One goal again...enough is enough

[LGR4GM]

I concur. Triangle support. Not do it on your own or pass across ice. 

[SwampD]

We've talked about this before I think. I don't expect these guys or the Penguins to connect on passes through the neutral zone going from point A by the bench to point B hitting a guy in stride through legs on the other side of the ice. The way he has his players set up zone entry plays, this is the only way to pass in the neutral zone. This isn't what the teams with good players do - They use heavy puck support and create plays that allow for shorter, obvious passes that their third line players are capable of as well as the top guys, that open up and create mini odd-man situations and allow easier zone entries. When I've bitched about teams like the Devils getting the zone and creating with ease despite their roster deficiencies, this is what I mean. The GREAT teams with great players have this setup that their whole roster can do, and then they have a handful of guys at the top that can turn these into dazzling displays, or decide to do things by themselves. We don't have the base puck support strategies that most teams have and our neutral zone play suffers as a direct result of that.

Believe me, our Folignos and Larssons and Girgensons and Okposos can be just as good at this as other teams' Stempniaks and Pirris and (insert literally any Devils forward that we saw doing things for two straight games we haven't seen from our guys all year) and Vermettes and other middle and bottom six guys around the league. They aren't put in a system that is conducive to those types of things, and so any neutral zone pass we see begins as low-percentage and the outcome is predictably bad.

I watch players on other teams connect on those all the time, and those aren't even the passes I'm talking about.

 

Do you really think HCHDDB's is really that different from half of the teams out there? It's not.

[WildCard]

I watch players on other teams connect on those all the time, and those aren't even the passes I'm talking about.

 

Do you really think HCHDDB's is really that different from half of the teams out there? It's not.

Yes, I do

[Randall Flagg]

I watch players on other teams connect on those all the time, and those aren't even the passes I'm talking about.

 

Do you really think HCHDDB's is really that different from half of the teams out there? It's not.

I mean I watch a lot of teams too, and the way they play in the neutral zone is as different to me as watching Ted Nolan's no-system and comparing it to Dan's.  Yes, I see a difference. I don't know what to say. With some teams it's a MASSIVE difference.

 

Like, the differences are why I complain about Bylsma all the time. I don't just not like the guy and pile on for no reason. And I'm not a blind person. Maybe I'm mistaken and drawing the wrong conclusions, but I gather evidence by watching loads of hockey, as much as I can, and am confident in my interpretation of it.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Randall Flagg

[bob_sauve28]

The times they are a chagin....

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Bob says ...

 

 

And b_s28 ... you made me do it.

[Mig22]

Ok, first post.  

 

I'll defend the conservatism when lacking scoring talent.  In the simplest of "analytics", it's clear that lower goals against is more correlated with both points and ROW than a higher goals against (slightly, but noticeably).  

 

When the best two players on the team are out and another is still hampered by injury, biding time by playing a system that will stifle a game is not an unreasonable approach.  This is especially true when you don't have a superstar goalie or a dominant defensive group to allow forwards to be more free-wheeling. 

 

The fact that it didn't work needs to be acknowledged but the plan was not unreasonable given the roster at that point.

 

I am not saying it was fun to watch, just that it was a defensible approach.  I hope it ends.

 

Cheers.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Ok, first post.  

 

I'll defend the conservatism when lacking scoring talent.  In the simplest of "analytics", it's clear that lower goals against is more correlated with both points and ROW than a higher goals against (slightly, but noticeably).  

 

When the best two players on the team are out and another is still hampered by injury, biding time by playing a system that will stifle a game is not an unreasonable approach.  This is especially true when you don't have a superstar goalie or a dominant defensive group to allow forwards to be more free-wheeling. 

 

The fact that it didn't work needs to be acknowledged but the plan was not unreasonable given the roster at that point.

 

I am not saying it was fun to watch, just that it was a defensible approach.  I hope it ends.

 

Cheers.

 

Welcome to our corner of the Internet.

 

A very good first post.

 

I know nothing of analytics.  All I know is that the Sabres were very hard to watch the last month, or so.  Yesterday they were easy to watch, a few lapses here and there, but entertaining.

[MattPie]

Ok, first post.  

 

I'll defend the conservatism when lacking scoring talent.  In the simplest of "analytics", it's clear that lower goals against is more correlated with both points and ROW than a higher goals against (slightly, but noticeably).  

 

When the best two players on the team are out and another is still hampered by injury, biding time by playing a system that will stifle a game is not an unreasonable approach.  This is especially true when you don't have a superstar goalie or a dominant defensive group to allow forwards to be more free-wheeling. 

 

The fact that it didn't work needs to be acknowledged but the plan was not unreasonable given the roster at that point.

 

I am not saying it was fun to watch, just that it was a defensible approach.  I hope it ends.

 

Cheers.

 

Welcome, and nice first post. Very good point, if playing boring hockey netted one extra win over this stretch and the Sabres (despite what it looks like) manage to slip into the playoffs by a point, it was worth it.

[LGR4GM]

Bylsma coaches not to lose. That is a loser mentality.

