Ted Black Spewing '71 Canadiens as Sabres plan

[Derrico]

Interesting.

[JJFIVEOH]

Nah....on GR the other day, Black was touting the fact the Sabres were collecting all these picks, then pointed out the team to do it the most was Montreal in the early 70's.

 

I can't see Ted searching out that information on his own. For some strange reason....I feel it was presented to Mr. Pegula. Also conveniently left out were the other occasions in the modern era where picks were accumulated....such as Regier did himself.

 

He's trying too hard to convince people that he's not spouting off scripted answers. If he didn't try so hard me might be more convincing......he's not fooling anybody.

[ubkev]

The draft lottery is in place as a safeguard against tanking. Only used in the NBA & NHL. You're allowed to tank in the NFL but you can only do that effectively if you are the Colts apparently.

 

Now I can't quite finish my conspiracy theory thought at this time but I might be back later with more ramblings.

[Kristian]

The draft lottery is in place as a safeguard against tanking. Only used in the NBA & NHL. You're allowed to tank in the NFL but you can only do that effectively if you are the Colts apparently.

 

Now I can't quite finish my conspiracy theory thought at this time but I might be back later with more ramblings.

 

And the last team to be blamed for losing on purpose in the NHL, partly to blame for the lottery being introduced, was the 1992 Ottawa Senators - Who did they tank for?

 

*Drumroll*

 

Alexandre Daigle

 

:w00t:

[ubkev]

 

 

And the last team to be blamed for losing on purpose in the NHL, partly to blame for the lottery being introduced, was the 1992 Ottawa Senators - Who did they tank for?

 

*Drumroll*

 

Alexandre Daigle

 

:w00t:

 

Who then said "I'm glad I got drafted first because no one remembers number two."

 

Yeah, Alex, that Chris Pronger sure sucked!

[Kristian]

Who then said "I'm glad I got drafted first because no one remembers number two."

 

Yeah, Alex, that Chris Pronger sure sucked!

 

Allegedly, The Nordiques wanted to pick him, and tried dealing for Ottawa's #1 pick with a package including Peter Forsberg and Owen Nolan :flirt:

 

Oh man, that has to sting.

 

Almost as much as dealing Mike Peca for Tim Connolly, instead of Jarome Iginla :wallbash:

[neverenough]

So who is responsible for this team not working hard? The coach is already calling veterans out so does that mean the coach is responsible or the gm is responsible? You can definitely see the teams work ethic is -1

[Eleven]

I don't want to hear any more of it. I just want it fixed.

 

Me too.

[MattPie]

I'm wondering if the FBI gives a poop. Maybe match fixing is considered more of a European problem. That's more of a job for Brit 007, swooping in to embarrass the Americans, make love to our women, and take our glory, and laugh at our ignorance. Maybe its a KGB problem, and SuperSpy Putin can write an op-ed about it in the NY Times, sealing the KHL fates of Grigorenko and Yakupov and Zadorov. I adorov Zadorov, he might say. Play for Petersburg. KHL is less corrupt. FBI? What? What? Where'd he go? Where did he go?

 

It's not match fixing in this case. The Sabres are fielding a legitimate team, playing a legitimate system, and are appearing to attempt to score and win games. That's hardly match fixing. Now if players starting missing open nets and falling down constantly... hmmm..... :)

[IKnowPhysics]

So who is responsible for this team not working hard? The coach is already calling veterans out so does that mean the coach is responsible or the gm is responsible? You can definitely see the teams work ethic is -1

 

People sometimes wonder why I don't hate on Regier, Ruff, or Rolston as much as some. This is the reason. I believe in player accountability. Most of Regier's moves, when they were made, made some sense. They looked good on paper, certainly better than so many other bonehead moves by several other teams' GMs. But sometimes there's a transition period for that player or sometimes that player doesn't pan out. When a player is playing ######, there's a sort of a list I think through when I wonder why it is they're playing that way. The list sort of goes in order. To me, the first "NO" is possibly the biggest reason they're playing poorly, but there may be several NOs.

