GAME DISCUSSION THREAD GDT: Vancouver at Buffalo 10-17-13 at 7:00 PM

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Right on, except for including Pyatt with Grier, McKee and Dumont.

 

I hear you. He was the toughest guy to move off the puck that Carolina series though. Just as the bulb started to go on, they let him go.

[Stoner]

Rob Ray takes umbrage to Hasek getting all the credit for those years. First three rounds in 99, the Sabres averaged three goals a game. There was more to that team than meets the eye, as Ghost has ably pointed out.

[deluca67]

So you admit that talent beats hard work?

Talent without hard work is meaningless. It's not one or the other.

 

A level 8 talent that has little to no grit will lose out to a level 6 talent that has the attitude when it matters. That sums up Nolan's team versus the past decade of Darcy at it's peak. The reason 2006 was a better team than 2007 was because of guys like Dumont, Grier, McKee and Pyatt. They all had less top line talent than some of the others, but the right size and attitude for playoff hockey. I gave up on the Sabres the 2nd half of '07. You could see that one set of guys (Peters, Mair, Kaleta), were in the John Scott mode of having a small concentration of goonism diluted by a whole pool of softer players. You can't take one 10 and two 9's and have them offset a team of 2's, 3's and a few 6's and 7's in grit and effort. Darcy let a bunch of 5-7 talents walk who had 6-8 grit. That was the downfall and exposed his philosophy and lack of understanding how to build a winning team.

 

Guys like Crosby, Malkin, Towes.....they may have level 9 or 10 talent, but are each at least a 6 or 7 in grit. THAT's why those teams have had success. Not because they tanked and got draft picks. Boston? A couple of 8 or 9 talents, but a lot of that team is 6 or 7 in talent but 7 to 10 in grit. THAT's why they win over the years.

 

Hard work and grit with mediocre talent at least has a shot to win when it matters.

 

Top talent with no grit will almost never win when it matters. This isn't the SAT's.....it's a 2 month war from April to June waged by men.

100% agree.

[Eleven]

Talent without hard work is meaningless. It's not one or the other.

 

 

Exhibit A: Connolly. Ex. B: Stafford.

 

On the other hand, hard work without talent is pretty meaningless, too.

[TrueBlueGED]

Exhibit A: Connolly. Ex. B: Stafford.

 

On the other hand, hard work without talent is pretty meaningless, too.

 

See: Ellis, Matt and Porter, Kevin.

 

Oh, and even lazy Connolly could help this team right now.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

See: Ellis, Matt and Porter, Kevin.

 

How about Girgensons?

 

To me, he looks to be the perfect example of a guy who has maybe a 6 or 7 in talent, but will work and grind to a 9 or 10 in hard work.

 

Grigorenko......maybe he is an 8 or 9 in talent, but right now is a 3 or 4 in work.

 

Someone offers you the #1 pick in next year's draft for either one of them.

 

Who do you give them?

[qwksndmonster]

See: Ellis, Matt and Porter, Kevin.

 

Oh, and even lazy Connolly could help this team right now.

Kevin Porter is very slightly better than Matt Ellis, but they're both AHLers.

[deluca67]

Exhibit A: Connolly. Ex. B: Stafford.

 

On the other hand, hard work without talent is pretty meaningless, too.

As a core value hard work has tremendous value. Rosters are ever evolving, talent levels rise and subside like the tide. Work ethic should be a constant no matter the level of talent. The 2013-14 Buffalo Sabres do not have a lot of talent, that's no surprise. I will speak for myself when I say the lack of work ethic is a surprise.

 

See: Ellis, Matt and Porter, Kevin.

 

Oh, and even lazy Connolly could help this team right now.

No he wouldn't. Tim Connolly is the worst type of player you want on your roster at this point. A lazy Connolly and his poor work ethic would only make things work.

[TrueBlueGED]

How about Girgensons?

 

To me, he looks to be the perfect example of a guy who has maybe a 6 or 7 in talent, but will work and grind to a 9 or 10 in hard work.

 

Grigorenko......maybe he is an 8 or 9 in talent, but right now is a 3 or 4 in work.

 

Someone offers you the #1 pick in next year's draft for either one of them.

 

Who do you give them?

 

Both. Either one. Reinhart is a better prospect than either of them, so whatever.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Both. Either one. Reinhart is a better prospect than either of them, so whatever.

 

Come'on now......no stalling......

[nfreeman]

See: Ellis, Matt and Porter, Kevin.

 

Oh, and even lazy Connolly could help this team right now.

