Let the Fire Bylsma Watch begin

[LTS]

Isn't there a report for work time? It would actually be funny if this team didn't have one, after the ridiculous YogaGate.

 

I am sure there is a time, but some players will be earlier and perhaps that's what he is referring to.  Dunno.

 

 No team has 3 equal lines.   You match them up against the biggest threats.... Pavelski, Kane, Crosby, Ovechkin...   you choose a few players to neutralize.   

 

Larsson and shutdown shouldn't be in the same sentence... ugh.

 

After Larsson banged up his shoulder he was shutdown for the season.  I agree it shouldn't be in the same sentence because I would prefer it had not happened but it did so we have to put it together. :)

[WildCard]

RoR not happy with the team

Edited April 5, 2017 by WildCard

[thewookie1]

I get the sense this team lacks a strong vocal leader, they have multiple quiet leaders and if we could get winning that'd be great because they'd keep the team from getting full of themselves. The problem is that it only seems like Eichel is actually vocal, Kane might be but his personality and past makes me doubt his leadership ability. Gionta and O'Reilly are akin to Pominville or Briere's style of leadership, we need a Drury. The guy who takes players into the closet and tell him to ###### shape up or go home. Add the fact that Bylsma is again a more quiet "intellectual" styled coach only exasperates the problem. The best teams have a combination of leadership style, from the hard nosed, to the quiet confidence, to the loud and at times abrasive; a good balance of that maintains a great team.

 

We either need a coach with a bit of fire or at least a vet with some. Someone who fires up the team when they get lazy or unfocused. A Chris Drury styled leader, at least in the stop gap since it seems as if Eichel may eventually become something of that ilk.   

[Samson's Flow]

Do you think the "NFL stage" that Terry is operating on, or the sports world in general, knows Thing 1 about Dan Bylsma and the job he is doing. The perception problem is real.

Isn't this the same thing we were all complaining about in the past when it looked like the team decisions were based more on what Russ Brandon and the marketing team wanted than what was best for the team/franchise? Who gives a flying f### what the perception is - make the decision that has the highest probability of success for the team in terms of wins/losses.

RoR not happy with the team

Go RoR - make it known this shite is unacceptable.

 

(Then go play 25 minutes a night) :nana:

[Georgia Blizzard]

I get the sense this team lacks a strong vocal leader, they have multiple quiet leaders and if we could get winning that'd be great because they'd keep the team from getting full of themselves. The problem is that it only seems like Eichel is actually vocal, Kane might be but his personality and past makes me doubt his leadership ability. Gionta and O'Reilly are akin to Pominville or Briere's style of leadership, we need a Drury. The guy who takes players into the closet and tell him to ###### shape up or go home. Add the fact that Bylsma is again a more quiet "intellectual" styled coach only exasperates the problem. The best teams have a combination of leadership style, from the hard nosed, to the quiet confidence, to the loud and at times abrasive; a good balance of that maintains a great team.

 

We either need a coach with a bit of fire or at least a vet with some. Someone who fires up the team when they get lazy or unfocused. A Chris Drury styled leader, at least in the stop gap since it seems as if Eichel may eventually become something of that ilk.   

 

For Eichel to assume the mantle of leadership he has to work on his in game body language.  Too often he looks frustrated and/or disengaged.

[Samson's Flow]

For Eichel to assume the mantle of leadership he has to work on his in game body language.  Too often he looks frustrated and/or disengaged.

Similar to why I never thought Vanek could be a good captain. Far to expressive with negative body language while playing.

[Eleven]

How's this?   Corsi AND fire Bylsma.

[R_Dudley]

Yes, we allow a lot of shots. I'm showing you that your claim that we take enough of them at ES is wrong. We do not. We are terrible at generating shots at even strength, and unsurprisingly, we allow a lot of them at even strength. Those kind of go hand in hand. Nobody says we are great in our own zone. But we would spend less time there if we had a transition strategy that was conducive to maintaining possession when we recover the puck. I have done literally dozens of hours of work showing that we do not have this strategy. I have seen zero hours of work done that refute this work that I have done. 

