Who Will Have a Better Season - Bills or Sabres?

[Hoss]

3 hours ago, N S said:

This will always be the correct answer.  Even if the Sabres turn into the mid-late 70's Canadiens, or early-mid(ish) Islanders, or mid-late 80's Oilers.

This is what my post was in response to. The Oilers won four championships in that timeframe. I imagine he’s talking about the four championships the Isles won. And I also imagine he meant the portion of the late-60s/70s where the Habs won seven or eight.

For someone to somehow twist their minds to say that winning four championships with the core established through the tank years would not be successful is mindless.

[nfreeman]

5 minutes ago, WildCard said:

So you admit the rebuild and the tank are two separate things

 

Just now, Hoss said:

This is something people really struggle to grasp. The tank is PART of a rebuild, not a rebuild itself.

 

But what is the point of distinguishing between the 2? 

Wasn't the point of the tank to end up with a good hockey team, with the pro-tankers believing that tanking to get Eichel was the best way of getting there?

Would the pro-tankers have been happy with finishing DFL every year for the duration of Eichel's career?

The question answers itself.

And it's worth recalling that the anti-tankers wisely and correctly opposed the tank because it bore an unacceptably high risk of miring the team indefinitely in the land that good hockey forgot.

 

[erickompositör72]

The tank had(/has) the potential to turn off a generation of Buffalonians to hockey. I grew up watching Mogilny, LaFontaine, Hasek, etc. They made me love hockey. Even when we weren't competing for a cup, we were damn exciting.

The tank was just so that us hockey-obsessed folk could hoist our cup.

I think it's missing the forest for the trees.

We came pretty close to hoisting it a couple of times without the collateral damage.

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

 

But what is the point of distinguishing between the 2? 

Wasn't the point of the tank to end up with a good hockey team, with the pro-tankers believing that tanking to get Eichel was the best way of getting there?

Would the pro-tankers have been happy with finishing DFL every year for the duration of Eichel's career?

The question answers itself.

And it's worth recalling that the anti-tankers wisely and correctly opposed the tank because it bore an unacceptably high risk of miring the team indefinitely in the land that good hockey forgot.

 

And it is also worth recalling that prior to Pominville getting exiled & the beginning of "suffering" as a way of being that at least 2 of the most vehement anti-tank posters during the tank were completely on board withit and actually advocating for the team to be blown up.  DeLuca was one.  Not mentioning the other poster's name because that poster remains active here.

Some of us "pro-tankers" ONLY got on board after the process had reached the point of no return.  Was late to the "fire Regier" band wagon but was fully on board by the time he was talking about "suffering."  Hated the Sabres going down that route, but once the house was torched, they needed to finish the job.  It would've been awful to have Strome the centerpiece of the rebuild.

We should've been out of this by now, but at least now we might finally be recovering.  Really hope that Housley is better than he showed last season.  Unless a bit of the poor line generation was due to Stallin' for Dahlin, really not confident that he's up to the task at hand.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

25 minutes ago, Hoss said:

This is what my post was in response to. The Oilers won four championships in that timeframe. I imagine he’s talking about the four championships the Isles won. And I also imagine he meant the portion of the late-60s/70s where the Habs won seven or eight.

For someone to somehow twist their minds to say that winning four championships with the core established through the tank years would not be successful is mindless.

This is a disgraceful post, IMO.  Reminds of when some were questioning we anti-tankers fandom.

Now we are mindless.

Ever since the Sabres came into existance my one hope / wish was for the team to hoist the Cup.  I have stated for the record that the tank was such a terrible thing to subject the fans to that I hope that the Sabres do not win the cup until after any of the players that resulted from it have retired, or moved on to other teams.  If that happens after my allotted time on this planet, then so be it.

The tank is and will always be the worst decision the team has ever made, again, IMO.

Edited August 13, 2018 by N S

[nfreeman]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

And it is also worth recalling that prior to Pominville getting exiled & the beginning of "suffering" as a way of being that at least 2 of the most vehement anti-tank posters during the tank were completely on board withit and actually advocating for the team to be blown up.  DeLuca was one.  Not mentioning the other poster's name because that poster remains active here. 

Some of us "pro-tankers" ONLY got on board after the process had reached the point of no return.  Was late to the "fire Regier" band wagon but was fully on board by the time he was talking about "suffering."  Hated the Sabres going down that route, but once the house was torched, they needed to finish the job.  It would've been awful to have Strome the centerpiece of the rebuild.

We should've been out of this by now, but at least now we might finally be recovering.  Really hope that Housley is better than he showed last season.  Unless a bit of the poor line generation was due to Stallin' for Dahlin, really not confident that he's up to the task at hand.

After that poop-show of a season, it's hard to be confident in any of them, and that includes Eichel and JBott.

But I'm cautiously optimistic.

18 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

The tank had(/has) the potential to turn off a generation of Buffalonians to hockey. I grew up watching Mogilny, LaFontaine, Hasek, etc. They made me love hockey. Even when we weren't competing for a cup, we were damn exciting.