 

 

This is neither here nor there. GoDD's point is pretty clear -- medium-talented guys (not zero-talented guys like the ones you named) who bust their butts are more effective than high-talented guys who float.

 

And TC's problem wasn't laziness, IMHO.

[TrueBlueGED]

Come'on now......no stalling......

 

Gun to my head, Grigorenko. But I honestly wouldn't care if it took Girgensons, whereas I'd guess some here wouldn't trade Girgensons for the pick.

 

This is neither here nor there. GoDD's point is pretty clear -- medium-talented guys (not zero-talented guys like the ones you named) who bust their butts are more effective than high-talented guys who float.

 

And TC's problem wasn't laziness, IMHO.

 

On an individual level, sure. But I don't think you can have a team of medium talented guys winning the Cup or consistently making deep playoff runs regardless of how hard they work.

[nfreeman]

Gun to my head, Grigorenko. But I honestly wouldn't care if it took Girgensons, whereas I'd guess some here wouldn't trade Girgensons for the pick.

 

 

 

On an individual level, sure. But I don't think you can have a team of medium talented guys winning the Cup or consistently making deep playoff runs regardless of how hard they work.

 

I think most here would trade Girgy for the pick.

 

As to the 2nd point, you are probably right, but Griggy and his ilk aren't going to be the ones who put this hypothetical team over the top. It sorta brings around the whole question of how to build a contender -- I'd rather have the hypothetical team you mentioned and then add the elite talented guys when they pop loose -- not bottom out for an extended period and hope that the high draft picks pan out.

[SwampD]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

 

 

 

 

Oh, wait. I don't have a cat.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think most here would trade Girgy for the pick.

 

As to the 2nd point, you are probably right, but Griggy and his ilk aren't going to be the ones who put this hypothetical team over the top. It sorta brings around the whole question of how to build a contender -- I'd rather have the hypothetical team you mentioned and then add the elite talented guys when they pop loose -- not bottom out for an extended period and hope that the high draft picks pan out.

 

See, to me that signifies the treadmill of mediocrity that all of Buffalo sports have been on for the majority of the past 20 years--not good enough to truly compete, but never really bottoming out either. For me, it's the worst case scenario.

[nfreeman]

 

 

See, to me that signifies the treadmill of mediocrity that all of Buffalo sports have been on for the majority of the past 20 years--not good enough to truly compete, but never really bottoming out either. For me, it's the worst case scenario.

 

What about the 2005-07 Sabres?

[TrueBlueGED]

What about the 2005-07 Sabres?

 

Of you count that and the 99 Cup run, that's 3 seasons out of 20 or so I've been a fan the team has been legitimately great. The other 17 are all varying degrees of mediocrity, except perhaps the division title in Myers rookie year.

 

Here's the perspective I'm coming from. My first sport memory is the Bills-Raiders AFC title game. I'm sure I watched other games, but that's the first one I clearly remember. I was a big football fan, but I was also only 5-9 during those glory years, so I didn't watch every single game and I certainly didn't appreciate those teams the way I would now. Ever since those years however, the Bills have been stuck on the treadmill of mediocrity. The closest they came to being good was the Johnson/Flutie year and Bledsoe's first year. Closest they came to totally bottoming out was the Mike Williams and Dareus drafts. That's 19 years of distinct mediocrity out of 23 as a fan.

 

With the Sabres, my hockey fandom started a bit later, when Hasek took the reigns. I was a casual fan at best before that. So there again it's mediocrity for the vast majority of my time as a fan.

 

I've had enough. Everybody has a limit and I've hit mine. The problem with mediocrity is it gives you enough hope to become emotionally invested, but the probability of getting an emotional payoff is not high, especially if you base it off of the teams we've had during my fandom. What I've witnessed has absolutely influenced my thinking that the treadmill of mediocrity is exceedingly difficult to escape, and even harder to stay off for more than a year or two.

 

This is reason #1 I want to tank. I've done the whole jump off the treadmill for two years thing, and I think it sucks. I want a team constantly in the conversation. I think the best way to do that is have a core you build around that sticks around for 10+ years. Even picking up a few stars like Nash and Gaborik, due to age, still only leaves a few years window to truly push it. But if you can get some studs at 18? You'll have them through their entire prime and that's freakin awesome. That keeps the window open longer, and the longer you keep that window open the more likely it is you hit that magical season where it all goes right. That's what I want, and I think drafting high gives by far the best chance to have the type of foundation necessary for a long run of relevance.

