Reinhart Dressed and Benched; Late to Meeting

[Taro T]

Punishment should fit the crime.

 

If it was truly being late to meeting, dressing and sitting ONE PERIOD would be substantial --- but entire game ??? --- it looked like a 9 year old told to sit in the corner, while the rest of the class had a pizza party --- again, punish, but, this is the most severe punishment I've seen over the past several years 

 

DD had to know that dressing and sitting would be viewed as more severe than a scratch and Sam in press box, or is he that tone deaf ???

He would. Unfortunately, when Okposo turned into a late scratch there was no way to not dress Reinhart as there were only 20 healthy non-suspended skaters available.

 

We still don't know that Reinhart wasn't offered to hang in the dressing room after the puck was dropped. (All we know is the final result that Reinhart dressed but didn't play. We don't know the mechanics.)

 

Looking at it in the AM light, the punishment still seems more severe than the (alleged) crime warranted. (We don't know the details of the missed meeting either.) In itself, it doesn't push Bylsma out the door, but when combined w/ the whole body of his work & results it belongs on that ledger & he should be out the door.

 

It is interesting that none of the broadcasters knew anything about the discipline beforehand.

[SwampD]

No message was sent Swamp. Because, like Blue said, if this were a playoff game, we all know Sam isn't sitting on the bench. He's playing. The message any player would be taking away from this is that the rules are made up, arbitrarily enforced, and ultimately have no real power behind them. 

 

If I rolled my eyes any harder my head would pop off. 

Is Samson going to be late to another meeting. No way. There is no way a message wasn't sent,… and if Samson or anyone else on the team didn't get it then they are morons.

 

 

And no s#!t he would have played (maybe not the first period) if it was a playoff game. If my aunt had dick she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't and it wasn't, so he sat.

 

Punishment should fit the crime.

 

If it was truly being late to meeting, dressing and sitting ONE PERIOD would be substantial --- but entire game ??? --- it looked like a 9 year old told to sit in the corner, while the rest of the class had a pizza party --- again, punish, but, this is the most severe punishment I've seen over the past several years 

 

DD had to know that dressing and sitting would be viewed as more severe than a scratch and Sam in press box, or is he that tone deaf ???

Maybe there was more to it, then?

[Taro T]

This is a reasonable take.  Like SwampD said, we don't know.

 

It's clear that the message is that the team is much more important than any one player.  You would always want your best team on the ice at all time, especially in a playoff race.

 

That said, the message is extremely important and I believe that in the thick of a playoff race Bylsma would have done the exact same thing.  I also believe that he would have the backing of Murray.

What of Bylsma's past actions makes you believe this?

 

My expectation, due to the extreme disconnect between what he says & what he actually has the players do (he is knowledgeable & talks a good game, but yet the players play a game rooted in the way he played as a player) is that the punishment would've lasted a period at most & more likely a shift. As he couldn't risk the repercussions of enacting what he thought (but wasn't necessarily certain of) was the right thing to do.

[Eleven]

It wasn't until I watched the highlights just now that I realized that he actually sat on the bench for the whole game--not the team seating area, not in the locker room, but the bench.  

 

Completely freaking idiotic to just humiliate the guy that way.

[Doohicksie]

My follow up would be coaches that have done it in his position; a failing team with his job on the line after multiple reports of players dissatisfaction with him. I just feel like it's a terrible move on his part in terms of actually helping his own self preservation 

 

Are those real reports or BS stirred up by BN writers to sell papers?

As someone stated in the game thread playing him out of position, not at center, not making plays which is his strength.... Dan has misused Sam all season.    Minus him and Okposo showed how little depth the Sabres have at forward and screwed up Dan is as a coach.  

 

Heck sit him for three or four shifts in the first, but over a meeting at the end of a losing season and a back to back... Betting he overslept.   Dude Dan  is goner and has to know it.  This is a bunch of crap.  Not sure he had to be on the bench for anything but the start of the game.  Even so, the whole game.  Guess Sam said something smartassed as Blysma deserved but he shouldn't have said... Gionta is just plain wrong...  I have a 12 year old and you don't just sit him, you keep on him and keep teaching... Sam isn't 12 and  if I am Sam, I demand a trade tonight.  I go to Tim Murray and then leak something to the press if he doesn't agree to... but that is just me... 

