The Sabres Culture: Losing is no longer acceptable

[LGR4GM]

For, idk 5 years we talked about how the Sabres culture and core were not strong enough.  Miller gets flattened we get a meh response. Team loses by a ton and we here some lame locker room interview about how we will be better next time. Hell we traded the entire team away and as guys left the ones still here still seemed like "meh I'm getting paid and so what if we are mediocre."

 

Let's talk about now.  The veterans on this team don't find losing acceptable. The rookies we have brought in are all good guys. Everyone is expected to work hard.  The season started rough and instead of hearing some lame excuse we heard things like we aren't playing good enough, we need to do x,y,z and then they went out and started doing it.  There is accountability in that locker room and leaders up the ying yang. Bottom line, the losing culture that pervaded this team for years... I think the new core just said "f##k that" and decided to be better. 

 

There is a determined resilience to this team that has been missing since 2007.  Fun part is, we ain't seen nothin yet.

[Doohicksie]

I don't think it's losing is unacceptable.

 

Is more like losing is discouraged.

 

But still, that's a big step up.

[sicknfla]

That is why Gionta held the meeting. Nipped it nice and early and said what happened the last two years is not happening again.

 

The results may take time but you can see the culture has changed. They are playing with a passion. That was my biggest concern the last few years with the young guys - how much is this loosing is expected ( and wanted) hurting their development.

[Doohicksie]

That is why Gionta held the meeting. Nipped it nice and early and said what happened the last two years is not happening again.

 

The results may take time but you can see the culture has changed. They are playing with a passion. That was my biggest concern the last few years with the young guys - how much is this loosing is expected ( and wanted) hurting their development.

 

I think they felt Risto was ready and could handle it.  Pysyk was ready for the NHL game, but I felt they were shielding from the losing in Buffalo.  Difference in personality types I guess.

[calti]

For, idk 5 years we talked about how the Sabres culture and core were not strong enough.  Miller gets flattened we get a meh response. Team loses by a ton and we here some lame locker room interview about how we will be better next time. Hell we traded the entire team away and as guys left the ones still here still seemed like "meh I'm getting paid and so what if we are mediocre."

 

Let's talk about now.  The veterans on this team don't find losing acceptable. The rookies we have brought in are all good guys. Everyone is expected to work hard.  The season started rough and instead of hearing some lame excuse we heard things like we aren't playing good enough, we need to do x,y,z and then they went out and started doing it.  There is accountability in that locker room and leaders up the ying yang. Bottom line, the losing culture that pervaded this team for years... I think the new core just said "f##k that" and decided to be better. 

 

There is a determined resilience to this team that has been missing since 2007.  Fun part is, we ain't seen nothin yet.

this team reminds me of early 70s sabres...loaded with young talent --and ready to do some damage w/in a year or two.

[qwksndmonster]

I've never bought in much to sports "cultures."  It always reads like fans judging entire franchises based on results.  I doubt the "rotten core" was okay with losing, they just weren't a well put together squad.

[Doohicksie]

I've never bought in much to sports "cultures."  It always reads like fans judging entire franchises based on results.  I doubt the "rotten core" was okay with losing, they just weren't a well put together squad.

 

They didn't have a leader, a go-to guy.  Basically from Drury/Briere to O'Reilly the Sabres had no one in the the room that was a complete leader.  Part of the package is a charisma that inspires.  Vanek never had that, even at his best.  It's just not who he is.  Ott had it, but but he was lacking in other areas of talent and speed, and the team didn't have enough of either of those.  I think Gionta has the leadership thing, but he's past his prime.  ROR is just hitting his.  Between Eichel and Reinhartd I think one of those guys, or maybe both, have it but we need to see how their careers develop.  Deslauriers is probably a solid A going forward but I don't think he'll ever eclipse the guys ahead of him to get a C, and may be a bit too rough around the edges to be diplomatic with the on-ice officials.  Girgs is kind of a ROR Jr. in my view; he may assume a similar role down the road.

Edited November 2, 2015 by The Big Johnson

[LGR4GM]

I just feel like there are so many guys in that room that just approach the game the right way. They view things from a standpoint of internal attribution as opposed to what we had prior which was external attribution. So basically prior it was the external reasons why the team was failing, "we aren't getting bounces, was an off night, the other team outworked us, etc..."  now what I hear is "I was not good enough, I need to be better in this situation, we need to find ways."  The locus of control is on the individuals and the team and not on luck, or other teams, or uncontrollable circumstances.

[Doohicksie]

I just feel like there are so many guys in that room that just approach the game the right way. They view things from a standpoint of internal attribution as opposed to what we had prior which was external attribution. So basically prior it was the external reasons why the team was failing, "we aren't getting bounces, was an off night, the other team outworked us, etc..."  now what I hear is "I was not good enough, I need to be better in this situation, we need to find ways."  The locus of control is on the individuals and the team and not on luck, or other teams, or uncontrollable circumstances.