 

The other nice thing about tanking is it allows emotional detachment from the ups and downs of the team. I'm still a fan, I still watch every game, but because my expectations are nill, I don't get angry or annoyed when the losses come. I don't feel the need to rant here about how the team sucks (this is not a criticism of those who do, merely I personally enjoy not feeling the need to do so). It's not that I don't care, it's that my expectations are being met, and it's fine to have the low expectations because I see better days ahead in a couple of years. But if the team remained on the treadmill of mediocrity, I'd be just as angry as some here, but I'd also have little to no hope of it getting better. I prefer the tank and distant hope for reasons stated. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree, but I do hope this provides some perspective on why I find mediocrity to be the worst case scenario.

[Weave]

TruBlue, I think you and I are in the same place. Your last paragraph pretty well sums up where I am at.

[bunomatic]

Of you count that and the 99 Cup run, that's 3 seasons out of 20 or so I've been a fan the team has been legitimately great. The other 17 are all varying degrees of mediocrity, except perhaps the division title in Myers rookie year.

 

Here's the perspective I'm coming from. My first sport memory is the Bills-Raiders AFC title game. I'm sure I watched other games, but that's the first one I clearly remember. I was a big football fan, but I was also only 5-9 during those glory years, so I didn't watch every single game and I certainly didn't appreciate those teams the way I would now. Ever since those years however, the Bills have been stuck on the treadmill of mediocrity. The closest they came to being good was the Johnson/Flutie year and Bledsoe's first year. Closest they came to totally bottoming out was the Mike Williams and Dareus drafts. That's 19 years of distinct mediocrity out of 23 as a fan.

 

With the Sabres, my hockey fandom started a bit later, when Hasek took the reigns. I was a casual fan at best before that. So there again it's mediocrity for the vast majority of my time as a fan.

 

I've had enough. Everybody has a limit and I've hit mine. The problem with mediocrity is it gives you enough hope to become emotionally invested, but the probability of getting an emotional payoff is not high, especially if you base it off of the teams we've had during my fandom. What I've witnessed has absolutely influenced my thinking that the treadmill of mediocrity is exceedingly difficult to escape, and even harder to stay off for more than a year or two.

 

This is reason #1 I want to tank. I've done the whole jump off the treadmill for two years thing, and I think it sucks. I want a team constantly in the conversation. I think the best way to do that is have a core you build around that sticks around for 10+ years. Even picking up a few stars like Nash and Gaborik, due to age, still only leaves a few years window to truly push it. But if you can get some studs at 18? You'll have them through their entire prime and that's freakin awesome. That keeps the window open longer, and the longer you keep that window open the more likely it is you hit that magical season where it all goes right. That's what I want, and I think drafting high gives by far the best chance to have the type of foundation necessary for a long run of relevance.

 

The other nice thing about tanking is it allows emotional detachment from the ups and downs of the team. I'm still a fan, I still watch every game, but because my expectations are nill, I don't get angry or annoyed when the losses come. I don't feel the need to rant here about how the team sucks (this is not a criticism of those who do, merely I personally enjoy not feeling the need to do so). It's not that I don't care, it's that my expectations are being met, and it's fine to have the low expectations because I see better days ahead in a couple of years. But if the team remained on the treadmill of mediocrity, I'd be just as angry as some here, but I'd also have little to no hope of it getting better. I prefer the tank and distant hope for reasons stated. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree, but I do hope this provides some perspective on why I find mediocrity to be the worst case scenario.

 

Good post. Its pretty much how I feel but I've never actually stepped away from the team so at times my emotions speak for me and I rant about my concerns instead of staying detached. As this season goes further into the crapper I'll get better at it. One thing that really gets me is hearing opponents play by play that puts our team down for being crappy( which it is ) but gives no context to their statement i.e. the rebuild,the number of rookies in play, etc. Its out of my control but it still irks me. Guys like Roenick saying pathetic etc. As a fan I still defend the team when really there's no need for it. I didn't cause this mess. Thats where the detachment has yet to come. It'll come though. At some point I'll just not care. I never thought I'd get to that place. Thanks Darcy for ruining my fan experience with your bumbling and inept Mr Bean show.

[Robviously]

Probably goes without saying at this point, but I'm in full agreement on this stuff with TBPhd.

 

Especially the last paragraph. Anything is better than another 10th overall pick. If it means a total tank job where we're just about the worst team in hockey, I can live with that.

[dudacek]

Add me to the list. Well-said Blue.

[nfreeman]

 

 

Of you count that and the 99 Cup run, that's 3 seasons out of 20 or so I've been a fan the team has been legitimately great. The other 17 are all varying degrees of mediocrity, except perhaps the division title in Myers rookie year.

