Let the Fire Bylsma Watch begin

[jsb]

This team is definitely talented enough to solidly make the playoffs, injuries and all. We have a great stable of forwards and a coach with no clue what to do with them.

Beautiful dreamer, wake unto me,

Starlight and dewdrops are waiting for thee,

Sounds of the rude world heard in the day,

Lulld by the moonlight have all passed away!

 

Beautiful dreamer, awake unto me!

Beautiful dreamer, awake unto me!

[qwksndmonster]

O'Reilly, Okposo, Eichel, Reinhart, Kane, Larsson, Foligno, and a Gionta that scores. But no, let's lock it down with the neutral zone trap and loser point our way to missing the playoffs.

 

Actually, calling it a neutral zone trap makes it sounds like it's hard for other teams to gain the zone. It's not.

[woods-racer]

O'Reilly, Okposo, Eichel, Reinhart, Kane, Larsson, Foligno, and a Gionta that scores. But no, let's lock it down with the neutral zone trap and loser point our way to missing the playoffs.

 

Actually, calling it a neutral zone trap makes it sounds like it's hard for other teams to gain the zone. It's not.

Its called a few different things, trap, 1-2-2, 2-1-2. But it's eventually all the same thing, a defensive scheme to slow/stop the on coming rush caused by turning the puck over on the dump in.

 

It's not how our players grew up playing. Dan is trying to teach them old school NHL grinder hockey.

 

Brick, meet round hole. Fit nicely please and we will have a good season.

[TheAud]

Sadly, to have a better record than last year they are going to need to finish very strong.

Actually, if they get 1 point more than a point per game over the next 44 games, they'd accumulate 82 points (45 more + 37 from first 38 games) and that would beat last year's total of 81.

That's a finish only ever so slightly better than they've played (in terms of getting points) thus far this year.  

A very strong finish would be 59 points in 48 games, putting them at 96 for the year and on the cusp of making the playoffs (or maybe not but close).

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Paging PA!!

 

Cusp sighting in the Fire Bylsma thread. Although it's only a playoff cusp, not a Stanley cusp.

[TheAud]

Paging PA!!

 

Cusp sighting in the Fire Bylsma thread. Although it's only a playoff cusp, not a Stanley cusp.

I wasn't inferring they are ON the cusp. Just, you know, doing math. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I wasn't inferring they are ON the cusp. Just, you know, doing math. 

 

No worries.

 

Cusp is just a running joke theme for PA and me.

[TheAud]

No worries.

 

Cusp is just a running joke theme for PA and me.

Gotcha. 

In that case, I do believe they are on the cusp of actually being on the cusp. It's like cusp squared, 

[7+6=13]

Its called a few different things, trap, 1-2-2, 2-1-2. But it's eventually all the same thing, a defensive scheme to slow/stop the on coming rush caused by turning the puck over on the dump in.

 

It's not how our players grew up playing. Dan is trying to teach them old school NHL grinder hockey.

 

Brick, meet round hole. Fit nicely please and we will have a good season.

 

This has to be right and is evidenced by the reporting of Rob Ray after the 1st period.  The assistant coach said Bylsma went off on the team because they weren't sticking to the game plan.  I think it's an indication that this team isn't rebelling - because I think there's too much character - but rather they're struggling to play Bylsma's way.  I think it's possible that the team is teetering on believing in it.

Edited January 8, 2017 by 7+6=13

[LTS]

Its called a few different things, trap, 1-2-2, 2-1-2. But it's eventually all the same thing, a defensive scheme to slow/stop the on coming rush caused by turning the puck over on the dump in.

 

It's not how our players grew up playing. Dan is trying to teach them old school NHL grinder hockey.

 

Brick, meet round hole. Fit nicely please and we will have a good season.

 

I'm not sure that I would agree with saying they are equal.  They are defensive schemes though.

 

There are variations of each but a 2-1-2 puts two forwards in on the puck carrier, definitely not a trap system.  The first forward's job is tie up the carrier and the 2nd forward's job is to retrieve it.

 

The 1-2-2 which the Sabres switched to immediately following Gionta's goal can be aggressive or passive.  This puts 2 players back near the offensive blue line in an attempt to cause a turnover on the break out pass or squeeze the rush into the neutral zone where 4 defenders are standing.  The passive 1-2-2 is very much a trap style.  You also have to account for the positioning and whether they are looking to hold the puck in the opponent end or cause the turnover in the neutral zone.

 

In the case of the 3rd period they were content letting the breakout pass get up the ice but they used their 4 defenders to cause the recipient to begin going east-west and slow the attack.  Of course they didn't do a great job of playing the style... they never do.

 

That was my observation from the game.. I still would love to see an "all-22" style video site for hockey.