 

PS If this is the case, I do my best to make sure the team loses out the entire rest of the season including the leaves game...

 

Sam I Am

 

/Dr. Seuss

 

For the rest of that:  That's just not how a professional acts.

So, there were no extra forwards or D men to dress?

 

No.  Okposo was also out (ill I believe) and no extra D.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Doohickie

[Sabres Fan in NS]

What of Bylsma's past actions makes you believe this?

 

My expectation, due to the extreme disconnect between what he says & what he actually has the players do (he is knowledgeable & talks a good game, but yet the players play a game rooted in the way he played as a player) is that the punishment would've lasted a period at most & more likely a shift. As he couldn't risk the repercussions of enacting what he thought (but wasn't necessarily certain of) was the right thing to do.

 

Just a gut feeling.  No past evidence, just a feeling.

[Doohicksie]

Antics!

 

Yep.  This Reino kid has no character at all.  :rolleyes:

multiple reports from who? The press spinsters?

Great point T.

 

I am glad he benched him, and made him watch. Want to act like a child, here ya go.

 

But we still don't know what he did wrong.  We have no idea if he "acted like a child."

Edit: Aren't Jack and Sam off-ice buds? Oh man.

 

I chuckled.  :nana:

[darksabre]

Is Samson going to be late to another meeting. No way. There is no way a message wasn't sent,… and if Samson or anyone else on the team didn't get it then they are morons.

 

 

And no s#!t he would have played (maybe not the first period) if it was a playoff game. If my aunt had dick she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't and it wasn't, so he sat.

 

Maybe there was more to it, then?

So you admit the whole thing is a sham? 

 

Here's what I would have done, because I believe that if you're going to dole out punishment for breaking something like a team rule, and you're going to do it inconsistently, that you at least have to make it fit the circumstance in order to accomplish a few important things:

 

1. The goal of the team is to win every night, regardless of whether they're in the playoffs or not. "Culture of winning" is the phrase everyone likes to use

2. You also want your players to follow the team rules, and you want them to recognize there are consequences to breaking team rules, and that punishment may vary at the discretion of the coach. But the punishment will be fair. 

 

So if you're in Dan's situation last night, where you were going to scratch Sam per the normal team policy for being late to a meeting, but suddenly you can't, then you're in a situation where you have to play him. Remember, you're trying to build a culture of winning. So sitting Sam at the end of the bench all night simply because you don't have a better alternative to scratching him is not going to help that. You play Sam.

 

But...

 

Playing Sam then comes with some caveats. You're a fair and just coach. So you tell the team you have no choice but to play Sam because you want to win. But, if you don't win, Sam sits the next game and the team also gets a bag skate (or some other kind of team punishment) as a reward for their failing to win despite your benevolence. And if they do win, you can still punish them afterwards, since that win came at the cost of a broken team rule. So perhaps you still hand out the team bag skate, but cancel Sam being a scratch for the next game. 

 

Crafting a clever and flexible solution to a problem would win a coach of a lot of respect. A big part of getting people to adhere to rules is to mix a little punishment with a little positive reinforcement. This is basic psychology. 

 

Simply benching Sam last night is a lazy solution. If I were Sam's teammate I would expect more from my coach. I would want to be punished "because we do things as a team" while also reinforcing the attitude that "we're here to win every night". 

 

Naturally, I am wholly unsurprised that Bylsma was either unwilling or unable to come up with something like this. Because he's a f*cking dope. 

[TrueBlueGED]

This is a reasonable take. Like SwampD said, we don't know.

 

It's clear that the message is that the team is much more important than any one player. You would always want your best team on the ice at all time, especially in a playoff race.

 

That said, the message is extremely important and I believe that in the thick of a playoff race Bylsma would have done the exact same thing. I also believe that he would have the backing of Murray.

I don't think that message was clear. What came through to me was punishing an individual player took prominence over trying to win the game. I don't take issue with punishment for violating team rules. What I take issue with is Bylsma's utter inflexibility with respect to the situation. The team was on the second half of a back to back, lost Okposo due to illness, and (presumably) couldn't get someone in from Rochester. He chose to put the team a man down for the sake of being late to a team meeting. He put Samson above the team. Bench him the next game when you can ice a full team. Hell, suspend him without pay for the game if it's that important.

