Darcy Regier's "emphasis" on small skill players

[Kristian]

I think we can give Darcy credit for some things without wishing him back.

 

Certainly.

 

He made some very good trades in his tenure here.

[ddaryl]

Darcy's teams pretty much soured me on Sabres hockey for the last 5 years. Really never much to get excited about. Just couldn't get into the club he had built after the runs in 2005 and 2006

[JJFIVEOH]

Mentionning a team capable of winning the Stanley Cup twice in three years in the same sentence as a team that made the ECF twice in a row? Really?

That's not even remotely close to the point I was making. You're downplaying the Sabres success those two years by saying one of those series wasn't dominant enough for you to be satisfied. Using YOUR logic, the Kings must not be good either because they thoroughly got their ###### kicked most of that seies.

I don't need to trash Darcy. The man is gone. I don't care.

I can tell by your posts. :P

I just don't see the love for the post-lockout team. The rules were in their favor. The deeper the playoffs went on in 06, the more that team struggled, as the refs swallowed their whistles. Same thing in 07. It's not exactly rocket science.

I just don't see the hate. It's a typical excuse used by the haters. Any reasonable person would give Darcy some kind of credit. He was building a speedy team as speed was the trend BEFORE the lockout. Most teams were doing the same thing. Stop coming up with lame reasons to downplay anything he did.

[Claude_Verret]

When the Isles 1st next year turns into one half of McEichel, then I'm prepared to erect the DR statue downtown. At this point I'm prepared to give DR credit for a few deep playoff runs and many, many years of running on the treadmill of mediocrity.

[Taro T]

 

 

Mentionning a team capable of winning the Stanley Cup twice in three years in the same sentence as a team that made the ECF twice in a row? Really?

 

I don't need to trash Darcy. The man is gone. I don't care.

 

I just don't see the love for the post-lockout team. The rules were in their favor. The deeper the playoffs went on in 06, the more that team struggled, as the refs swallowed their whistles. Same thing in 07. It's not exactly rocket science.

 

They were wildly entertaining, but the ´75 and ´99 teams came a damn sight closer to winning anything than the 06-07 teams.

 

Fact.

Those '70-'75 Sabres HAD NEVER WON IN FILLY. How was that team, that needed to find a way to win at minimum 1 there, and, considering they lost game 6 at home, realistically needed to win 2 in Filly 'a damn sight closer to winning' than the '06 Sabres that were less than 20 minutes away from facing the 8th place Eulers?

 

The Canes didn't lose a single player to injury on their way to the finals. Every player that was available to them on April 22, 2006 was still available when the finals started on June 5. The Sabres were down 4 D & Connolly. The Canes had an astounding amount of luck that year and were down to the Sabres in the 3rd period of Game 7.

 

That Sabres team was closer to hoisting the Chalice than Gilbert's squad.

[IKnowPhysics]

I think we can give Darcy credit for some things without wishing him back.

 

Completely reasonable.

 

Which is not what this thread is trying to be.

 

We've discussed every point brought up so far ad nauseum at some time or another. Darcy's drafting was well above average; according to some analysts it was near the top of the league. Not making the finals and not skating over Edmonton to the Cup was due to a disastrous string of fluky injuries. The '06-'08 team was goodgreat and well-coached by Lindy Ruff, but its downfall was the fault of tight purse strings and whatever the ###### Larry Quinn was doing. Efforts to remain competitive after the departure of Drury, Briere, and Campbell stalled with Connolly injuries, as Regier relied on him and Roy to be "two number one centers."

 

What really ###### Darcy Regier was the inabillity to acquire quality free agents, either through his own impotence, the publicly-visible lack of a large roster budget that was perceived as a hindrance to success, the post-lockout changes in the free agent market system causing a shortage of free agents, or the lack of interest by free agents to sign in Buffalo for any number of reasons. This slide show summarizes the free agent history of the Buffalo Sabres 2009-present. Atrocious.