 

The Leafs are also terrible at defending in their own zone. That is how they have lost 10 games that they led by multiple goals in the third. But they can transition and maintain the puck, and the resulting offense they create allows them to enjoy loads of team and individual success, while Babcock "teaches them defense on the fly" in his own words. That could have been us. Because of our system and the way we transition, we strive for low-event hockey and do things that give the other team the puck to do whatever they want with. Which is ###### stupid because as you and me and everyone else knows, we aren't good at defending them when they have it.

 

 

They may get better at defending in their own zone, but the bold will not happen until the step in between those two areas is overhauled with a different system, whether Disco Dan or Big Bird implement it. 

 

I'm right there with you on the need to get better defensemen and have everyone playing better in the d-zone. What I object to was the insistence that the offense and the transition system are totally fine, and that all of the blame for our poor possession and poor team lies solely on what the forwards and defensemen do in front of Lehner.

 

 

 

 RIght, keep the puck on your stick and the other team cannot shoot it at your net.

 

 

I grant your point, but it's two ways at looking at the same problem. If the Sabres played better team D, they'd spend less time chasing the puck in their own zone. You're correct there. But can you not see, based on Randall's great work, that when the Sabres do finally get the puck back, the first thing they do is make a low-percentage pass? Then, they spend time chasing the puck in the neutral zone and offensive zone. The anti-Byslma camp hates his system because it gives the puck away constantly, meaning the Sabres are going to be chasing in their own end shortly after.

 

I like the idea upthread that Bylsma isn't necessarily a bad coach, but he is one that sticks to his system even if they don't have the right players to implement it; that makes him the wrong coach here. Frankly, I want to see these guys skate. The last f'ing thing I want to see is Jack Eichel, Sam Reinhart, and the rest of the skill players play low-event hockey. When you get the puck, keep it; firing it down the ice in hopes you might get it back just negated the work you did getting it. Screw that ######.

 

All dead nuts on points.

 

I don't understand how anyone can think better players defensive or otherwise will solve the problem unless they are not watching the games.

 

If you are watching you should see players alone will not solve this until the players have system that organizes the exits and entries and even accounts for(game plans) other teams strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes referred to as coaching.   

[Derrico]

I...i...I don't know how to take this :lol:

You don't listen to them.  You stay with us buddy :D

[Sabre fan]

13th in shots for per game.

 

30th in shots against.

 

It doesn't take a genius to figure out they need better defensive forwards.  

quite often it has been proven that the best defense is often a good offense...playing Dan's system of hanging on for dear life and sitting back and allowing the opponent to come at you at will and hope your defensemen can save you (or your goalie) will only lead to exactly what we see...puck possession has to improve

[Derrico]

Hint.  TSC was right.

Need a pat on the back?

[WildCard]

Need a pat on the back?

Sometimes it's nice honestly. I'm going to have to eat a ton of if we fire Byslma and still suck 

[TrueBlueGED]

Sometimes it's nice honestly. I'm going to have to eat a ton of ###### if we fire Byslma and still suck 

 

We all are, but we shouldn't have to. After all, it's entirely possible we end up with another crappy coach. Coach #2 being garbage doesn't mean Coach #1 was good.

[Randall Flagg]

Yeah, there will be no crow eating if we suck after firing Dan. Because we suck right now. Terry picking another coach doesn't mean that this current one is now suddenly magically not .

[WildCard]

We all are, but we shouldn't have to. After all, it's entirely possible we end up with another crappy coach. Coach #2 being garbage doesn't mean Coach #1 was good.

Good point. If we do end up with a good coach though I'll own it. I'm hoping the pro-Byslma camp does too

Yeah, there will be no crow eating if we suck after firing Dan. Because we suck right now. Terry picking another ###### coach doesn't mean that this current one is now suddenly magically not ######.

Depends on the coach. We'd eat crow if Julien came here and sucked. 

[SabresFanInRochester]

 

 RIght, keep the puck on your stick and the other team cannot shoot it at your net.