 

Here's the perspective I'm coming from. My first sport memory is the Bills-Raiders AFC title game. I'm sure I watched other games, but that's the first one I clearly remember. I was a big football fan, but I was also only 5-9 during those glory years, so I didn't watch every single game and I certainly didn't appreciate those teams the way I would now. Ever since those years however, the Bills have been stuck on the treadmill of mediocrity. The closest they came to being good was the Johnson/Flutie year and Bledsoe's first year. Closest they came to totally bottoming out was the Mike Williams and Dareus drafts. That's 19 years of distinct mediocrity out of 23 as a fan.

 

With the Sabres, my hockey fandom started a bit later, when Hasek took the reigns. I was a casual fan at best before that. So there again it's mediocrity for the vast majority of my time as a fan.

 

I've had enough. Everybody has a limit and I've hit mine. The problem with mediocrity is it gives you enough hope to become emotionally invested, but the probability of getting an emotional payoff is not high, especially if you base it off of the teams we've had during my fandom. What I've witnessed has absolutely influenced my thinking that the treadmill of mediocrity is exceedingly difficult to escape, and even harder to stay off for more than a year or two.

 

This is reason #1 I want to tank. I've done the whole jump off the treadmill for two years thing, and I think it sucks. I want a team constantly in the conversation. I think the best way to do that is have a core you build around that sticks around for 10+ years. Even picking up a few stars like Nash and Gaborik, due to age, still only leaves a few years window to truly push it. But if you can get some studs at 18? You'll have them through their entire prime and that's freakin awesome. That keeps the window open longer, and the longer you keep that window open the more likely it is you hit that magical season where it all goes right. That's what I want, and I think drafting high gives by far the best chance to have the type of foundation necessary for a long run of relevance.

 

The other nice thing about tanking is it allows emotional detachment from the ups and downs of the team. I'm still a fan, I still watch every game, but because my expectations are nill, I don't get angry or annoyed when the losses come. I don't feel the need to rant here about how the team sucks (this is not a criticism of those who do, merely I personally enjoy not feeling the need to do so). It's not that I don't care, it's that my expectations are being met, and it's fine to have the low expectations because I see better days ahead in a couple of years. But if the team remained on the treadmill of mediocrity, I'd be just as angry as some here, but I'd also have little to no hope of it getting better. I prefer the tank and distant hope for reasons stated. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree, but I do hope this provides some perspective on why I find mediocrity to be the worst case scenario.

 

Well said, and obviously a number of posters here agree with you. And believe me, I feel your pain. I guess I disagree with the assumptions (which seem to underlie your view) that (i) not bottoming out and drafting high dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity and (ii) bottoming out and drafting high is the only way to become an elite team.

 

Take the Bills dynasty you mentioned. Certainly Bruce, a #1 overall pick, was a critical piece of that team. But Kelly was #10 overall if memory serves, and he was by far the most important piece. Thurman was probably the 2nd most important and he was a 2nd rounder. Reed was a 4th rounder. Biscuit was a high pick but they traded for him -- acting opportunistically when a blue chipper popped loose. Hull was a USFL pickup. That team was well coached and well constructed and as a result was an elite team for a decade without high draft picks (other than Bruce -- who was drafted in 1985 -- a solid 3-4 years before the Bills started to become a contender).

 

TP cited the red wings as the model franchise. When was the last time they drafted in the top 3?

 

My bottom line is that this atrocity of a season didn't need to happen -- and that there's no guarantee that we'll see better days as a result. In the meantime, we're wasting years of entertaining hockey and the exquisite tense joy of playoff hockey -- not to mention the end of our time with miller and Vanek.

 

Life's too GD short for this.

 

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Well said, and obviously a number of posters here agree with you. And believe me, I feel your pain. I guess I disagree with the assumptions (which seem to underlie your view) that (i) not bottoming out and drafting high dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity and (ii) bottoming out and drafting high is the only way to become an elite team.

 

Take the Bills dynasty you mentioned. Certainly Bruce, a #1 overall pick, was a critical piece of that team. But Kelly was #10 overall if memory serves, and he was by far the most important piece. Thurman was probably the 2nd most important and he was a 2nd rounder. Reed was a 4th rounder. Biscuit was a high pick but they traded for him -- acting opportunistically when a blue chipper popped loose. Hull was a USFL pickup. That team was well coached and well constructed and as a result was an elite team for a decade without high draft picks (other than Bruce -- who was drafted in 1985 -- a solid 3-4 years before the Bills started to become a contender).

 

TP cited the red wings as the model franchise. When was the last time they drafted in the top 3?