 

Drafting, trading, and signing free agents comprise the all-important trifecta of player acquisition, and Regier was arguably very good at the first two. However, at different times throughout his tenure, he was either extremely bad or not allowed to be any good at the last one. And it killed him.

Edited July 15, 2014 by IKnowPhysics

[Kristian]

That's not even remotely close to the point I was making. You're downplaying the Sabres success those two years by saying one of those series wasn't dominant enough for you to be satisfied. Using YOUR logic, the Kings must not be good either because they thoroughly got their ###### kicked most of that seies.

 

Has nothing to do with me being satisfied. The Sabres won nothing. The Kings did. Twice. The difference is astounding.

 

I can tell by your posts. :P

 

Apparently not.

 

I just don't see the hate. It's a typical excuse used by the haters. Any reasonable person would give Darcy some kind of credit. He was building a speedy team as speed was the trend BEFORE the lockout. Most teams were doing the same thing. Stop coming up with lame reasons to downplay anything he did.

 

The fact that I couldn't stand Darcy is no secret. He's gone, I no longer care, regardless what you may think.

 

The 05-07 team benefitted immensely by the rules. You're claming Darcy, as the only GM in the league had a crystal ball to see those rules coming, when nobody else did. I don't believe that, hence I don't give him credit for it.

[Taro T]

 

 

Completely reasonable.

 

Which is not what this thread is trying to be.

 

We've discussed every point brought up so far ad nauseum at some time or another. Darcy's drafting was well above average; according to some analysts it was near the top of the league. Not making the finals and not skating over Edmonton to the Cup was due to a disastrous string of fluky injuries. The '06-'08 team was goodgreat and well-coached by Lindy Ruff, but its downfall was the fault of tight purse strings and whatever the ###### Larry Quinn was doing. Efforts to remain competitive after the departure of Drury, Briere, and Campbell stalled with Connolly injuries, as Regier relied on him and Roy to be "two number one centers."

 

What really ###### Darcy Regier was the inabillity to acquire quality free agents, either through his own impotence, the publicly-visible lack of a large roster budget that was perceived as a hindrance to success, the post-lockout changes in the free agent market system causing a shortage of free agents, or the lack of interest by free agents to sign in Buffalo for any number of reasons. This slide show summarizes the free agent history of the Buffalo Sabres 2009-present. Atrocious.

 

Drafting, trading, and signing free agents comprise the all-important trifecta of player acquisition, and Regier was arguably very good at the first two. However, at different times throughout his tenure, he was either extremely bad or not allowed to be any good at the last one. And it killed him.

Don't forget the corrolary of never changing his mind about an acquired 'rental.' Once considered a rental, no player was ever extended, regardless of how circumstances may have changed.

[Kristian]

Those '70-'75 Sabres HAD NEVER WON IN FILLY. How was that team, that needed to find a way to win at minimum 1 there, and, considering they lost game 6 at home, realistically needed to win 2 in Filly 'a damn sight closer to winning' than the '06 Sabres that were less than 20 minutes away from facing the 8th place Eulers?

 

Philly was an outrageous team back then, there's no deyning that. But the fact that Gilbert's team were in the finals means they were closer by definition..

 

The Canes didn't lose a single player to injury on their way to the finals. Every player that was available to them on April 22, 2006 was still available when the finals started on June 5. The Sabres were down 4 D & Connolly. The Canes had an astounding amount of luck that year and were down to the Sabres in the 3rd period of Game 7.

 

No denying the Canes luck that year, but the fact remains that barring a colossal meltdown in game 1, and the Canes hurting Roloson, the Oilers take game 1. They were up 4-1 when Rollie was hurt. They weren't the pushovers everyone like to make them out to be, hence I am not in the "Sabres would've walked all over them" camp.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Zemgus, Risto, Nikita, Compher, McCabe.....Babtiste, Kea, Kassian McNabb, Foligno.....all Darcy draft boys.

 

Before we start giving Murray credit.

 

Uh huh........and I ate some Kale after my 3rd heart attack.....

 

I think we can give Darcy credit for some things without wishing him back.