 

 

I grant your point, but it's two ways at looking at the same problem. If the Sabres played better team D, they'd spend less time chasing the puck in their own zone. You're correct there. But can you not see, based on Randall's great work, that when the Sabres do finally get the puck back, the first thing they do is make a low-percentage pass? Then, they spend time chasing the puck in the neutral zone and offensive zone. The anti-Byslma camp hates his system because it gives the puck away constantly, meaning the Sabres are going to be chasing in their own end shortly after.

 

I like the idea upthread that Bylsma isn't necessarily a bad coach, but he is one that sticks to his system even if they don't have the right players to implement it; that makes him the wrong coach here. Frankly, I want to see these guys skate. The last f'ing thing I want to see is Jack Eichel, Sam Reinhart, and the rest of the skill players play low-event hockey. When you get the puck, keep it; firing it down the ice in hopes you might get it back just negated the work you did getting it. Screw that ######.

When playing even scored, and definitely protecting a lead, it is like Dan wants the team to "punt" to clear their zone instead of generate offense with transition. How many times are you going to punt it away before someone comes down and scores. It is a strategy, but I don't like it. Because, instead of punting, you clear the zone and score? Now a bigger lead to overcome AND exciting to watch.

 

It was said earlier (not sure by who) that two-lines would consist of defensive forwards and two lines would be offensive-minded. That is so old-school. And how do you effectively run that when you are the away team? And when the other team is able to shut down your top offense, you are in for a boring game. I just hate that approach, and cannot stand that Dan is trying to find the personnel on this team to run that kind of team. Use the talent you have to the best of their ability. What a waste of development and talent.

[Doohicksie]

I have no problem with a defensive-oriented forward line that isn't called on to score, but does try to control play in the offensive zone.  We've seen it on occasion- a line like 82-28-12, where they're not trying to score, they're just cycling the puck in one corner of the rink for the better part of a shift.  That's boring too, but at least the opposition isn't in your end, shooting on your goalie.

 

To extend the football analogy, instead of going three and out and punting, it's more like using your running game to chew time off the clock, with just enough short passing to maintain possession.  You keep the other team from going on offense, but it's kind of boring and your goal isn't so much to score; it's to control the play and keep the other team on defense while the clock runs.

[SabresFanInRochester]

I have no problem with a defensive-oriented forward line that isn't called on to score, but does try to control play in the offensive zone.  We've seen it on occasion- a line like 82-28-12, where they're not trying to score, they're just cycling the puck in one corner of the rink for the better part of a shift.  That's boring too, but at least the opposition isn't in your end, shooting on your goalie.

 

To extend the football analogy, instead of going three and out and punting, it's more like using your running game to chew time off the clock, with just enough short passing to maintain possession.  You keep the other team from going on offense, but it's kind of boring and your goal isn't so much to score; it's to control the play and keep the other team on defense while the clock runs.

But, you have a horrendous offensive line, and a quarterback who lacks accuracy. Yet you still rely on it... because that is the system. Nevermind the strengths of the players.

[pi2000]

 

 RIght, keep the puck on your stick and the other team cannot shoot it at your net.

 

 

I grant your point, but it's two ways at looking at the same problem. If the Sabres played better team D, they'd spend less time chasing the puck in their own zone. You're correct there. But can you not see, based on Randall's great work, that when the Sabres do finally get the puck back, the first thing they do is make a low-percentage pass? Then, they spend time chasing the puck in the neutral zone and offensive zone. The anti-Byslma camp hates his system because it gives the puck away constantly, meaning the Sabres are going to be chasing in their own end shortly after.

 

I like the idea upthread that Bylsma isn't necessarily a bad coach, but he is one that sticks to his system even if they don't have the right players to implement it; that makes him the wrong coach here. Frankly, I want to see these guys skate. The last f'ing thing I want to see is Jack Eichel, Sam Reinhart, and the rest of the skill players play low-event hockey. When you get the puck, keep it; firing it down the ice in hopes you might get it back just negated the work you did getting it. Screw that ######.

