top 10 picks doing for them????

Posted

 

Rolston was 1-1 in OT and 6-4 in the shootout. He was 8-11 in regulation. And the Sabres have been playing that style the past 16 years........their holes have been revealed and only 50% have been potentially plugged. For every 1 year of Chicago or Pittsburgh winning the Cup by getting multiple top draft picks.....there is 10 years of the Florida Panthers....or 6 years of the Edmonton Oilers....or 10 years of the NY Islanders....or 7 years of the Columbus Blue Jackets....or 10 years of the Atlanta Thrashers/ Winnipeg Jets..........How are those 35 top 10 picks doing for them????

 

I like this post. High picks does not guarantee anything.

 

You need to be able to develop them in high quality players build the team around and need a good portion of luck to win the.stanley Cup.

 

I think the Nhl is working currently in two steps.

 

Step one: clinch a playoff spot in a very lomg 82 games season. For this you have to manage your energy, injuries, callups etc well.

 

Step two: Play good playoff hockey and make a deep run. Playoff hockey is different, it is harder, much more intense, a kind of attricion war, where you have to manage carefully your possible step ins if player get injured ( what is normal). Basically it is a total different game, because you need a team to be able to focus on important games, a team which is able to put in a higher gear on command, because in the playoffs you need this additional power.

 

Because of this i am not a fan of a complete rebuild from scratch. You need to get into the playoffs and show if Ou are able to play the second kind of hockey. During a rebuild you probably won't see playoff hockey in the beginning, but you really need to train the rookies how to play it early.

 

You need a core team in which you trust and build around it. If it does not work change the bad parts of the core and add new parts. When you have an expceptional scorer like Vanek, who also scores in the playoffs, i would not trade him if i am able to sign him instead. Miller can be traded, because good goaltenders can be found more often. Elite goaltenders not, but unfortunately he only showed us one elite season.

 

But now i am going away from my reply. I hope it is understandable what i wanted to write.

Posted (edited)

Rolston was 1-1 in OT and 6-4 in the shootout. He was 8-11 in regulation.

 

The 6-4 is irrelevant when it comes to playoffs, so you're left with 9-12.

 

 

And the Sabres have been playing that style the past 16 years........their holes have been revealed and only 50% have been potentially plugged. For every 1 year of Chicago or Pittsburgh winning the Cup by getting multiple top draft picks.....there is 10 years of the Florida Panthers....or 6 years of the Edmonton Oilers....or 10 years of the NY Islanders....or 7 years of the Columbus Blue Jackets....or 10 years of the Atlanta Thrashers/ Winnipeg Jets..........How are those 35 top 10 picks doing for them????

 

So ... we'll talk again once Darcy is gone? Top picks don't guarantee anything if you have a GM who can't draft or manage a roster well. But, neither does anything else when that's the case. Darcy's latest, and as far as I can see last, excuse was that they haven't picked high enough to get top-level talent. If we keep picking in the 10-20 spots, then he will continue to have that excuse. Take a real chance, fail if the talent is not there, and let him draft high-tier talent. If the picks and/or roster don't work out, then he has no more excuses. If they do, then we're Pittsburgh or Chicago.

 

For the record, I don't think Ron did a terrible job and I do think some players improved. I simply think that much of what was perceived as an improved record was simply the result of exploiting rules that don't help us achieve the long-term goal.

Edited by carpandean
Posted

Yeah, but if you rely on the stupid part ("loser points") to get a big portion of your points, then when it comes to the post season, where that all goes away, you won't do well. The point is that just making the playoffs is no longer a major goal; winning the Cup is. So, playing a style that covers for deficiencies and, at best, allows them to squeak into and subsequently make an early departure from the playoffs, does not help, but rather hinders achieving the real goal. It perpetuates a cycle that they've been stuck in for six seasons: barely make/miss the playoffs, exiting early if they make it, and then drafting middling talent. I'd rather that they play a style that will allow them to win if they have a contending team, but reveals holes if they don't.

The 6-4 is irrelevant when it comes to playoffs, so you're left with 9-12.

All true, and most of those twelve were one goal losses. But I look at that and say "Holy crap, Rolston got them that close with an AHL team." If only one player had scored 1 more goal every third game, those losses would have been wins and we would have been in the playoffs. With just a little more talent on the team, they're in the playoffs. With hopefully a lot more talent on the team, they are a contender.