[Drunkard]

I can't stand the 1-2-2 defensive alignment. If you're not going to fore-check with at least 2 guys you are just wasting your time because it's easy to avoid a single fore-checker. They'd be better off cramming all 3 guys into the neutral zone and play that disgusting Jersey trap nonsense when DB wants to go into his shell game of prevention.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Drunkard

[woods-racer]

I'm not sure that I would agree with saying they are equal.  They are defensive schemes though.

 

There are variations of each but a 2-1-2 puts two forwards in on the puck carrier, definitely not a trap system.  The first forward's job is tie up the carrier and the 2nd forward's job is to retrieve it.

 

The 1-2-2 which the Sabres switched to immediately following Gionta's goal can be aggressive or passive.  This puts 2 players back near the offensive blue line in an attempt to cause a turnover on the break out pass or squeeze the rush into the neutral zone where 4 defenders are standing.  The passive 1-2-2 is very much a trap style.  You also have to account for the positioning and whether they are looking to hold the puck in the opponent end or cause the turnover in the neutral zone.

 

In the case of the 3rd period they were content letting the breakout pass get up the ice but they used their 4 defenders to cause the recipient to begin going east-west and slow the attack.  Of course they didn't do a great job of playing the style... they never do.

 

That was my observation from the game.. I still would love to see an "all-22" style video site for hockey.

 

 

I love this talk :wub: and I agree with you.

 

Dan changes his schemes several times during the course of a game.

 

It's called so many different things and depending on the coach/ situation and how passive or aggressive he tells his forward to play it, another scheme can easily be seen as the trap.

 

I think they start out every game a passive 2-1-2, playing not to lose. It's not until they are down a goal  that they get to *free* it up and the second forward is allowed to attack/press/go deep into the zone more.

 

It's when they are down 2 goals that it gets real fun. Dan's hand is played out and he must tell them to go on the attack. It's still a 2-1-2 but the third-man is down very low and is often times seen below the goal line. That's when this team shines. All that skill and vision with out having to grind for a puck or battle for the dump in. Quick passes to the front/behind the net finding the open man, the defense get nice looks because the opposing team is all within a stick length of the goal line.

 

As soon as they tie it up or get a 1 goal lead they get very passive. The turtle/prevent/playing to lose is not this teams skill at all, so it's sad and disheartening that Dan keeps forcing them to do it.

 

Edit:

They aren't equal, but they do get confusing as to what to call them depending on the passive/aggressive stance, they need a name and trap is as good as any. Coaches are trying to trap the offense, the NJ style was in the neutral zone,  the others are a little further into the offensive zone or right at the red line.

 

Double edit;

 

YES! on the *all 22*

 

If knew how I would love to sit in a dark room and do that all day.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Woods-Racer

[LTS]

I love this talk :wub: and I agree with you.

 

Dan changes his schemes several times during the course of a game.

 

It's called so many different things and depending on the coach/ situation and how passive or aggressive he tells his forward to play it, another scheme can easily be seen as the trap.

 

I think they start out every game a passive 2-1-2, playing not to lose. It's not until they are down a goal  that they get to *free* it up and the second forward is allowed to attack/press/go deep into the zone more.

 

It's when they are down 2 goals that it gets real fun. Dan's hand is played out and he must tell them to go on the attack. It's still a 2-1-2 but the third-man is down very low and is often times seen below the goal line. That's when this team shines. All that skill and vision with out having to grind for a puck or battle for the dump in. Quick passes to the front/behind the net finding the open man, the defense get nice looks because the opposing team is all within a stick length of the goal line.

 

As soon as they tie it up or get a 1 goal lead they get very passive. The turtle/prevent/playing to lose is not this teams skill at all, so it's sad and disheartening that Dan keeps forcing them to do it.

 

Edit:

They aren't equal, but they do get confusing as to what to call them depending on the passive/aggressive stance, they need a name and trap is as good as any. Coaches are trying to trap the offense, the NJ style was in the neutral zone,  the others are a little further into the offensive zone or right at the red line.

 

Double edit;

 

YES! on the *all 22*

 

If knew how I would love to sit in a dark room and do that all day.

 

Keep in mind that the Devils Neutral Zone Trap was implemented during the era of the two-line pass (at least I think that's the case).  So, the design would be to clog everything between the top of the zone and before the red line.  Once the two line pass was removed the neutral zone became bigger so the collapsing area had to be focused to include blue-line to blue-line.  If you slide up more and press your two defenders up to the red line more you are playing the angles and hoping that a guy doesn't slide behind you on a timing play (see Moulson's opportunity in the WPG game - also, the first time I've really seen the Sabres use the troll the blue line get the pass tactic in awhile). 

 

Also commonly used and of course remembered is the left wing lock tactic which uses the LW as a 3rd D and focuses the forecheck from the RW and C.  You can use it the opposite way as well of course and I would suspect you would do that depending on the opponent stronger wing. 