 

If you watch Eichel's and ROR's line, they don't make those long passes out of the zone, they move up ice together because they have the skills to do so.   The 3rd and 4th lines want that puck up and out quickly into the other zone to activate their forecheck.   Every team in the league does that.

 

I don't buy the idea that BUF is constantly giving the puck away with rushed stretch passes out of the zone.... in fact, studies show, the Sabres rank 7th BEST in the league in number of giveaways:

 

http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggregate=0&gameType=2&report=realtime&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20162017&seasonTo=20162017&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=giveaways

 

That said, they rank 24th in takeaways... those rankings combined tell me they're good at possessing the puck, but the problem is they're unable to get it back when they do lose possession.    Translation:  they need players who are skilled  defensively, can get the puck back, win face-offs, close guys off in their own zone, etc.   

Edited April 5, 2017 by pi2000

[Randall Flagg]

If you watch Eichel's and ROR's line, they don't make those long passes out of the zone, they move up ice together because they have the skills to do so. The 3rd and 4th lines want that puck up and out quickly into the other zone to activate their forecheck. Every team in the league does that.

 

I don't buy the idea that BUF is constantly giving the puck away with rushed stretch passes out of the zone.... in fact, studies show, the Sabres rank 7th BEST in the league in number of giveaways:

 

http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggregate=0&gameType=2&report=realtime&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20162017&seasonTo=20162017&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=giveaways

 

That said, they rank 24th in takeaways... those rankings combined tell me they're good at possessing the puck, but the problem is they're unable to get it back when they do lose possession. Translation: they need players who are skilled defensively, can get the puck back, win face-offs, close guys off in their own zone, etc.

Pi, stretch pass chip ins are not counted as giveaways.

 

Full team transitions and pass plays to enter the zone are high success plays, we've been around 70% at maintaining possession when we do them. We just opt to do the other thing, which operates around 30-40%, a lot more. I've counted.

 

You've been reading a stat sheet, misinterpreting it, bringing the analysis here, and having it straightened out, to move onto some new stat. It doesn't read like you've even been watching games. Give me some pictures. Go into the system thread and pick apart my post, show me where I'm wrong. Show me that the lack of puck support is a good thing, and that what Carolina and other puck support teams do is not a good thing.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[Doohicksie]

But, you have a horrendous offensive line, and a quarterback who lacks accuracy. Yet you still rely on it... because that is the system. Nevermind the strengths of the players.

 

That's the 3-and-out and punting.  I'm talking about ball (puck) control.

[pi2000]

Pi, stretch pass chip ins are not counted as giveaways.

 

Full team transitions and pass plays to enter the zone are high success plays, we've been around 70% at maintaining possession when we do them. We just opt to do the other thing, which operates around 30-40%, a lot more. I've counted.

 

You've been reading a stat sheet, misinterpreting it, bringing the analysis here, and having it straightened out, to move onto some new stat. It doesn't read like you've even been watching games. Give me some pictures. Go into the system thread and pick apart my post, show me where I'm wrong. Show me that the lack of puck support is a good thing, and that what Carolina and other puck support teams do is not a good thing.

 

Nor should they.   Stretch passes that are intercepted are counted as giveaways.    A stretch and chip-in is a good hockey play, it flips the ice, allows for changes, creates forecheck opportunities, etc..  

 

You can't just have a blanket system that says carry the puck in..   It depends on who those players are.    Because a turnover within 6ft of the blue-line is a big no-no, we're taught that from peewees.    Either get it deep, or if you have the speed and skill, carry it in.

 

In your expert opinion, why do they rank near the bottom of the league in takeaways, do you think that's important, and how would you improve that?

 

And instead of attacking my method of analysis, why don't you (in you're own words) "pick apart my post, show me where I'm wrong".    :P

[Randall Flagg]

Nor should they.   Stretch passes that are intercepted are counted as giveaways.    A stretch and chip-in is a good hockey play, it flips the ice, allows for changes, creates forecheck opportunities, etc..  