[Brawndo]

There have been reports from P Ham, Harrington and Jeremy White that there is trouble with certain players in the locker room with DB.

 

Both Friedman and Mc Kenzie have reported that it's a disconnect between the vets and the younger players.

[Doohicksie]

I bet Samson is whining about this less than everyone here.

 

Tru dat.

[Jacque Richard]

Maybe Sam doesn't want to be here.

[Georgia Blizzard]

Given the Okposo and CBA situation, the punishment should have been to sit for 1st period.  The public shaming of that would more than send message.

 

The media SUCKS, just listened to the DD interview, for all their access, why aren't they pressing DD on the punishment ?? -- why aren't they asking for specifics, what did he do ?  is it clear to players that they'll sit ? is the punishment consistent with all players ?  why did Eichel only get PP punishment ? was this as bad as Kane missing practice ?

 

Push this nitwit and expose him for what he was a second rate player and what he currently is a third rate coach

Maybe Sam doesn't want to be here.

 

 

He shouldn't want to be here.

 

Natural center.  Natural playmaker.  Forced to wing, then to off wing.  Front of net on PP.  They've misused him and it shows.

[Randall Flagg]

I don't think anyone on the Sabres has a quarter of the psychology knowledge that d4rksabre does and I bet they all have already forgotten about Samson's punishment. 

I do think they don't trust that the hockey system they play in gives consistent positive results.

[Doohicksie]

This is a reasonable take.  Like SwampD said, we don't know.

 

It's clear that the message is that the team is much more important than any one player.  You would always want your best team on the ice at all time, especially in a playoff race.

 

That said, the message is extremely important and I believe that in the thick of a playoff race Bylsma would have done the exact same thing.  I also believe that he would have the backing of Murray.

 

I'll throw this out there:  at the high school where my wife teaches, the basketball team made the playoffs for the first time in over a decade.  Prior to their first playoff game, their best player had some discipline issues.  The coach didn't play him... and the team won.  They ended up with a pretty deep run into the playoffs, losing at the state semi-finals.

 

Some will argue that HS basketball is nothing like NHL hockey in terms of the stakes involved, but I would counter that this HS coach, in only his second year, went out on  a limb with his personal career and livelihood to send a message.  He's not making guaranteed millions like Dan, he's being paid something in the neighborhood of $100k, and if he gets fired, there's no guaranteed contract.

 

I guess my point is that I could see where DD might actually, in the thick of a playoff race, have done the same thing with Sam (or another offending player) that he did last night.

[WildCard]

There have been reports from P Ham, Harrington and Jeremy White that there is trouble with certain players in the locker room with DB.

 

Both Friedman and Mc Kenzie have reported that it's a disconnect between the vets and the younger players.

Yup, thank you

[Swedesessed]

I think those who say DB knows he is on his way out because he made this move are not seeing it properly: Why would DB, if knowing he is going to be fired and wants another coaching gig, pull a stunt like this considering the negative backlash he probably knew it would create? I would think DB would want to keep a lower profile, exit with class, and keep his reputation in check at least from the 'he won a SC' angle.

 

I think this move to bench Samson means DB is safe next year and he wants to send a clear message that the culture needs to change.

 

It's the same old song and dance every season from so many hockey fans: Coach this and coach that. I get coaching helps, but perhaps, maybe just perhaps, the Sabres are not as talented as we all think they are?

 

Sabres were so unlucky the first two months with injuries: Relatively good health and we have 8-10 more points, in the playoff race, and there is ZERO talk of removing DB.

Edited March 29, 2017 by (E5)

[WildCard]

I don't think that message was clear. What came through to me was punishing an individual player took prominence over trying to win the game. I don't take issue with punishment for violating team rules. What I take issue with is Bylsma's utter inflexibility with respect to the situation. The team was on the second half of a back to back, lost Okposo due to illness, and (presumably) couldn't get someone in from Rochester. He chose to put the team a man down for the sake of being late to a team meeting. He put Samson above the team. Bench him the next game when you can ice a full team. Hell, suspend him without pay for the game if it's that important.

Good points

[SwampD]

So you admit the whole thing is a sham?