 

Yes.....like we can give credit to the weasel for aerating the lawn next to the chicken coups.....

[JJFIVEOH]

 

 

Has nothing to do with me being satisfied. The Sabres won nothing. The Kings did. Twice. The difference is astounding.

 

 

 

Apparently not.

 

 

 

The fact that I couldn't stand Darcy is no secret. He's gone, I no longer care, regardless what you may think.

 

The 05-07 team benefitted immensely by the rules. You're claming Darcy, as the only GM in the league had a crystal ball to see those rules coming, when nobody else did. I don't believe that, hence I don't give him credit for it.

 

I'm sorry you can't comprehend the comparison. I wasn't comparing the teams I was comparing your logic that wins apparently don't count in your opinion. The Sabres were successful and you downplayed it by saying they weren't dominant enough so it doesn't count. The Kings were far from dominant in both of their Cup wins in some cases. Darcy could have won a Cup and you would have trashed him for not doing it in 16 games.

 

Darcy wasn't the only GM post-lockout. The Sabres weren't the only fast team post-lockout The Sabres weren't the only team in which the rules applied to. Darcy must have done something right to get to two consecutive CF's and a President's trophy because everybody else was in the same boat. If Darcy had that much success simply by luck then that doesn't say much for the rest of the league, does itk

 

If you don't care, you have a funny way of showing it.

[Campy]

I get sick of hearing Darcy 'lucked into it'. Guess what, every team that is successful benefitted by luck at some point. Can't the guy get some credit?

 

I give him credit for being a very shrewd trader. While there were some guys he brought in at the deadline that didn't pan out as well we all hoped, he usually got really good value for the players he shipped out.

[Taro T]

 

 

Philly was an outrageous team back then, there's no deyning that. But the fact that Gilbert's team were in the finals means they were closer by definition..

 

 

 

No denying the Canes luck that year, but the fact remains that barring a colossal meltdown in game 1, and the Canes hurting Roloson, the Oilers take game 1. They were up 4-1 when Rollie was hurt. They weren't the pushovers everyone like to make them out to be, hence I am not in the "Sabres would've walked all over them" camp.

Didn't say they 'would've walked all over' the Eulers, but the Eulers would have had absolute fits w/ the Sabres' team speed. They would have had to win at least 1 more game in Buffalo than Buffalo won in Edmonton.

 

At a minimum, w/ Filly's Spectrum being the Sabres official house of horrors, that '06 squad was close to where the '75 team was. I'd still contend they were as close or closer than the '75 team. Had the '75 team gotten 1 more point in the regular season, they'd've been closer to winning. That team didn't win in Filly until '77 and it took 3 more years to get their next win there.

 

Those Sabres from that team claim they were the favorites heading into that series, it simply wasn't the case. It was, IF THEY CAN FIND A WAY TO WIN 1 THERE, they've got a chance. They couldn't and they didn't.

[Kristian]

I'm sorry you can't comprehend the comparison. I wasn't comparing the teams I was comparing your logic that wins apparently don't count in your opinion. The Sabres were successful and you downplayed it by saying they weren't dominant enough so it doesn't count. The Kings were far from dominant in both of their Cup wins in some cases. Darcy could have won a Cup and you would have trashed him for not doing it in 16 games.

 

Darcy wasn't the only GM post-lockout. The Sabres weren't the only fast team post-lockout The Sabres weren't the only team in which the rules applied to. Darcy must have done something right to get to two consecutive CF's and a President's trophy because everybody else was in the same boat. If Darcy had that much success simply by luck then that doesn't say much for the rest of the league, does itk

 

If you don't care, you have a funny way of showing it.

 

No, I just find it funny when I'm being told I should be praising a team that never won anything, let alone made the finals.

 

Funny thing is, that Sabres team wasn't all that fast. Sure, they had some great skaters like Afinogenov, Briere, Roy, Drury, and others, but guys like Kalinin, McKee, Vanek, Teppo, Grier, Pyatt and Dumont were never all that fast.