 

You can't just have a blanket system that says carry the puck in..   It depends on who those players are.    Because a turnover within 6ft of the blue-line is a big no-no, we're taught that from peewees.    Either get it deep, or if you have the speed and skill, carry it in.

 

In your expert opinion, why do they rank near the bottom of the league in takeaways, do you think that's important, and how would you improve that?

 

And instead of attacking my method of analysis, why don't you (in you're own words) "pick apart my post, show me where I'm wrong".     :P

You are all over the place.

 

"13th in shots for, offensive zone time is not the issue."

"Pi, when you remove special teams from the equation, we fall to bottom 5, it IS an issue"

After this exchange, you basically abandoned that half of your argument and were using the same vigor to promote the half that literally everyone on this forum agrees with - we allow too many shots. 

 

"I don't buy the idea that BUF is constantly giving the puck away with rushed stretch passes out of the zone.... in fact, studies show, the Sabres rank 7th BEST in the league in number of giveaways:"

Then when I called out the fact that your use of the giveaway ranking above doesn't make sense when used as an argument against us blaming the stretch pass for possession numbers, because the most common result of the stretch pass doesn't get called a 'giveaway' (which is a stat I don't trust at all, anyway), you came back with

 

"Nor should they.   Stretch passes that are intercepted are counted as giveaways.    A stretch and chip-in is a good hockey play, it flips the ice, allows for changes, creates forecheck opportunities, etc..  "

 

Then how does your original giveaway point hold, Pi? Most of our stretch passes are not outright intercepted. I know because I've spent a statistically significant (sqrt(N)) amount of games watching and counting them. Most of them result in plays that you are calling "good hockey plays" and are successful roughly 0 to 4 out of the 15 to 20 times they are attempted per game by this team.

 

You then finished with 

 

I'm not saying that BUFs even strength shots-for doesn't need to get better, it does... and it will get better when they spend less time chasing the puck in their own end.. again, when compared to the rest of the league their shot suppression is worse than their shot generation.    That should tell you righ there where GMTM needs to focus his attention... he said it himself, he needs to find a way to fix the defense... and IMO he's not just talking about defensemen... If they had a few forwards capable of defending in their own end against other teams top players, they'd spend less time there, and more time in the offensive zone generating shots.    

 

You'll have to show me which measure you're using for the bolded, because we are the 5th worst team in both CF per 60 and CA per 60 at even strength, according to Corsica.hockey. This does not fit your claim. I agree with half of your conclusion again, the half that wants to make our defense better at defending and grow the defensive abilities of the young forwards (along with maybe adding some forwards who are good both ways) but your final conclusion, which matches the overarching theme of this whole argument, is again misguided.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I will restate this for clarity, using quotes (some from here and some from the other Bylsma thread) - 

 

"BUF is supremely inept at defending.. and my eyes tell me it's not because of the "system", it's the players who are too slow, unwilling to block shots, can't win faceoffs.. etc.. intangible skills that aren't a reflection of coaching." 

 

" If they brought somebody else in and suddenly Jack's numbers plummeted because it's all about possession, not getting pucks up ice, then it would fly in the face of all the Bylsma haters."

 

"Again, they're 7th in the league in giveaways, which is excellent.... the problem is defending, they can't get the puck back, they rank 24th in takeaways... which tells me they need some defensively skilled players... i don't think it's so much of a system thing as it is a one-on-one inability of this team to generate any takeaways.... .....Eveybody talks about how D are always giving the puck away with long stretch passes, well Risto leads our team in giveaways but he ranks only 39th worst among defensemen and he's out there half the game.    If Bylsma's system was such garbage, we'd be leading the league in giveaways."

 

""Woont madder cuz ya kno... BYlsma!""

