Dan Byslma Needs to Go?

[Randall Flagg]

P.S. Randall if that wasn't directed at me, nevermind!

S'all good, beerme1. 

 

 

No, he doesn't need to go.

 

This insanity is fueled by the fact the Sabres didn't get Babcock and now everyone's all a tizzy.

 

Just remember, when you recommend that the coach should go you should also have come up with a suitable replacement option.  Who would it be?

Nah, we don't like Bylsma's system/decision-making. Your next sentence isn't true either. I'm not being paid to do that, and I don't have time to scour minor leagues and the unemployment line looking for a coach that fits what I want to do. Luckily, we have people that do have time to do that. (And maybe they have, and are willing to stick with Bylsma based on what they see there.)

 

Are you guys like 12 years old? 3 games in this year (and by the way, we're not 0-3) and a 29 point improvement last year over 14/15. Not perfect but he's fine. There are worse problems than him playing Grant 15 mins.

No.

 

I'm not sure DDB was the best coach to be had when hired him, but we got him. He had his knocks as not the greatest in game decision maker from his Pens days, he's still got that baggage.  

 

His plus side was a great teacher and a good mentor for young players. 

 

So with that said...

 

When the players turn, and they always do if they lose faith in their coach, then it's time to go. Right now his teaching is still trumping his bench bossing and the players are still listening.

Interesting point. He might not be maximizing Eichel/Reinhart/Risto's development as much as a Babcock would, but I can't say I have proof he's hurting it. And there are plenty of coaches that would. 

I know we talked about it here.

 

We also talked about how it looked like he was doing a complete overhaul of the system by thirds. The first third of the year was just working on our own end, next was the transition game, and then finally the offensive zone.

 

These first three games tells me that some of the guys forgot what they learned last year (and maybe guys like Franson never learned it due to injury.)

 

Also, DaC isn't always bad. If the other team is stacking the blue line and you have the guys who can play it, it can be the right option.

It's definitely not a bad decision to make in plenty of situations. I think the Larsson line is almost perfect with regards to this. They carry it in any chance they can, but when the situation isn't ideal for that, they chip it by and are really good at keeping pressure and getting to the puck and winning battles. I just see a lot of players, like our top line last night for example, and others in plenty of other games, doing it when they should be carrying, because of Bylsma's insistence that it's better to have the defensemen turn their backs. Stats show this isn't true. I've read that more than twice as many scoring chances are created when the puck is carried in versus when it is dumped in. Bylsma seems to prefer dumping, not just using it when there's no chance a carry-in works. 

 

I honestly forget. Were you in the "who's out there that's better than Lindy?" crowd? There are always solid replacements, it's just a matter of finding them. You either get a current great or a next great. I fear the Sabres ended up with someone solidly in the middle.

 

Did the tank give us one piece we really coveted? We didn't even get Jimmy what's his face.

Yeah, and I can't say I know how hard or easy it is to find the right guy. I'm afraid of this too, and I'm also afraid of trying again and getting Ron Rolston, wasting a season.

 

The prize of the lost season will have no on-ice impact for the first two months of this season, just two years after. I can never support a tank again. If we're bad because we're bad, fine, but I can't do what we did in 14-15 again.

 

 

At times, yes, but it was different. Wingers don't play as deep, there's a guy and the dot to get that short pass out from the boards,... just different. They look like they are struggling right now with it but I think it will improve.

It's definitely relieving to have pressure on their point men at all times. I really believe that the point-shot-goal thing wasn't a Miller thing, it was a Ruff thing.

[SwampD]

S'all good, beerme1. 

 

 

Nah, we don't like Bylsma's system/decision-making. Your next sentence isn't true either. I'm not being paid to do that, and I don't have time to scour minor leagues and the unemployment line looking for a coach that fits what I want to do. Luckily, we have people that do have time to do that. (And maybe they have, and are willing to stick with Bylsma based on what they see there.)

 

No.

 

Interesting point. He might not be maximizing Eichel/Reinhart/Risto's development as much as a Babcock would, but I can't say I have proof he's hurting it. And there are plenty of coaches that would. 

It's definitely not a bad decision to make in plenty of situations. I think the Larsson line is almost perfect with regards to this. They carry it in any chance they can, but when the situation isn't ideal for that, they chip it by and are really good at keeping pressure and getting to the puck and winning battles. I just see a lot of players, like our top line last night for example, and others in plenty of other games, doing it when they should be carrying, because of Bylsma's insistence that it's better to have the defensemen turn their backs. Stats show this isn't true. I've read that more than twice as many scoring chances are created when the puck is carried in versus when it is dumped in. Bylsma seems to prefer dumping, not just using it when there's no chance a carry-in works. 

 

Yeah, and I can't say I know how hard or easy it is to find the right guy. I'm afraid of this too, and I'm also afraid of trying again and getting Ron Rolston, wasting a season.