The tank was just so that us hockey-obsessed folk could hoist our cup.

I think it's missing the forest for the trees.

We came pretty close to hoisting it a couple of times without the collateral damage. 

This.

[Hoss]

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

 

But what is the point of distinguishing between the 2? 

Wasn't the point of the tank to end up with a good hockey team, with the pro-tankers believing that tanking to get Eichel was the best way of getting there?

Would the pro-tankers have been happy with finishing DFL every year for the duration of Eichel's career?

The question answers itself.

And it's worth recalling that the anti-tankers wisely and correctly opposed the tank because it bore an unacceptably high risk of miring the team indefinitely in the land that good hockey forgot.

 

To your first question: because they’re very different things. It’s not the fault of a tank if management fails to piece together the rest of the roster. Can you win trades during a rebuild that fails? Everyone seems to think we won the O’Reilly trade. Can you have good drafts? Yes.

To the second question: the point of the tank was to acquire either Eichel or McDavid which should eventually lead to good hockey.

To the third question: heck yes, drafting first overall every year is bound to lead to success!!!! ?

 

[WildCard]

12 minutes ago, Hoss said:

To your first question: because they’re very different things. It’s not the fault of a tank if management fails to piece together the rest of the roster. Can you win trades during a rebuild that fails? Everyone seems to think we won the O’Reilly trade. Can you have good drafts? Yes.

To the second question: the point of the tank was to acquire either Eichel or McDavid which should eventually lead to good hockey.

To the third question: heck yes, drafting first overall every year is bound to lead to success!!!! ?

 

I hate these debates, I really, really do. We've done them so many times and really it boils down to this. The point of the tank was to give yourself a better shot at high end talent, to make winning easier and more sustainable. That's it, nothing more. Is anyone seriously going to say Jack Eichel doesn't do that?

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

IMHO, the ONLY way the tank remotely becomes successful is if the Sabres have at least of Chicago-like run of both competitiveness AND success (read:championships).  Anything less could have been matched by restocking the scouting staffs & NOT blowing up the entire roster.

2 separate times under Regier the team was brought to Stanley Cup caliber w/out having FULLY torn down to the studs.  We're about due for what would've been that next brief run had the Tank not been implemented.

And, FTR, though they were an accidental benefit of the Tank, IMHO both Mittelstadt & Dahlin are fruits of the Tank.

 

I like this post. Not sure about the last line so much. But still a good post.

[Weave]

44 minutes ago, N S said:

This is a disgraceful post, IMO.  Reminds of when some were questioning we anti-tankers fandom.

Now we are mindless.

 

 

And he wonders why he gets a hard time here.  This sort of tone was not present for some time.  Too bad, really.

[WildCard]

Just now, Weave said:

 

And he wonders why he gets a hard time here.  This sort of tone was not present for some time.  Too bad, really.

There are way, war worse things thrown around on a daily basis around here. 

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, WildCard said:

There are way, war worse things thrown around on a daily basis around here. 

Such a mindless thing to say.  ?

[nfreeman]

35 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I hate these debates, I really, really do. We've done them so many times and really it boils down to this. The point of the tank was to give yourself a better shot at high end talent, to make winning easier and more sustainable. That's it, nothing more. Is anyone seriously going to say Jack Eichel doesn't do that? 

But you can't cherry-pick Eichel out of the entire tank context.

Of course if you had a playoff bubble team and you could push a button and get Eichel, anyone would do so.  But that's not the question. 

The question is whether it is wise to burn your team to the ground to get Eichel -- and in answering that question you have to consider how easy it will be and how long it will take to rebuild from the ashes.  And when you finish DFL in Eichel's third season, when most pro-tankers were telling us at the time of the tank that by now the Sabres would be in the playoffs and poised for greater things -- it kinda looks like the anti-tankers were right.

 

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

But you can't cherry-pick Eichel out of the entire tank context.

Of course if you had a playoff bubble team and you could push a button and get Eichel, anyone would do so.  But that's not the question. 

The question is whether it is wise to burn your team to the ground to get Eichel -- and in answering that question you have to consider how easy it will be and how long it will take to rebuild from the ashes.  And when you finish DFL in Eichel's third season, when most pro-tankers were telling us at the time of the tank that by now the Sabres would be in the playoffs and poised for greater things -- it kinda looks like the anti-tankers were right.

It's not like we didn't have the assets to build from scratch, we just did it poorly. We had enough draft picks and currency to do anything we wanted, and we got all that from the tank 

Edited August 13, 2018 by WildCard

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

And it is also worth recalling that prior to Pominville getting exiled & the beginning of "suffering" as a way of being that at least 2 of the most vehement anti-tank posters during the tank were completely on board withit and actually advocating for the team to be blown up.  DeLuca was one.  Not mentioning the other poster's name because that poster remains active here.

 

I'm curious if you see me as that other poster.  I wanted us to move on from that core.  Fully.  I did not advocate trading those core pieces for assets though.  I wanted them moved in hockey trades.  Roy for Ott, not Vanek for futures.