 

1) Are they playing uninjured?

2) Are they working hard on ice?

3) Are they playing positionally smart?

4) Are they playing with discipline?

5) Are they well-prepared/conditioned/appear to be working hard off ice?

6) Are they playing with confidence?

7) Are they not new to the team and needing to learn/develop/earn chemistry?

8) Are they playing with other players that are doing all of the above?

9) Did the coach put them in a position to succeed (player usage)?

10) Did the coach properly attempt to motivate them?

11) Did the GM put appropriate expectations on them?

 

For example, Jochen Hecht caught a lot of flak, but I didn't hate on him too much, because he could've answered yes to most of those questions, except maybe #11 (the expectations of him being a top six forward were probably too high). So in my mind, the GM is likely responsible. In the case of Tim Connolly, at times it was #1, #2, or #5, but almost always something player related when he was playing poorly (this is why I didn't like him much). Kaleta answers yes to most of those questions, except when he runs into (or Shanaban makes him run into) #4. Myers was having problems with #5, then #3 last season, then #6, and now it seems like he's ironing that out a little, due in no small part I'm sure to addressing #3 over the summer. Raffi Torres was a fat #5, which led to problems with #2.

 

So a lot of my grief is directed at the players, because I believe what the management believed: the players on this team should've been good and they didn't perform. That doesn't mean that Regier gets away in my mind John Scott free, because he's the one that decided to fire the long time coach and blow the whole thing up for a rebuild, which we're now fully committed to/cursed with. And Ron Rolston doesn't get off the hook either, because he has an enormous amount of responsibility to prepare this team, teach the correct systems, motivate his troops, and take corrective action when it fails. But when the puck drops, you can have a perfect GM and coach, but...

 

Players need to play.

[That Aud Smell]

you can have a perfect GM and coach

 

I'd settle for serviceable at this point.

 

I take your point(s), but I maintain that success starts at the top, with a clear and rational vision for success and competent implementation of the same. We're a disaster at the top. We're a rudderless team that is being placed in positions where failure is virtually assured and success is a steep, steep uphill battle.

[IKnowPhysics]

I understand the opposing viewpoint. Start with sound direction, find the right coach, then fill in the pieces. I believe we did these things (and are still trying to do these things), but I'm addressing the root cause of failure. Why did (do) we lose? Did we lose last year because Regier had it all wrong from the beginning, or because players like our Calder winner played like a turd?

 

From your point of view, does that list of questions go perfectly upside down? Just curious.

[apuszczalowski]

People sometimes wonder why I don't hate on Regier, Ruff, or Rolston as much as some. This is the reason. I believe in player accountability. Most of Regier's moves, when they were made, made some sense. They looked good on paper, certainly better than so many other bonehead moves by several other teams' GMs. But sometimes there's a transition period for that player or sometimes that player doesn't pan out. When a player is playing ######, there's a sort of a list I think through when I wonder why it is they're playing that way. The list sort of goes in order. To me, the first "NO" is possibly the biggest reason they're playing poorly, but there may be several NOs.

 

1) Are they playing uninjured?

2) Are they working hard on ice?

3) Are they playing positionally smart?

4) Are they playing with discipline?

5) Are they well-prepared/conditioned/appear to be working hard off ice?

6) Are they playing with confidence?

7) Are they not new to the team and needing to learn/develop/earn chemistry?

8) Are they playing with other players that are doing all of the above?

9) Did the coach put them in a position to succeed (player usage)?

10) Did the coach properly attempt to motivate them?

11) Did the GM put appropriate expectations on them?

 

For example, Jochen Hecht caught a lot of flak, but I didn't hate on him too much, because he could've answered yes to most of those questions, except maybe #11 (the expectations of him being a top six forward were probably too high). So in my mind, the GM is likely responsible. In the case of Tim Connolly, at times it was #1, #2, or #5, but almost always something player related when he was playing poorly (this is why I didn't like him much). Kaleta answers yes to most of those questions, except when he runs into (or Shanaban makes him run into) #4. Myers was having problems with #5, then #3 last season, then #6, and now it seems like he's ironing that out a little, due in no small part I'm sure to addressing #3 over the summer. Raffi Torres was a fat #5, which led to problems with #2.