 

The Sabres for some reason that year just gelled, which is why I believe it was luck - I simply don't believe anyone could've had the foresight to get all those pieces into place, before even knowing how the game would be called, I'm sorry.

 

Call me a pessimst, call me whatever, I just don't believe anyone is hockey genious enough to build that team on purpose.

[Stoner]

Uh huh........and I ate some Kale after my 3rd heart attack.....

 

Fish has lots of omega 3s, so good for you. And Kale.

[Kristian]

Didn't say they 'would've walked all over' the Eulers, but the Eulers would have had absolute fits w/ the Sabres' team speed. They would have had to win at least 1 more game in Buffalo than Buffalo won in Edmonton.

 

At a minimum, w/ Filly's Spectrum being the Sabres official house of horrors, that '06 squad was close to where the '75 team was. I'd still contend they were as close or closer than the '75 team. Had the '75 team gotten 1 more point in the regular season, they'd've been closer to winning. That team didn't win in Filly until '77 and it took 3 more years to get their next win there.

 

Those Sabres from that team claim they were the favorites heading into that series, it simply wasn't the case. It was, IF THEY CAN FIND A WAY TO WIN 1 THERE, they've got a chance. They couldn't and they didn't.

 

Fair enough, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. And I agree, *any* team year, would've been in trouble against the Sabres - They were a damn good team, when not dressing an AHL defense.

 

That said, the ´06 Sabres had difficulty holding a lead against both the Sens and especially the Canes, which is mainly what I remember from the 06 playoffs.

[JJFIVEOH]

No, I just find it funny when I'm being told I should be praising a team that never won anything, let alone made the finals.

 

Funny thing is, that Sabres team wasn't all that fast. Sure, they had some great skaters like Afinogenov, Briere, Roy, Drury, and others, but guys like Kalinin, McKee, Vanek, Teppo, Grier, Pyatt and Dumont were never all that fast.

 

The Sabres for some reason that year just gelled, which is why I believe it was luck - I simply don't believe anyone could've had the foresight to get all those pieces into place, before even knowing how the game would be called, I'm sorry.

 

Call me a pessimst, call me whatever, I just don't believe anyone is hockey genious enough to build that team on purpose.

 

Nobody is telling you to do anything any more than you're telling me to do something. Nobody said you need to praise him or that team. They went to two consecutive CF's and won a President's trophy and yet that's not successful to you; that's 'never won anything'. If your definition of success is a Cup win then sports fans are going to be a disappointed bunch because there is a 29:30 chance their season will be a failure.

 

This isn't high school dodgeball. You don't just luck your way into two consecutive CF's and a President's trophy. If that were the case then teams would hire people off the street as GM's. Instead they spend 5,10,15 yars working their way up through the ranks and then get thoroughly vetted before being hired as a GM. I see your points completely but I believe you lack objective reasoning because your thought process is clouded by hatred.

 

I give him credit for being a very shrewd trader. While there were some guys he brought in at the deadline that didn't pan out as well we all hoped, he usually got really good value for the players he shipped out.

 

I agree 100%.

[Kristian]

Nobody is telling you to do anything any more than you're telling me to do something. Nobody said you need to praise him or that team. They went to two consecutive CF's and won a President's trophy and yet that's not successful to you; that's 'never won anything'. If your definition of success is a Cup win then sports fans are going to be a disappointed bunch because there is a 29:30 chance their season will be a failure.

 

This isn't high school dodgeball. You don't just luck your way into two consecutive CF's and a President's trophy. If that were the case then teams would hire people off the street as GM's. Instead they spend 5,10,15 yars working their way up through the ranks and then get thoroughly vetted before being hired as a GM. I see your points completely but I believe you lack objective reasoning because your thought process is clouded by hatred.

 

 

And yet, most of us will agree the 'Canes lucked into the cup. I'll tell you right now, I'm firmly in that camp.

 

And just to clarify, I never said I was disappointed. But to me "succesful" constitutes some kind of plan being executed, and I just didn't see that plan anywhere in the Sabres organisation.