 

I think this is a very deliberate move on GMTM's part.  You look at the Darcy players that remain, and that's the reason they weren't moved.  There was a mix of players before, now you see a handful of players that remain, and all of them are the ones with "hockey sense."  The ones who didn't have that were moved.  Probably the biggest exception is Weber, who's reasonably hockey smart but doesn't have the sill level of the rest of the D.  GMTM didn't clean house just to clean house; he moved the players he himself wouldn't have acquired.

Edited November 2, 2015 by The Big Johnson

[LastPommerFan]

The Sabres are 5-5 in their last 10. This has not happened since 12/27/2014. 

 

They lost their next 14 games.

[pi2000]

Losing becomes somewhat tolerable when you're not expected to win.     They have much more talent now than they did the past 2 season, so losing is not tolerated... not just because they "decided" they weren't going to lose.

[woods-racer]

The Sabres are 5-5 in their last 10. This has not happened since 12/27/2014. 

 

They lost their next 14 games.

 

They have a tough November ahead, and I know your not predicting a 14 game losing streak, but come Dec 1st and the Sabres played .500 hockey for the month, I'm happy. 

[Rasmus_]

The shadow of last year has set on the sunrise of a new tomorrow.  Or enter any sort of visual statement.  Last year was about embracing the penultimate bottom falling out.  Uncorking and letting Pandora's box annihilate everything in the past three seasons specifically.  The box is closed and there are new figureheads in the front office, coaching staff, in the line up and generally a new message.   "Faster pace, focusing on small things to open up huge possibilities."  There are no more expectations about building a foundation, it is in place.  Now it is about enriching the roster, and future.  Losing will come as they continue to add and subtract to improve, but that's the same for every team.  GO SABRES!

[That Aud Smell]

This is an interesting topic.

 

I've heard White at GR say many times that a "winning culture" is a misnomer -- that you become a winner by having really good players. There's nothing "cultural" about it.

 

There is some truth to that, but that also seems to over-simplify the matter. Considerations such as

 

there are so many guys in that room that just approach the game the right way.

 

are ones that I think have value. At least, I think they do.

 

For whatever reason, the stories about what Drury brought in this regard always stick with me (detailed dietetic guidelines, sleeping/resting tips, no music blaring at certain times, getting back into the weight room after a game or practice). They're not even good stories. They're not funny or insightful. Nor particularly charming. They're sort of unpleasant, actually. 

 

But it gives some detail to what is meant when people say "he knows what it takes to be a true professional."

[Weave]

 

 

For whatever reason, the stories about what Drury brought in this regard always stick with me (detailed dietetic guidelines, sleeping/resting tips, no music blaring at certain times, getting back into the weight room after a game or practice). They're not even good stories. They're not funny or insightful. Nor particularly charming. They're sort of unpleasant, actually. 

 

 

I've had this nagging thought for a long while that Drury's approach to the game is what gave us Vanek face and a "leadership" core that collapsed under the weight of the pressure.  I'm not sold that it was a net positive.

[Doohicksie]

But it gives some detail to what is meant when people say "he knows what it takes to be a true professional."

 

But can a player still be a true professional if he doesn't do all the little things just the "right" way and actually "lives large" once in a while, as long as he brings his A game to the ice?  (You all know who I'm talking about)

[LGR4GM]

The Sabres are 5-5 in their last 10. This has not happened since 12/27/2014. 

 

They lost their next 14 games.

And thus completed the tank.

 

Losing becomes somewhat tolerable when you're not expected to win.     They have much more talent now than they did the past 2 season, so losing is not tolerated... not just because they "decided" they weren't going to lose.

They decided the reasons they were losing were external, it is a different locus of control over a perceived outcome. I am not saying they decided to lose.

 

I've had this nagging thought for a long while that Drury's approach to the game is what gave us Vanek face and a "leadership" core that collapsed under the weight of the pressure.  I'm not sold that it was a net positive.

Yea I agree. I know personally that listening to music helps me focus and that not everyone approaches things the same.

[That Aud Smell]

I've had this nagging thought for a long while that Drury's approach to the game is what gave us Vanek face and a "leadership" core that collapsed under the weight of the pressure.  I'm not sold that it was a net positive.

 

I do not disagree, and think that's a potentially keen insight.

 

But can a player still be a true professional if he doesn't do all the little things just the "right" way and actually "lives large" once in a while, as long as he brings his A game to the ice?  (You all know who I'm talking about)

 

There are many ways to skin a cat. Think about how Jordan reportedly conducted himself while on the road -- beer, cigars, late night gambling. As We've notes, Drury's approach may not have been a translatable one.

 

Yea I agree. I know personally that listening to music helps me focus and that not everyone approaches things the same.

 

Different strokes.

[IKnowPhysics]

I don't think it's losing is unacceptable.

 

Is more like losing is discouraged.

 

But still, that's a big step up.

 

2014-15: Losing is discouraged.   ;)

2015-16: Losing is discouraged.   :angry:

 

I agree.