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

It's not like we didn't have the assets to build from scratch, we just did it poorly. We had enough draft picks and currency to do anything we wanted, and we got all that from the tank 

Building from scratch was the problem though.  That is the fundamental difference in pro tank vs. anti tank.  The anti tank crowd saw the concept of building from a torn down state as too time consuming and too risk filled to be a sound strategy. 

[WildCard]

9 minutes ago, Weave said:

Building from scratch was the problem though.  That is the fundamental difference in pro tank vs. anti tank.  The anti tank crowd saw the concept of building from a torn down state as too time consuming and too risk filled to be a sound strategy. 

Why is it any harder then? What prospects did we lose in order to tank? What draft picks? What solid, young players? What pieces did we lose in tanking that were vital to us going forward?

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Why is it any harder then? What prospects did we lose in order to tank? What draft picks? What solid, young players? What pieces did we lose in tanking that were vital to us going forward?

You lost a culture that expected wins.  You lost veterans who had a connection to the team to pass on all the aspects of being a good pro.  You replaced them with over the hill, unwanted mercenaries that knew this was not going to be a place for them to win in.  That was the culture that replaced players trying to win.  And today we are still reeling from it.

those tank year rosters were filled with guys who weren't going to play the right way, they were just going to play and earn their check.  That is what happens in a full tear down, and that is what makes tanking so risky.  Recovery is not a simple as it was made out to be.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Weave

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

You lost a culture that expected wins.  You lost veterans who had a connection to the team to pass on all the aspects of being a good pro.  You replaced them with over the hill, unwanted mercenaries that knew this was not going to be a place for them to win in.  That was the culture that replaced players trying to win.  And today we are still reeling from it.

We lost that culture? With what players that we changed out did we possibly have that culture still? You think Ryan Miller and Vanek expected to win that season? As soon as the tank ended by the way, they brought in a bunch of new bodies that all, to a man, expected to win. They just sucked and we chose a garbage coach. 

[Hoss]

40 minutes ago, WildCard said:

There are way, war worse things thrown around on a daily basis around here. 

Amazing, innit? People routinely call other people’s opinions bad.

I actually haven’t had a single issue since returning, luckily. It’s been a better culture here. The only slight issue was someone freaking out because I had the same original thought as them and they didn’t like that.

[dudacek]

I don’t think our tank has showed us that tanking is the right way or the wrong.. It’s just a way - not a sure way, and a way that certainly requires suffering.

 The only thing it guarantees is access to the highest-end of 18-year-old talent. Culture certainly matters, but mostly it’s about the players you are good (or, more accurately, fortunate) enough to acquire and develop. It’s less the plan itself and more the execution of the plan that matters.

We tore it down. Around the same time, Vancouver started trying to rebuild on the fly. We’ve both been #### for quite awhile.

Edited August 13, 2018 by dudacek

[Weave]

20 minutes ago, Hoss said:

Amazing, innit? People routinely call other people’s opinions bad.

I actually haven’t had a single issue since returning, luckily. It’s been a better culture here. The only slight issue was someone freaking out because I had the same original thought as them and they didn’t like that.

Mindless. Not bad. Mindless.

 

and calmer than you, dude.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Weave

[Weave]

25 minutes ago, WildCard said:

We lost that culture? With what players that we changed out did we possibly have that culture still? You think Ryan Miller and Vanek expected to win that season? As soon as the tank ended by the way, they brought in a bunch of new bodies that all, to a man, expected to win. They just sucked and we chose a garbage coach. 

Players like Markus Foligno said otherwise, that expectations were different.  And that was after we were supposedly done tanking and had a new batch of players installed.

[WildCard]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

Players like Markus Foligno said otherwise, that expectations were different.  And that was after we were supposedly done tanking and had a new batch of players installed.

Then we should have gotten rid of him and others. In fact, that was the first thing Botterill did, no? If you have existing, marginal players, like Marcus Foligno dictating the mentality of your team, then your coach sucks and your gm is bad. I just don't buy that changing a culture is so insurmountably difficult that it is the thing to point at and say the tank didn't work. Teams change the expectation of winning from a season to season basis all the time, and in every type of situation.

[Weave]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

Then we should have gotten rid of him and others. In fact, that was the first thing Botterill did, no? If you have existing, marginal players, like Marcus Foligno dictating the mentality of your team, then your coach sucks and your gm is bad. I just don't buy that changing a culture is so insurmountably difficult that it is the thing to point at and say the tank didn't work. Teams change the expectation of winning from a season to season basis all the time, and in every type of situation.

1. Foligno wasn't dictating anythimng, he was describing what he saw. 

2. Botteril is in year 2 of trying to change the culture.  I think you are greatly mistaken regarding how difficult culture change in an organization really is.  There are alot of Masters dissertations on the very subject.  It's an extremely challenging subject.  How easy do you think it would be to implement significant culture change in any of the organizations you've been a part of?  It's the most challenging thing any leader can accomplish.