 

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I understand the gist of your point - you think that complaints about his system are overblown and that any bad possession stats we have (which you agree are good indicators of postseason success, especially if you bolster them with other metrics) are due almost entirely because of our inability to play defense. Keeping everything else the same and adding good defensive players will fix our possession issues and make us a good team, and anybody who still has a problem with Bylsma's system at that point is an idiot that can't spell. Got it. But I'll address a few things in those quotes:

 

Faceoff wins don't correlate with anything. Adding one player who is 4 percentage points higher than his replacement will not impact our ability to possess the puck when the problem is the breakout in the first place. Blocked shots, as pointed out, don't affect these measures either. You are right that we have more slow players than I would like, but Justin Bailey is fast and his speed isn't helping us play this system any better, it just gets him to the blue line waiting for the stretch faster than Moulson or someone.

 

Jack's numbers are going to plummet because the team has the puck more when he's on the ice? That will be the reason why, the fact that we possess the puck in the offensive zone more often? When has this ever happened to any player? Why did it happen?

 

Check out the system thread, Pi. It's all in there. teams do not have to rely on individual one-on-one performances to boost up their possession and scoring numbers. This argument has already been had a million times. Full team transition plays exist and are more effective than ANYTHING ELSE you can do. We're not asking everyone to go coast to coast and singlehandedly enter the zone, beating 3 guys on the way, like Eichel can. It's never been about that. I stressed in that post - Joakim freaking Nordstrom, who has scored fewer goals this season than Jack Eichel did in a 10 day stretch at one point, has the basic hockey ability of completing a short 5 foot pass to a player who is open by design. He can make these plays, especially after 2 seasons of team practice in the system, and Carolina gets in the zone way easier than we do. They take the stretch pass, which is used by us ~20% of our zone entries, and a good chunk of any dumps that they are able to, and turn them into structured pass plays, which run at a 70% clip when the Sabres decide to do them. This is how possession is maintained. Not by looking at the stat in the next column on nhl.com and creating another pi2000 narrative to go along with it when the previous one was shot down.

 

This conclusion is built upon those shaky narratives. I don't know what to say other than, no, nobody has made the claim that the dubiously-tracked giveaway stat should be way higher for teams that play stretch pass chip&chase hockey.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright, I'm going to re-quote the original quote I had there and finish up inside:

Nor should they.   Stretch passes that are intercepted are counted as giveaways.    A stretch and chip-in is a good hockey play, it flips the ice, allows for changes, creates forecheck opportunities, etc..  

 

You can't just have a blanket system that says carry the puck in..   It depends on who those players are.    Because a turnover within 6ft of the blue-line is a big no-no, we're taught that from peewees.    Either get it deep, or if you have the speed and skill, carry it in.

 

You're painting what we ask for with far too broad of a brush. Those are NOT the only two ways to transition a puck. I'm not going through this all again, so I'm just quoting from the System Thread what you should read to have it addressed - http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/24444-the-system/?p=922784 

 

In your expert opinion, why do they rank near the bottom of the league in takeaways, do you think that's important, and how would you improve that?

 

I don't have the first clue. What is a "takeaway" and how reliably are they tracked? Takeaways are probably nice things to be able to do, but they have no bearing on any point that us anti-Bylsma's-system folks want to be addressed. If there is a huge difference in "takeaways per team per game", and I doubt there is, it's not going to affect the success rates of the things you do once you have the puck back. Our problem is with exactly that. The coach sees it the way you do, either you dump it in or you go full-Eichel, and I spent a full week showing that this isn't the case, and I can do it again next season if I have to, with different teams. I even used one with much worse depth and skill levels than ours to emphasize what should be an obvious point - 5 foot passes in mini-odd-man-rushes actually require less skill than pin-point 80 foot ones to guys who are surrounded and flat-footed.

 

And instead of attacking my method of analysis, why don't you (in you're own words) "pick apart my post, show me where I'm wrong".     :P

 

I've been doing this all season, bro.

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Flagg,

 

Might I suggest a hot date with your girlfriend, or your boyfriend .,, anybody ... you need a break.

[Randall Flagg]

Flagg,

 

Might I suggest a hot date with your girlfriend, or your boyfriend .,, anybody ... you need a break.

She's at school :(