 

At the first possible chance, they let key players go, and expected to keep on keeping on. McKee, Dumont, Grier, Drury, Briere.

 

Not saying there weren't circumstances that made retaining these players impossible, but choosing scoring (Kotalik), over hard work, playmaking and a little less scoring (Dumont), on a team loaded on offense? That never sat well with me, I'll admit.

 

As an example, if the Sabres tank another season, land either McDavid or a second overall, then move forward to 7th-12th place the next season, I'd call that succesful, at least short term.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Kristian

[JJFIVEOH]

And yet, most of us will agree the 'Canes lucked into the cup. I'll tell you right now, I'm firmly in that camp.

 

And just to clarify, I never said I was disappointed. But to me "succesful" constitutes some kind of plan being executed, and I just didn't see that plan anywhere in the Sabres organisation.

 

At the first possible chance, they let key players go, and expected to keep on keeping on. McKee, Dumont, Grier, Drury, Briere.

 

Not saying there weren't circumstances that made retaining these players impossible, but choosing scoring (Kotalik), over hard work, playmaking and a little less scoring (Dumont), on a team loaded on offense? That never sat well with me, I'll admit.

 

I could just as easily say the Kings were a period a half away from being a candidate for serious offseason reconstuction.

 

Paint it however you like. Teams just don't luck themselves into success like that without some sort of plan and/or knowledge. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Kristian]

I could just as easily say the Kings were a period a half away from being a candidate for serious offseason reconstuction.

 

Paint it however you like. Teams just don't luck themselves into success like that without some sort of plan and/or knowledge. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Fair enough, but things get so boring when we do :P

[JJFIVEOH]

Fair enough, but things get so boring when we do :P

 

Give it a couple of weeks, I'll start a Miller thread. :D

[thewookie1]

Here's an idea of how badly our defense was in the 06 conference finals:

 

Game 1: (5/6 NHL D-man)

B.Campbell - R.Fitzpatrick

T.Lydman - J.McKee

T. Numminen - H. Tallinder

 

Game 2: (4/6)

B.Campbell - R.Fitzpatrick

T.Lydman - J.McKee

D. Janik - H. Tallinder

 

Game 3: (4/6)

B.Campbell - R.Fitzpatrick

T.Lydman - J.McKee

J. Jillson - H. Tallinder

 

Game 4&5: (3/6)

B.Campbell - R.Fitzpatrick

T.Lydman - J.McKee

J. Jillson - D. Janik

 

Game 6: (4/6)

B.Campbell - R.Fitzpatrick

T.Lydman - J.McKee

T. Numminen - D. Janik

 

Game 7: (2/6)

B.Campbell - R.Fitzpatrick

T.Lydman - N. Paetsch

J. Jillson - D. Janik

 

 

 

That's a pretty beat up D-corp if you ask me.

Edited July 15, 2014 by thewookie1

[IKnowPhysics]

Game 7: (2/6)

B.Campbell - R.Fitzpatrick

T.Lydman - N. Paetsch

J. Jillson - D. Janik

 

Son of a bitch. I remember how bad the defense was and how bad it stung to lose, but that still makes me cringe.

 

And that was all with Kalinin injured too, he led the team in +/- despite only playing 55 games. Fitzpatrick had by far the team's worst +/- in only 56 games. Jillson, Paetsch, and Janik had combined for three regular season games played that year.

[Claude_Verret]

It's a miracle we were up 2-1 at the end of the second in game 7 with that blue line. Yet to this day nearly every canes fan and a select few posters here will argue those injuries mattered not in the outcome.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

It's a miracle we were up 2-1 at the end of the second in game 7 with that blue line. Yet to this day nearly every canes fan and a select few posters here will argue those injuries mattered not in the outcome.

 

Chalk it up to the Sabres medical/training staff once again....

 

Tallinder breaks his arm in the same spot and McKee gets MRSA.

 

I pray for you Tyler....I pray for you.....