 

The prize of the lost season will have no on-ice impact for the first two months of this season, just two years after. I can never support a tank again. If we're bad because we're bad, fine, but I can't do what we did in 14-15 again.

 

 

It's definitely relieving to have pressure on their point men at all times. I really believe that the point-shot-goal thing wasn't a Miller thing, it was a Ruff thing.

I love you.

[spndnchz]

I honestly forget. Were you in the "who's out there that's better than Lindy?" crowd? There are always solid replacements, it's just a matter of finding them. You either get a current great or a next great. I fear the Sabres ended up with someone solidly in the middle.

 

Did the tank give us one piece we really coveted? We didn't even get Jimmy what's his face.

So many questions no answers?

[beerme1]

S'all good, beerme1. 

 

 

I can never support a tank again. If we're bad because we're bad, fine, but I can't do what we did in 14-15 again.

 

 

 

Amen brother!

[rakish]

Stats show this isn't true. I've read that more than twice as many scoring chances are created when the puck is carried in versus when it is dumped in.

 

Consider this. You take data on when Eichel carries the puck in. You take data on when the Larsson line dumps and chases. Eichel's line scores twice as often as Larsson's line. Is it fair to say that stats show that carrying the puck in is better?

 

Take another angle. Eichel and Reinhart hit center ice, it's a 2-1, is this considered a carry-in? When Eichel and Reinhart hit center ice and it's 2-4, they dump it in. Does the carry in end up with better stats? Of course it does, is it fair to say that carrying the puck in is better because the stats are better?

 

Disclaimer: The above is in no way to be considered a defense of Dan Bylsma's coaching.

[Randall Flagg]

Consider this. You take data on when Eichel carries the puck in. You take data on when the Larsson line dumps and chases. Eichel's line scores twice as often as Larsson's line. Is it fair to say that stats show that carrying the puck in is better?

 

Take another angle. Eichel and Reinhart hit center ice, it's a 2-1, is this considered a carry-in? When Eichel and Reinhart hit center ice and it's 2-4, they dump it in. Does the carry in end up with better stats? Of course it does, is it fair to say that carrying the puck in is better because the stats are better?

 

Disclaimer: The above is in no way to be considered a defense of Dan Bylsma's coaching.

I understand that there are nuances to everything, including dump and chase and possession hockey. I've said how I admire the Larsson line for its ability to make that decision correctly almost all of the time - there are plenty of situations where that's ideal. I just absolutely hate having a system that prefers the dump in, because that takes away some rush opportunities that should happen, and that statistically would lead to goals more often than the dump would. I'm not saying that Eichel should go in 1 on 5, because we all know it's obnoxious when players try to do that and lose the puck. My argument is that we aren't being smart about it, and in situations where there are opportunities to carry and statistics tell us we'd be better off doing it, we're actually being led away from that direction because of a pretty quirky view, that the best play is to have a defenseman turn around. And our possession numbers, this year and last, are not good, we finished bottom 10 last year (yes, an incredible jump from the year before). This system isn't giving good enough results for me to believe that it's a good one versus a more possession-oriented system, and I have given my reasons for my belief that it doesn't fit our player personnel well at all. 

[rakish]

Why does Los Angeles trade their backup goaltender for a high draft pick most years. That goaltender goes to bad team, and suddenly gets bad?

[Randall Flagg]

Why does Los Angeles trade their backup goaltender for a high draft pick most years. That goaltender goes to bad team, and suddenly gets bad?

He took a team that missed the playoffs to the Stanley Cup Finals, the last time they did that :P 

[WildCard]

Consider this. You take data on when Eichel carries the puck in. You take data on when the Larsson line dumps and chases. Eichel's line scores twice as often as Larsson's line. Is it fair to say that stats show that carrying the puck in is better?

 

Take another angle. Eichel and Reinhart hit center ice, it's a 2-1, is this considered a carry-in? When Eichel and Reinhart hit center ice and it's 2-4, they dump it in. Does the carry in end up with better stats? Of course it does, is it fair to say that carrying the puck in is better because the stats are better?

 

Disclaimer: The above is in no way to be considered a defense of Dan Bylsma's coaching.

The stats in the paper I've read measure the team as a whole, thereby eliminating that variable.

[Andrew Amerk]

Sweet baby Jeebus. I just realized something. I don't think I'm on Team Storm Cloud anymore.

I was just thinking the exact same thing, about myself, the other day.

[rakish]

The stats in the paper I've read measure the team as a whole, thereby eliminating that variable.

 

I'll write about this in the future, but it might be 2020 before I can focus on it.

[JJFIVEOH]

Stop the insanity!!!!

[LGR4GM]

I am undecided on DD

[LTS]

Nonsense.

 

Laughable response. Because I ask you to think about solutions it's nonsense?  I suppose you are only good at pointing out problems then?  Is your answer "We need a coach who does everything differently than Bylsma?"