 

So a lot of my grief is directed at the players, because I believe what the management believed: the players on this team should've been good and they didn't perform. That doesn't mean that Regier gets away in my mind John Scott free, because he's the one that decided to fire the long time coach and blow the whole thing up for a rebuild, which we're now fully committed to/cursed with. And Ron Rolston doesn't get off the hook either, because he has an enormous amount of responsibility to prepare this team, teach the correct systems, motivate his troops, and take corrective action when it fails. But when the puck drops, you can have a perfect GM and coach, but...

 

Players need to play.

Your points are valid, but the problem is that just about anyone can assembly a team thats "good on paper" and when they don't succeed say that its the players fault for not playing up to expectations. A good GM assembles the right players who will play to expectations (or make moves to improve when they don't meet those expectations), and are not afraid to make a deal or take a chance on a deal.

 

I have never been a Regier fan, but am willing to always admit that not every move he made has been bad, but I can say that about almost any GM in the league, they all have the occasional genius move which is usually them getting lucky and hitting on someone.

 

On this team right now, the players (most of them) are also at fault for this horrible play so far, they are all professionals and have played the game for years, so its not like any of them have an excuse for looking like they have never played before. The problem with Darcy, and why he deserves all the blame he gets around here is that he never wants to make a move to shake things up for what seems like a fear that the move could end up being a mistake and that underperforming player becomes a stud. Its why he keeps guys like Stafford or Myers, so he won't look like he failed by drafting them, or that he failed because they left and eventually turned things around and became what they were expected too. Unfortunately they stay here and continue to look bad, but may show some subtle glimpses of their potential that its believed they can turn things around with just a little more time

[That Aud Smell]

I understand the opposing viewpoint. Start with sound direction, find the right coach, then fill in the pieces. I believe we did these things (and are still trying to do these things), but I'm addressing the root cause of failure. Why did (do) we lose? Did we lose last year because Regier had it all wrong from the beginning, or because players like our Calder winner played like a turd?

 

From your point of view, does that list of questions go perfectly upside down? Just curious.

 

I don't believe that the team has sound direction and the right coach -- hasn't had that combination for a substantial period of time.

 

Myers is a mystery. But in the pie-chart of the "why do the Sabres stink?", his slice is pretty modest. Darcy's (and his hockey department's) is large -- it might be more than half.

 

I also acknowledge that one of the slices in that pie is "bad luck, bad breaks, misfortune". I wish I could find the article from about a month ago -- by a well-respected national NFL writer, who was talking to a 30+ year senior executive who said, more or less, that about 70% of success with personnel decisions in the draft comes down to being lucky. Just having good fortune on your side. I can't find it, though, because Google keeps linking me to articles about Indi's quarterback.

[LGR4GM]

I don't believe that the team has sound direction and the right coach -- hasn't had that combination for a substantial period of time.

 

Myers is a mystery. But in the pie-chart of the "why do the Sabres stink?", his slice is pretty modest. Darcy's (and his hockey department's) is large -- it might be more than half.

 

I also acknowledge that one of the slices in that pie is "bad luck, bad breaks, misfortune". I wish I could find the article from about a month ago -- by a well-respected national NFL writer, who was talking to a 30+ year senior executive who said, more or less, that about 70% of success with personnel decisions in the draft comes down to being lucky. Just having good fortune on your side. I can't find it, though, because Google keeps linking me to articles about Indi's quarterback.

Yea google has filter bubbles so it occasionally sucks... a lot.

[That Aud Smell]

I heard Ted was on WGR this morning, but did not hear him. Anyone listen?

[carpandean]

I heard Ted was on WGR this morning, but did not hear him. Anyone listen?

 

Same stuff. Draft high. 40-goal scorers are younger than they used to be. Can't convince fans to come; it's a personal decision. There's a light at the end of the tunnel. Yada-yada-yada ...