 

All in all, anything but aggressively forechecking two forwards in the offensive zone is going to lead to clogged ice in the neutral zone...

[chileanseabass]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but thought this was an interesting quote from ROR following last night's win.  Falls in line with the general perception of the players being overwhelmed with DB's "system."

 

“We were creating right away, and we were just competing right away. That’s what we’ve got to do more often... We weren’t as focused on kind of the X’s and O’s and what they’re going to do. We just kind of said, ‘Let’s go out and play hockey.’ That’s what did right away, and we built off it.”

[That Aud Smell]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but thought this was an interesting quote from ROR following last night's win.  Falls in line with the general perception of the players being overwhelmed with DB's "system."

 

“We were creating right away, and we were just competing right away. That’s what we’ve got to do more often... We weren’t as focused on kind of the X’s and O’s and what they’re going to do. We just kind of said, ‘Let’s go out and play hockey.’ That’s what did right away, and we built off it.”

 

Hmmm.

[Eleven]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but thought this was an interesting quote from ROR following last night's win.  Falls in line with the general perception of the players being overwhelmed with DB's "system."

 

“We were creating right away, and we were just competing right away. That’s what we’ve got to do more often... We weren’t as focused on kind of the X’s and O’s and what they’re going to do. We just kind of said, ‘Let’s go out and play hockey.’ That’s what did right away, and we built off it.”

 

This thread was the first thing I thought of when I read that in the paper this morning.

[That Aud Smell]

Is ROR ... subtweeting the coach?

 

Seems unlikely.

[Eleven]

Is ROR ... subtweeting the coach?

 

Seems unlikely.

 

I've seen this word for about three years now and still do not know what it means.  Please help.

[That Aud Smell]

I've seen this word for about three years now and still do not know what it means.  Please help.

 

"Hey, bro. Next time, just @ me."

 

Translated:

 

"Hey, bro. Next time, just AT me."

 

In the world of Twitter, if you have a decent number of followers, and Tweet about someone without including their handle (@KingstonGurl98), you are subtweeting them.

 

Subtweet from someone we'll call Victoria L.:

 

Just because you're captain of the cheerleading team doesn't mean you can be texting someone's man. #Hesmine

 

In that Tweet, @KingstonGurl98, Alyssa M., is the cheer captain and is accused of texting Victoria's boyfriend. But Victoria did not @ Alyssa; she subtweeted her. It is likely (but not essential) that both girls follow each other on Twitter.

 

It's new technology and terminology, but it's a familiar thing in that it's a modern form of passive-aggressive behaviour.

 

And that in turn could prompt a subtweet from Alyssa.

 

Some girls just like to stir up trouble. Just @ me if you have something to say.

 

Days gone by, it would have been: Why don't you say that to my face?!

Edited January 11, 2017 by That Aud Smell

[SwampD]

I've seen this word for about three years now and still do not know what it means.  Please help.

I have never seen this word before. I don't know what it means. I already hate it.

I hate it even more now that I know.

[WildCard]

All you folks just keep going into the future kicking and screaming :lol:

[SwampD]

All you folks just keep going into the future kicking and screaming :lol:

Isn't this more like going back to the past,... like to junior high school?

[Mig22]

Some people gotta get with the new times. #oldpeople

 

(subtweet)

[Eleven]

"Hey, bro. Next time, just @ me."

 

Translated:

 

"Hey, bro. Next time, just AT me."

 

In the world of Twitter, if you have a decent number of followers, and Tweet about someone without including their handle (@KingstonGurl98), you are subtweeting them.

 

Subtweet from someone we'll call Victoria L.:

 

Just because you're captain of the cheerleading team doesn't mean you can be texting someone's man. #Hesmine

 

In that Tweet, @KingstonGurl98, Alyssa M., is the cheer captain and is accused of texting Victoria's boyfriend. But Victoria did not @ Alyssa; she subtweeted her. It is likely (but not essential) that both girls follow each other on Twitter.

 

It's new technology and terminology, but it's a familiar thing in that it's a modern form of passive-aggressive behaviour.

 

And that in turn could prompt a subtweet from Alyssa.

 

Some girls just like to stir up trouble. Just @ me if you have something to say.

 

Days gone by, it would have been: Why don't you say that to my face?!

 

Thank you.

 

All you folks just keep going into the future kicking and screaming :lol:

 

No such thing as a stupid question, you know?  I tried to google it but urban dictionary is blocked at work, it seems. 

[BetweenThePipes00]

Is ROR ... subtweeting the coach?

 

Seems unlikely.

Seems unlikely to me as well. More likely to me, they are just getting to the point where they aren't thinking so much because they know the system and can just go play.

Besides, why the hell would one of the alternate captains need to drop hints in the media to make a point to his coach? They are all adults, isn't it more likely they just have a conversation? Call me crazy ...