Ted Nolan "I learned last week I can't say what/how I feel."

[...]

"Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.

 

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend."

 

-- Bruce Lee

 

[Doohicksie]

Zoom Zoom.

[That Aud Smell]

I kinda figured that's what you meant. I guess I was just saying that that in and of itself is a system. Maybe not a complex one or even good one, but it's a system.

 

So, I guess my initial question still stands. Do we know for sure that his system is this type or could it be that he actually does have a system that is more complex and he just doesn't have any players good enough to make it show any results?

It seems to me that Teddy thinks the best way to compete with a talent depletee deprived roster is to play the simplest game possible. You could be right.

 

Excellent conversation here.

 

This thought popped into my head this morning: Is the precise opposite actually more true? That is, the less talent you have, the more you need a system, tactics, and the like to compensate for what the players can't deliver?

[That Aud Smell]

Nolan in today's pre-game media materials is quoted as saying "Our work ethic has to be much better."

 

So, it's still all about hustle and commitment, apparently.

[Eleven]

Nolan in today's pre-game media materials is quoted as saying "Our work ethic has to be much better."

 

So, it's still all about hustle and commitment, apparently.

 

To be fair, the guy can't really go on record with "we need better players."

[nucci]

To be fair, the guy can't really go on record with "we need better players."

or maybe try teaching them breakout plays and how to play in their own zone..........( not a shot at you)

Edited October 22, 2014 by nucci

[darksabre]

or maybe try teaching them breakout plays and how to play in their own zone..........( not a shot at you)

 

Their play in their own zone is a direct result of both lack of effort and lack of talent. We're awful in our own end because most of the time we're just passively letting players handle the puck. It seems that everyone just wants to cover the pass and not attack the puck carrier.

 

It's gutless hockey. And I can't imagine they're being coached to play that way.

[That Aud Smell]

To be fair, the guy can't really go on record with "we need better players."

 

More than fair.

 

There's just an "emperor's new clothes" vibe to this talk about work ethic being the key to success for this team. Like, there are small children at the FNC who're rejecting the coach-speak and shouting out "they don't need to work harder ... they just stink!"

 

Their play in their own zone is a direct result of both lack of effort and lack of talent. We're awful in our own end because most of the time we're just passively letting players handle the puck. It seems that everyone just wants to cover the pass and not attack the puck carrier.

 

It's gutless hockey. And I can't imagine they're being coached to play that way.

 

Also fair.

 

I rarely think things are all one thing, and not another. There's presumably some truth to what Nolan's saying.

[LTS]

Strategy vs. tactics? I'm sure Ted doesn't coach by saying, "Go out there and freestyle, do what feels right." There has to be a overall philosophy. But maybe he just doesn't believe in the Xs and Os. I've never believed hockey could be drawn up on a whiteboard. I always laughed at Lindy with 13 seconds to go and the faceoff in the offensive zone, down by one, furiously scribbling away. Hockey is throwing your loaded paint brush into a fan in front of a canvas, not paint by numbers.

 

It absolutely can be drawn up on a whiteboard. There are plenty of those whiteboards out there if you want to find them. Every system has its fundamental tendencies and those are written up. The trap, the lock, all of them are diagrammed and good teams execute them the majority of the time. There are naturally points of the flow where its not possible to execute the system and that's when the next level of thinking has to occur. A team needs to adapt briefly and then return to its system.

 

The breakout is another great example. There are countless different breakout methodologies and each of them have strengths and weaknesses. They are chosen based on the style of play you expect your opponent to be using. Are they bringing two forecheckers down low? Are they sending only one? All of that is based on the skill and ability of the players on the team of course. A slow team isn't going to execute any stretch plays and so the opposition is more willing to adapt a 2 man forecheck and give up the "long ball" so to speak. A team that has shown it cannot pass cleanly will also find the pressure upped. This is no different that football and attempting to up the pressure on QB who is a slower decision maker. You lessen their time and space and they make mistakes.

 

Nolan in today's pre-game media materials is quoted as saying "Our work ethic has to be much better."

 

So, it's still all about hustle and commitment, apparently.

 

It is about work ethic. In practice, if they are not working towards hitting 100% of their passes where they need to be then they will continue to play that way. If they continue to not focus on what they need to do then they will continue to suck. Work ethic is not hustle and commitment, but if you practice at a high level then you will have a greater tendency to play at a higher level. Work ethic is a commitment to work and attention to detail. Hustling to the wrong spot does no one any good at all.

 

or maybe try teaching them breakout plays and how to play in their own zone..........( not a shot at you)

 

They have them, they can't execute them and this is what brings us to the most important piece of this discussion. All of these players are aware of the systems, the positioning, the plays, the coverages, the first level of thought and the second level of thought, etc. that go into playing hockey. All of them. The difference is their physical ability to execute, their mental ability to properly apply the thought process in time, and how their overall ability to do so compares against the ability of the opposition.

 

Right now, some of the Sabres are capable of playing at the highest level but it won't necessarily show because they have to overcome their teammates inability to play at that level. Much like a short-handed team generally does not take the offensive, playing with even 1 lower skilled player will reduce the overall effectiveness of the unit on the ice. Just like the star WR doesn't shine against double coverage, the star player won't dominate when becoming the focus of the opposition. If I'm facing three people who want to hurt me and one has a lead pipe and two have feather pillows I am going to focus on the guy with the pipe.

[bunomatic]

I agree with LTS. Good point. All this talk of no system is laughable really. Its a lack of talent. Simple. After the San Jose win an opposing players was quoted as saying that the Sabres play a good system and work hard. Every team has systems and set plays etc. There would be no need for multiple coaches if it was all rah rah rah. Its understandable that some on the board just don't like Nolan but give him some credit. He's not a moron.