 

Here's what I would have done, because I believe that if you're going to dole out punishment for breaking something like a team rule, and you're going to do it inconsistently, that you at least have to make it fit the circumstance in order to accomplish a few important things:

 

1. The goal of the team is to win every night, regardless of whether they're in the playoffs or not. "Culture of winning" is the phrase everyone likes to use

2. You also want your players to follow the team rules, and you want them to recognize there are consequences to breaking team rules, and that punishment may vary at the discretion of the coach. But the punishment will be fair.

 

So if you're in Dan's situation last night, where you were going to scratch Sam per the normal team policy for being late to a meeting, but suddenly you can't, then you're in a situation where you have to play him. Remember, you're trying to build a culture of winning. So sitting Sam at the end of the bench all night simply because you don't have a better alternative to scratching him is not going to help that. You play Sam.

 

But...

 

Playing Sam then comes with some caveats. You're a fair and just coach. So you tell the team you have no choice but to play Sam because you want to win. But, if you don't win, Sam sits the next game and the team also gets a bag skate (or some other kind of team punishment) as a reward for their failing to win despite your benevolence. And if they do win, you can still punish them afterwards, since that win came at the cost of a broken team rule. So perhaps you still hand out the team bag skate, but cancel Sam being a scratch for the next game.

 

Crafting a clever and flexible solution to a problem would win a coach of a lot of respect. A big part of getting people to adhere to rules is to mix a little punishment with a little positive reinforcement. This is basic psychology.

 

Simply benching Sam last night is a lazy solution. If I were Sam's teammate I would expect more from my coach. I would want to be punished "because we do things as a team" while also reinforcing the attitude that "we're here to win every night".

 

Naturally, I am wholly unsurprised that Bylsma was either unwilling or unable to come up with something like this. Because he's a f*cking dope.

No. It's a false equivalency to say that a playoff game is equal to a game at the end of a dying season. I'm saying it was a straw man to say that it's faux accountability because he wouldn't have done it in a playoff game.

 

(Actually, TBGED said a playoff race. Since we weren't eliminated yet, technically, DD did do it during a playoff race:lol:)

[darksabre]

No. It's a false equivalency to say that a playoff game is equal to a game at the end of a dying season. I'm saying it was a straw man to say that it's faux accountability because he wouldn't have done it in a playoff game.

 

(Actually, TBGED said a playoff race. Since we weren't eliminated yet, technically, DD did do it during a playoff race:lol:)

It's absolutely not a straw man. Either the rules and punishments are mandatory and inflexible, or they aren't. It shouldn't matter if the team is in the hunt or not. If you want to be the "rules are rules" guy, then at least be consistent. 

[inkman]

I'm no Dan fan, but this kid has some growing up to do.

Because he was late to one meeting? All of have heard is that he works his tail off, puts in extra time and has a professional attitude.

[SwampD]

It's absolutely not a straw man. Either the rules and punishments are mandatory and inflexible, or they aren't. It shouldn't matter if the team is in the hunt or not. If you want to be the "rules are rules" guy, then at least be consistent.

That's bull and you know it.

 

Missing a period (or maybe even just a couple shifts in the first) in a playoff game might even be a harsher punishment than missing the entirety of last nights game.

 

But carry on with the faux outrage. It's fun to watch.

[Swedesessed]

Because he was late to one meeting? All of have heard is that he works his tail off, puts in extra time and has a professional attitude.

 

I agree, who knows what really happened here, as there could be things behind the scenes that were building up and led to this because he was late to a meeting. And how late was he? Details are needed to give this proper perspective

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I don't think that message was clear. What came through to me was punishing an individual player took prominence over trying to win the game. I don't take issue with punishment for violating team rules. What I take issue with is Bylsma's utter inflexibility with respect to the situation. The team was on the second half of a back to back, lost Okposo due to illness, and (presumably) couldn't get someone in from Rochester. He chose to put the team a man down for the sake of being late to a team meeting. He put Samson above the team. Bench him the next game when you can ice a full team. Hell, suspend him without pay for the game if it's that important.

 

Well, Mr. cardigan with elbow patches wearer ( ;) ) ... I think what came through to you is not what the players learned.

[darksabre]

That's bull and you know it.

 

Missing a period (or maybe even just a couple shifts in the first) in a playoff game might even be a harsher punishment than missing the entirety of last nights game.

 

But carry on with the faux outrage. It's fun to watch.

It's only BS because you know you're wrong.