 

And now snide remarks about age! Is anyone telling us to sit down and shut up actually going to address the criticisms on the merits?

 

Let's bring those criticisms to this forum and have a discussion then.  I'm not about to scour the forums looking for your comments now that we have a thread here.  Happy to debate them  I debated someone's comments the other day in the Calgary thread I believe.

 

S'all good, beerme1. 

 

 

Nah, we don't like Bylsma's system/decision-making. Your next sentence isn't true either. I'm not being paid to do that, and I don't have time to scour minor leagues and the unemployment line looking for a coach that fits what I want to do. Luckily, we have people that do have time to do that. (And maybe they have, and are willing to stick with Bylsma based on what they see there.)

 

No.

 

Interesting point. He might not be maximizing Eichel/Reinhart/Risto's development as much as a Babcock would, but I can't say I have proof he's hurting it. And there are plenty of coaches that would. 

It's definitely not a bad decision to make in plenty of situations. I think the Larsson line is almost perfect with regards to this. They carry it in any chance they can, but when the situation isn't ideal for that, they chip it by and are really good at keeping pressure and getting to the puck and winning battles. I just see a lot of players, like our top line last night for example, and others in plenty of other games, doing it when they should be carrying, because of Bylsma's insistence that it's better to have the defensemen turn their backs. Stats show this isn't true. I've read that more than twice as many scoring chances are created when the puck is carried in versus when it is dumped in. Bylsma seems to prefer dumping, not just using it when there's no chance a carry-in works. 

 

Yeah, and I can't say I know how hard or easy it is to find the right guy. I'm afraid of this too, and I'm also afraid of trying again and getting Ron Rolston, wasting a season.

 

The prize of the lost season will have no on-ice impact for the first two months of this season, just two years after. I can never support a tank again. If we're bad because we're bad, fine, but I can't do what we did in 14-15 again.

 

 

It's definitely relieving to have pressure on their point men at all times. I really believe that the point-shot-goal thing wasn't a Miller thing, it was a Ruff thing.

 

Responding primarily to the bold part since that was your response to me.  I am going to watch more closely but I'm not positive the Sabres have the talent to carry the puck in the zone right now.  Part of what the team is able to do is also based on what the other team is willing to open up for you.  Right now the Sabres are having a hard enough time getting out of their own end.  In order to open up the attacking blue line you have to be able to move the puck with speed out of your zone.  Right now the Sabres defense is not good enough to do that.  AS for my sentence not being true, that's really not a valid response. There is nothing FALSE about my statement.  However, as I mentioned above, being the guy who just points out problems but has no answers doesn't add much value.

 

I wish I had a top down view of the ice surface so I could review the systems in more detail.  It would be nice.  

 

As for his decision making on personnel.  I have no problem with it.  It's a strategy that neither hurt nor helped the team.  Let's specifically discuss the 3 on 3.  Starting Gorges gives him the best chance to retain control of the puck should he lose the faceoff.  If he wins the faceoff then the puck moves back to Ristolainen while Gorges changes for Okposo.  The Flames have to account for this change and thus it makes the game a 2 v 2 with Ristolainen and ROR versus whomever Calgary wants out there.

 

So, who do you want in a 2 on 2 situation besides Risto and ROR?  You could argue a forward for Risto but I don't think there's a huge offensive upside there at least not one large enough to warrant the defensive ability he'd give up.

 

The Sabres don't have the talent for 2 great PP lines.  So Bylsma is loading up one and letting the other be a group that will be more controlled but also less likely to score.  Grant is not proving himself to be a liablity.  His additional ice time also comes from the PK work.  However, the ice time has to balance somewhere.  For every minute Grant is not on the ice there has to be some other player out there.  If ROR is already out there too much who is taking over some of those minutes?

[WildCard]

Two more months of this and that '?' is coming down

[SwampD]

Two more months of this and that '?' is coming down

OMG STFU!

[Wyldnwoody44]

Yeah, tonight can't happen.... I wanna see a coach with some balls, that ain't DD

[WildCard]

OMG STFU!

Yes, yes, let the hate flow throw you

[LGR4GM]

Coaching not to lose, not coaching to win.

[Eleven]

Lindy would have won this game. Period.

[LGR4GM]

Lindy would have won this game. Period.

Ted Nolan would have won that game

[WildCard]

Ted Nolan would have won that game

:lol:

[SwampD]

Lindy would have won this game. Period.

No way. We started losing as soon as the forwards left the D alone in our zone. That was Lindy's trademark.

[jsb]

Yes you have your supposed SUPASTA Reinhart with one of the stupidest, needless penalties at the end of the game and you blame the coach?????  :huh:  :huh:  :huh:

[WildCard]

Yes you have your supposed SUPASTA Reinhart with one of the stupidest, needless penalties at the end of the game and you blame the coach????? :huh: :huh: :huh:

Yup, that entire loss was on Reinhart.