[LoveAndWarrener]

I think Ghost's point #3 is the most salient one. The talent pool may be a bit stronger in general, but the number of opportunities is watered down by half, with double the teams.

 

Also, it's a lot easier to win a Stanley Cup if your "all things being equal" chances are 1/14 vs. 1/30.

 

And I don't really want to hear any more about plans, etc. I just don't like the team they've put together nor do I trust the people running it this season. I know change for change's sake is not the way to go, and there are a lot of young players with lots to learn. But what if they have the wrong guy for developing all these prized prospects? That could be more damaging than anything else...

[BMWR100RT]

http://audio.wgr550.com/a/83333553/10-31-ted-black.htm?pageid=401026

 

Unbelievable Spin. Ted should run for office with elusiveness like that. "Other people payed good money and I appreciate that" I've always liked this guy until I really listened today.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

http://audio.wgr550.com/a/83333553/10-31-ted-black.htm?pageid=401026

 

Unbelievable Spin. Ted should run for office with elusiveness like that. "Other people payed good money and I appreciate that" I've always liked this guy until I really listened today.

 

Yikes!

 

He mentioned the Montreal plan close to a dozen times today, without saying the words "Montreal" or "1971". Even the "stay on the line, Mark", bit backfired on him. When you aren't in studio and can't hang up on the caller like some of the others there do....not a good idea to use that move!

 

I can't even have fun with this anymore. Ted has gone from Billy D. Williams, to J.D. Williams.......

 

Sad days indeed. We are stuck....and the fans have come to full enlightenment.

 

(Edit)....Oh...and Ted, when you go to google J.D. Williams....I am referring to the Buffalo Bills defensive back....who just happened to be a 1st rounder, ironically.

[SDS]

I just felt the need to say this since the discussion is going on in multiple threads.

 

Your spin and disingenuous analysis is as bad as anything you accuse him of.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Your spin and disingenuous analysis is as bad as anything you accuse him of.

 

Excuse me?

 

He mentioned the Montreal plan at least 8 times today...and I lost count.

 

What am I accusing him of? He's presenting this plan as some sort of "hope" at the very least...but trending towards guaranteed success.

 

Please tell me where I am wrong?

 

 

[TrueBlueGED]

Yikes!

 

He mentioned the Montreal plan close to a dozen times today, without saying the words "Montreal" or "1971". Even the "stay on the line, Mark", bit backfired on him. When you aren't in studio and can't hang up on the caller like some of the others there do....not a good idea to use that move!

 

I can't even have fun with this anymore. Ted has gone from Billy D. Williams, to J.D. Williams.......

 

Sad days indeed. We are stuck....and the fans have come to full enlightenment.

 

(Edit)....Oh...and Ted, when you go to google J.D. Williams....I am referring to the Buffalo Bills defensive back....who just happened to be a 1st rounder, ironically.

 

Classic overcompensation for me outing you as Ted Black a few days ago :P

[Stoner]

Just a pathetic performance by Ted, starting with asking the callers to reveal how long they've been fans. Weird. The lowlight was Ted claiming that "No one's trying to lose." Those WGR guys don't know what a good followup question is. I would have gone with, "So, are you rooting for the team to make the playoffs this season?"

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Classic overcompensation for me outing you as Ted Black a few days ago :P

 

Thank you for your comment TrueBluePhD. I really appreciate you being a fan.

 

I find that when things are going well, fans tend to thank you, and heap praise, and you can't do anything wrong. When optimum results aren't being achieved, I tend to see comments such as yours.

 

You know, it would be a panic move for me to deflect your insinuation that I am Ted Black. I have to stay the course. I may not be the greatest of posters, but when I was in Pittsburgh.....people would accuse me of being Chuck Noll. But a little known fact is that 87% of field goals have been kicked by undrafted free agents.....and 61% of Super Bowls have either been decided by a field goal or less....or have had the game winning points come on a field goal. It is obvious that the draft is irrelevant, and if I WERE Chuck Knoll....I would accumulate the least amount of draft picks of any team in over 30 years....