[X. Benedict]

I agree with LTS. Good point. All this talk of no system is laughable really. Its a lack of talent. Simple. After the San Jose win an opposing players was quoted as saying that the Sabres play a good system and work hard. Every team has systems and set plays etc. There would be no need for multiple coaches if it was all rah rah rah. Its understandable that some on the board just don't like Nolan but give him some credit. He's not a moron.

 

 

So there is a system, but it is so ineffectual that it is inscrutable.

 

If I were to describe it, straight up defensive strategy, block shots, uncontested neutral zone, with no consistent approach to entries, so a reliance on counterattack/rush rather than any approach to hold possession for all 5 active in the zone with puck support.

 

Honestly, call it a system, but it is better described as a simple strategy. I don't think Nolan's a moron, I just don't think his approach wins in the NHL even with talent.

 

So there is my plain bias.

 

[nfreeman]

So there is a system, but it is so ineffectual that it is inscrutable.

 

If I were to describe it, straight up defensive strategy, block shots, uncontested neutral zone, with no consistent approach to entries, so a reliance on counterattack/rush rather than any approach to hold possession for all 5 active in the zone with puck support.

 

Honestly, call it a system, but it is better described as a simple strategy. I don't think Nolan's a moron, I just don't think his approach wins in the NHL even with talent.

 

So there is my plain bias.

 

It would be nice to find out for sure though, innit?

[Stoner]

And, of course, maybe it's possible those with no experience coaching at the highest level of this game just don't understand what they're seeing.

[LTS]

So there is a system, but it is so ineffectual that it is inscrutable.

 

If I were to describe it, straight up defensive strategy, block shots, uncontested neutral zone, with no consistent approach to entries, so a reliance on counterattack/rush rather than any approach to hold possession for all 5 active in the zone with puck support.

 

Honestly, call it a system, but it is better described as a simple strategy. I don't think Nolan's a moron, I just don't think his approach wins in the NHL even with talent.

 

So there is my plain bias.

 

It's a fine line at some point there's no doubt. However, I think when you take multiple strategies at each point in the game and then you put those together you've developed a system. I'll boil it down into one specific instance I can think of here. What is the strategy for wanting to leave a player, uncontested, in front of your goaltender while shorthanded? It's something Nolan must want because they do it constantly. It's in his system that this happens.

 

 

And, of course, maybe it's possible those with no experience coaching at the highest level of this game just don't understand what they're seeing.

 

While I don't think coaching at the highest level is required it is required to have a solid fundamental knowledge of hockey strategies and systems. I think it is possible for many people to gather that information and incorporate it into their analysis of the Sabres positioning, their methods, etc. That said, we don't know what everyone's background is and just how learned they are in these things. Even then, I would it could be said that the highest level of coaching provides additional nuances that those who are not able to achieve that level would never understand. I think it's fair to say that Mike Babcock probably has some nuances to his coaching and his system that Ted Nolan does not have.

[Eleven]

And, of course, maybe it's possible those with no experience coaching at the highest level of this game just don't understand what they're seeing.

 

People must have gotten a lot dumber in the last two years.

[Stoner]

People must have gotten a lot dumber in the last two years.

 

I couldn't have told you — and never did — what Lindy's "system" was. I knew when it was time for him to go.

[Eleven]

I couldn't have told you — and never did — what Lindy's "system" was. I knew when it was time for him to go.

 

That's ok; others could, and did, and can now, and do. Not that I think any system will work with these guys, anyway.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Eleven

[TrueBlueGED]

I couldn't have told you — and never did — what Lindy's "system" was. I knew when it was time for him to go.

 

So you had no idea what X was, but you *knew* X caused Y. Maybe it's possible that without any NHL coaching experience you're in no position to attribute causality ;)

 

All I'm saying is what people are doing now with Nolan is no "worse" (not sure if that's the right word, but I'm going with it) than what you did with Ruff.

[LastPommerFan]

is nolan = hackett?

[TrueBlueGED]

That's ok; others could, and did, and can now, and do. Not that I think any system will work with these guys, anyway.

 

That last part is why I don't think we should really hold Nolan accountable for the results--they're going to be really bad. But I think the micro stuff (ice time, lineup, lines, situational use, etc) is all fair game. I can live with a coach making quality choices even of the results are nauseating, because that's a talent issue. But if a coach is making poor decisions, then I want a new coach, because I don't think more talent down the line improves his thought process.

[Eleven]

That last part is why I don't think we should really hold Nolan accountable for the results--they're going to be really bad. But I think the micro stuff (ice time, lineup, lines, situational use, etc) is all fair game. I can live with a coach making quality choices even of the results are nauseating, because that's a talent issue. But if a coach is making poor decisions, then I want a new coach, because I don't think more talent down the line improves his thought process.

 

Agreed on all points.

[SwampD]

That's ok; others could, and did, and can now, and do. Not that I think any system will work with these guys, anyway.

Wouldn't it be just awful if they let Nolan go right when they are going to be really good, a second time.

[Taro T]

 

Wouldn't it be just awful if they let Nolan go right when they are going to be really good, a second time.

Hard to envision many (any?) scenarios at this point where that won't be the case.

[Stoner]

So you had no idea what X was, but you *knew* X caused Y. Maybe it's possible that without any NHL coaching experience you're in no position to attribute causality ;)

 

All I'm saying is what people are doing now with Nolan is no "worse" (not sure if that's the right word, but I'm going with it) than what you did with Ruff.

 

16 years, dude. Aren't you one of these big sample size guys?

[X. Benedict]

And, of course, maybe it's possible those with no experience coaching at the highest level of this game just don't understand what they're seeing.

 

So in our quest to understand what Ted Nolan is attempting to do, you are weighing in with the conjecture that it simply cannot be done. Not by us rubes.