 

And I realize I'm using an outlier to prove a point, but the Kings were 6-9 SO, 3-6 OT in '11-'12. That's an awful lot of loser points to squeak in to 8th. Get'em any way you can.

Posted

Yeah, but if you rely on the stupid part ("loser points") to get a big portion of your points, then when it comes to the post season, where that all goes away, you won't do well. The point is that just making the playoffs is no longer a major goal; winning the Cup is. So, playing a style that covers for deficiencies and, at best, allows them to squeak into and subsequently make an early departure from the playoffs, does not help, but rather hinders achieving the real goal. It perpetuates a cycle that they've been stuck in for six seasons: barely make/miss the playoffs, exiting early if they make it, and then drafting middling talent. I'd rather that they play a style that will allow them to win if they have a contending team, but reveals holes if they don't.

 

I think the false point for the shootout winner is even worse. It is the real part that was changed from pre-2005 lockout and is what really inflates the standings. Teams build their positioning on that dog and pony show that has zero influence on playoff hockey, other than the rare penalty shot.

Posted

I think the false point for the shootout winner is even worse. It is the real part that was changed from pre-2005 lockout and is what really inflates the standings. Teams build their positioning on that dog and pony show that has zero influence on playoff hockey, other than the rare penalty shot.

I think it should be 2pts for a win in Reg/OT and 1 point for shootout win. Penalize teams for going to shootout instead of rewarding that crap. Also Losers NEVER GET A POINT.

Posted

The 6-4 is irrelevant when it comes to playoffs, so you're left with 9-12.

 

 

 

 

So ... we'll talk again once Darcy is gone? Top picks don't guarantee anything if you have a GM who can't draft or manage a roster well. But, neither does anything else when that's the case. Darcy's latest, and as far as I can see last, excuse was that they haven't picked high enough to get top-level talent. If we keep picking in the 10-20 spots, then he will continue to have that excuse. Take a real chance, fail if the talent is not there, and let him draft high-tier talent. If the picks and/or roster don't work out, then he has no more excuses. If they do, then we're Pittsburgh or Chicago.

 

For the record, I don't think Ron did a terrible job and I do think some players improved. I simply think that much of what was perceived as an improved record was simply the result of exploiting rules that don't help us achieve the long-term goal.

If an NHL GM actually believes that his problems are that he hasn't been able to pick high enough in the draft to get top level talent, thats why they are bad and need to gut a team, He should never be allowed to work in a pro sports teams front office ever again. That has to be the most moronic excuse I have ever heard in sports

 

I think it should be 2pts for a win in Reg/OT and 1 point for shootout win. Penalize teams for going to shootout instead of rewarding that crap. Also Losers NEVER GET A POINT.

But can they atleast get participation ribbons? You don't want the losing team to go home with hurt feelings
Posted (edited)

I've always thought that the point system should be a 3-2-1 system. Losers don't deserve any points. Three points for a regulation win, two points for an OT win and (if you HAVE to have the stupid shootout) then one point for an SO win.

 

This would also make the scenarios way more fun to think about. And could you imagine at the end of the year when a team NEEDS three points to clinch a spot or avoid elimination? Boy would that be a fun regulation to watch.

Edited by DStebb
Posted (edited)

Kovalchuk announces his retirement from the NHL?!?! :o

 

Yeah I just got that. What the...???

 

That really hurts the devils.

 

Edit: Vanek's trade value going up?

Edited by ubkev
Posted (edited)

What will the cap implications of that one be?

 

edit: Looking at his contract, wow, he's actually walking away from the meat of that deal.

Edited by shrader
Posted

What will the cap implications of that one be?

 

@cmasisak22 1m

Via http://capgeek.com

 

's benefit recapture calculator, #Devils will lose $250K of cap space through '24-25: http://www.capgeek.com/recapture-calculator?contract_id=2795&player_id=339&recapture_submit=set&retirement_year=2013&trade=0&acquiring_team=6&in_season_trade=-1&in_season_traded_year=2012&season_percentage=1&off_season_traded_year=2013 …

 

Wow! Devils also lose their 1st round pick next year:

@RenLavoieRDS

77M$. That's what Ilya Kovalchuk is leaving on the table. Let's say his decision is not about money. #RDS #devils

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...