Edited November 30, 2016 by LGR4GM

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Bylsma coaches not to lose. That is a loser mentality.

 

I think he coached to win yesterday and they did.

 

He seemed to manage the game well enough, especially on the road.

 

On the other hand, what do I know, eh?

[Taro T]

I think he coached to win yesterday and they did.

 

He seemed to manage the game well enough, especially on the road.

 

On the other hand, what do I know, eh?

Not his fault that Nilsson had to come in cold & never seemed to get steady. So, I'd agree he did do well enough planning & 'stratergizing,' but that could fall under the Eichel is seriously special department. Eichel's so good, he even willed DB to a successful coaches challenge. Now THAT is some serious mojo. If Jack could bring that out of him, maybe there was a bit of 'this is not the gameplan you were looking for' going on as well. ;) Edited November 30, 2016 by Taro T

[pi2000]

How about that power play tho?   Bylsma has it dialed it in, give him credit where credit is due.... that's the reason they won the game yesterday.

[jsb]

Ok, first post.  

 

I'll defend the conservatism when lacking scoring talent.  In the simplest of "analytics", it's clear that lower goals against is more correlated with both points and ROW than a higher goals against (slightly, but noticeably).  

 

When the best two players on the team are out and another is still hampered by injury, biding time by playing a system that will stifle a game is not an unreasonable approach.  This is especially true when you don't have a superstar goalie or a dominant defensive group to allow forwards to be more free-wheeling. 

 

The fact that it didn't work needs to be acknowledged but the plan was not unreasonable given the roster at that point.

 

I am not saying it was fun to watch, just that it was a defensible approach.  I hope it ends.

 

Cheers.

Nice 1st post, welcome aboard

 

Bylsma coaches not to lose. That is a loser mentality.

I'm not sure how you even arrived here. Here are some facts for you.....

We've already lost 103 games to injuries from guys who were projected to be on the team per start of the season

We've played 89 man games of rookies who should have all been up to this point in the AHL Amerks

We've lost 49 man games to injuries to players who would have been in our top 6 forwards

Plus 3 of them are most likely not at 100% yet, ROR, Kane, Jack

We've lost 23 man games to 2 Dmen who would have been in our top 4

We're not a Stanley Cup contender and not because of the coach.

 

I'm not sure what more you could have asked of DB considering how the season blew up on him right from the start.

You may be right in that he's not the guy to take us to the promise land but until the whole team is together, hopefully sooner than later, I'm going to give him a pass and see how things shake out. Yes I also thought this would have been a more enjoyable year but sometimes Pu happens. Yesterday was a good start, lets see how things come together especially after Bogosian and Kulikov come back.

[LGR4GM]

Nice 1st post, welcome aboard

 

I'm not sure how you even arrived here. Here are some facts for you.....

We've already lost 103 games to injuries from guys who were projected to be on the team per start of the season

We've played 89 man games of rookies who should have all been up to this point in the AHL Amerks

We've lost 49 man games to injuries to players who would have been in our top 6 forwards

Plus 3 of them are most likely not at 100% yet, ROR, Kane, Jack

We've lost 23 man games to 2 Dmen who would have been in our top 4

We're not a Stanley Cup contender and not because of the coach.

 

I'm not sure what more you could have asked of DB considering how the season blew up on him right from the start.

You may be right in that he's not the guy to take us to the promise land but until the whole team is together, hopefully sooner than later, I'm going to give him a pass and see how things shake out. Yes I also thought this would have been a more enjoyable year but sometimes Pu happens. Yesterday was a good start, lets see how things come together especially after Bogosian and Kulikov come back.

I feel like I have explained how I arrived there. I am well aware of the injuries but after 3 years of Darcy floundering, 2 full years of tanking, 1 year of righting the ship... I don't have to be patient or understanding anymore. They just played a month of some of the worst hockey I have ever been suffered to experience. Bylsma by his own mouth admitted to changing it up because he felt it would help his team even though game after game after game they went down in a flames because 1 goal is not enough. I don't want that as my teams coach. 

[Ross Rhea]

I feel like I have explained how I arrived there. I am well aware of the injuries but after 3 years of Darcy floundering, 2 full years of tanking, 1 year of righting the ship... I don't have to be patient or understanding anymore. They just played a month of some of the worst hockey I have ever been suffered to experience. Bylsma by his own mouth admitted to changing it up because he felt it would help his team even though game after game after game they went down in a flames because 1 goal is not enough. I don't want that as my teams coach. 

Well, you are totally free to go and root for a different team with a different coach who you like better. 

[LGR4GM]

I like Sabres as a team.

Well, you are totally free to go and root for a different team with a different coach who you like better.

Yet again you add nothing of value when you post.

[MattPie]

Well, you are totally free to go and root for a different team with a different coach who you like better. 

 

That's the spirit! :rolleyes:

Edited November 30, 2016 by MattPie

[Ross Rhea]

I like Sabres as a team.

Yet again you add nothing of value when you post.

Plenty of value, you just don't agree with it.