 

My bottom line is that this atrocity of a season didn't need to happen -- and that there's no guarantee that we'll see better days as a result. In the meantime, we're wasting years of entertaining hockey and the exquisite tense joy of playoff hockey -- not to mention the end of our time with miller and Vanek.

 

Life's too GD short for this.

 

Ummm.......Bill Polian??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Identify Athletes

 

Identify Men

 

Identify Leaders

 

Have the nads to take chances

 

Tell the owner to F-off when he hamstrings his ability to do the job.

 

Success in multiple places.

 

 

Darcy...............................

[TrueBlueGED]

Well said, and obviously a number of posters here agree with you. And believe me, I feel your pain. I guess I disagree with the assumptions (which seem to underlie your view) that (i) not bottoming out and drafting high dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity and (ii) bottoming out and drafting high is the only way to become an elite team.

 

Take the Bills dynasty you mentioned. Certainly Bruce, a #1 overall pick, was a critical piece of that team. But Kelly was #10 overall if memory serves, and he was by far the most important piece. Thurman was probably the 2nd most important and he was a 2nd rounder. Reed was a 4th rounder. Biscuit was a high pick but they traded for him -- acting opportunistically when a blue chipper popped loose. Hull was a USFL pickup. That team was well coached and well constructed and as a result was an elite team for a decade without high draft picks (other than Bruce -- who was drafted in 1985 -- a solid 3-4 years before the Bills started to become a contender).

 

TP cited the red wings as the model franchise. When was the last time they drafted in the top 3?

 

My bottom line is that this atrocity of a season didn't need to happen -- and that there's no guarantee that we'll see better days as a result. In the meantime, we're wasting years of entertaining hockey and the exquisite tense joy of playoff hockey -- not to mention the end of our time with miller and Vanek.

 

Life's too GD short for this.

 

I honestly didn't intend for this to become a team building discussion, I was simply trying to convey why I personally find mediocrity to be so horrible. Another, more simple way of phrasing my feelings is that mediocrity is basically all I've known as a sports fan and I've seen it fail exponentially more often than succeed, so I'm sick of it--the ratio of failure to success I've seen in my teams is enough to cause me to be especially pessimistic about it being different in the future if they continue the middling path. I'm ready for a different approach. That's the pure emotional part of this. That said, I feel compelled to respond to a few points.

 

Regarding the assumptions, whereas you believe that losing begets losing and mediocrity is qualitatively easier to pull yourself from, I disagree. I shouldn't even say I disagree in full, because I think you're half right--with the nature of parity in the NFL and NHL, it's easy to climb out of the middle of the pack here or there. But that's where my agreement ends, because I don't see the climb from mediocrity to be sustainable, barring some extraordinary luck in the draft. It's easy (relatively, anyway) to bounce from 9th in the conference to 4th to 6th and back to 10th and so on. This happens every year because teams get players who have a breakout season, get some fortunate puck luck (*cough* Toronto *cough*) and so on. What's hard is sustaining that top-4 place in the standings year to year.

 

Secondly, I've never asserted that tanking and getting high picks is the *only* way to build a sustainable contender, only that it is the most probable way to do so. Yes the Bills succeeded with Bruce being the only elite-level draft pick..but how long ago was that? Why hasn't that model worked for them since? Because building that way isn't reliable IMO. I'll go back to the draft analogy: the probability that some pick between #10-25 becomes great on a yearly basis is probably pretty good...but the probability that YOUR draft pick becomes great in that range is not good. Same thing with hoping to build with lucky pickups: it has happened before and it will happen again, but how likely is it your team is the one that strikes lightning? The chances of drafting a dynasty early might not be high, maybe 25% (hence a lot of the time you become Edmonton, or Columbus, etc.)...but in my estimation, the chances of going the other route and being consistently good is more like 10% or less. So I still find drafting high preferable--and yes, those numbers are purely for illustrative purposes.

 

I honestly consider bringing up the Red Wings to be a rather patronizing point--what are the chances that your team drafts a HoFer in the 3rd, 5th, and 6th rounds close enough together so they all share the same prime years? The probability of that is so low I don't even consider it (it's like saying "well people win the lottery, so I'll just work my minimum wage job until I win too"), and if you're relying on something like that to springboard the team into consistent contention, there's really not much more to discuss.

[dudacek]

What was Black saying the other day - 15 picks in the first two rounds over a four- year period?

And that's without the Miller/Vanek return.

Couple that with the fact our first-rounders this year and next will almost certainly be top-three.

They've certainly increased their odds of creating a good, sustainable core that can keep this team on top for an extended period.

I liked the comparison to the 1970s Canadiens. That would be worth some the suffering, if only they can get their Lafleur.